Imagination

The above image is of a beautiful country called Bergonia, which rests in the Atlantic Ocean between the Canary Islands and Bermuda. Except, it doesn't. Bergonia is an example of geofiction, or the art of creating an alternative world (or city, or nation as it were). Bergonia is probably the best example of this strain of intellectual geekiness I've seen on the 'net, but of course J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-earth is probably the best loved, most widely read, and most beautifully rendered example of geofiction.

If you're of a mind, take a peek at Bergonia. The author, Joe Cometti, spent a lifetime developing an imaginary nation that is extraordinarily creative and visionary, and yet is designed in a way that it could quite plausibly fit into our world. His website is a wealth of knowlege and his maps are simply unbelievable. One can really appreciate the depth of knowledge and understanding it takes to pull something like this off.

I've admired Joe's project for a couple years now because I too dreamed up an imaginary nation when I was 8 or 9 -- and it remains to this day in my imagination. I called it Honoleo; any relation to the land where Puff the Magic Dragon lived by the sea is purely coincidental (or subliminal); I remember dreaming up the name while hanging out under my grandfather's desk and noticing the manufactuer's label: HON. Also like Joe, my nation exists in the contemporary world, and not in some fantastic place or time. My project is nowhere near the work of artistry that is Bergonia.

I used to be a little embarrassed at the idea that I carried this project into my teenage years and adulthood, but Bergonia inspired me not to worry about that. I also came to realize that, embarrassing or not, Honoleo compelled me to dig deeper into politics and economics in my quest to make the project plausible (when I created Honoleo it certainly was not plausible - but my interests today in politics, economics, and the world has much to do with my desire to make Honoleo as realistic a concept as possible.) I can't even count the ways in which Honoleo guided my intellectual development, my desire to read the news, my love of travel, my political and community engagement, and my limited graphical abilities.

A couple years ago, I wrote to Joe to express my feelings and to thank him for the fact that his work helped me to reflect on the value of my own (it is not something to be embarrassed about; it is an integral part of my life story), but I never heard back from him. As soon as I wrote, he stopped updating his site. The Bergonians were in the midst of a general election in 2006, and I was eager to hear what the results were.

When I learned yesterday in a Google search that Joseph Cometti -- attorney, environmental advocate, dogged progressive, and worldbuilder -- died two years ago in a car crash at the prime of his life, I was reminded again that projects like these are very meaningful. In an obituary published in a newsletter of the West Virginia conservation group Friends of Blackwater Canyon, Joe's sister praised Bergonia as his life's work and a reflection of his utopian nature. Joe himself wrote in a rather beautiful essay entitled "Why Bergonia?" , "Every creator puts some of himself into his creation, inevitably, and the creation becomes a bit of a mirror, something of a child. (Perhaps this is true of the Creator himself, so that the world becomes God's mirror.) This is really nothing more profound than saying that our personalities project into the things we make in our lives." Indeed.

I think only a few of you know about Honoleo, partly because it's so intimately mine and it's still such a work in progress, but mostly because I really haven't known how to discuss it without boring others or making myself seem ridiculously odd. But then life is too short to let those worries hold you down, isn't it? So I'll get my act together soon and tell you a story about a South Asian nation with a deep history and a cultural legacy going back thousands of years. It's quite a place, Honoleo, and I'm looking forward to taking you there.

Yeah, What He Said

Dave Horsey of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer makes a very good point here:

Funny or Outrageous?

Over the weekend, the New Yorker published a magazine cover that a lot of people are talking about. It's quite the acid test -- the political blogs I read are expending a lot of bandwidth debating whether the cover is shrewd satire or racist twaddle. My sister and some of my friends found the cover disturbing, but my first reaction was "damn, that's funny." My second reaction was, "uh-oh..." I knew it would become the outrage du jour, and it did.

Interestingly, the New Yorker cover distracts from Ryan Lizza's article on Obama's career in Chicago, which is very long, very interesting and a must-read for anyone following this campaign. Frankly I'm surprised that the article itself hasn't garnered more attention this week. In this case and in others in this campaign season, the outrage becomes the issue, and the analysis on the TV and on the web is rather shallow. Marc Ambinder wrote a short piece on this trend here.

If you read the article, I think you'll realize that the New Yorker misread the current zeitgeist, because the cover became the message, rather than the article. Good satire never misses the zeitgeist.

Satire is tricky stuff. It's worth pondering why it's OK for the New Yorker to satirize the ridiculous assertions that the Obamas are flag-hating terrorist militants, but, as my sister pointed out in an email to me, depicting a "white guy covered in black face paint with a big white smile singing "doodah" on a vaudeville stage," satirical or otherwise, would be hard for America to take.

The editor of the New Yorker is unapologetic, stating that most Americans would see it for what it is. Most, maybe, but some Americans will undoubtedly see the cartoon as a clever illustration reinforcing their own misconstrued beliefs about Obama. Is the New Yorker responsible for that? Should Obama's campaign have laughed it off, instead of expressing outrage? Why is it OK to satirize the ridiculous assumptions about Obama's patriotism and religion, when it would probably NOT be OK to satirize American black culture?

And most importantly, is it funny or outrageous? I want to know what you think. Please Leave a comment.

Run, Francis, Run

So I've had an interesting relationship with physical fitness. While I appreciate the benefits of staying fit, the shadow of middle-school gym has always loomed large, preventing me from really enjoying the experience of exercise. When I don't think about it, it's enjoyable...but when I get the slightest bit self conscious, memories of being picked on, being called unmentionable and emasculating names, and being the last one picked on the team come flooding back to the fore. As a result, I'm quite neurotic about it.

For the past couple years, I've been much better at exercise and eating better, and as I result I'm 25 pounds lighter than I was. But I feel, for my health and self-image, I have more to go...and yet, I have this hang-up. I hate hang-ups, and I don't see the value in holding myself back from something because of some irrational fear. You could say I have a hang-up about having hang-ups. Whatever; I've decided I need to overcome this hang-up.

Maybe the gym isn't for me...perhaps the smells, the clatter, the obnoxious preening of men and women in the strength training area, and the driving are such a turn off that it has become a persistent disincentive for me. Coupled with the periodic anxiety I have recalling the traumas of my teenage years, it's little wonder I go at all.

Some time ago, I listened to a gerontologist talking on NPR about the effect of physical fitness on the aging process. The doctor stressed his belief that human bodies should work like a good, cheap watch: despite some wear and tear, they keep on ticking until the battery dies and then it's over. He disputed the notion that some people can spend 20 to 30 years dying slowly (from diabetes or heart problems, for example) as being the normal course of human life. The answer? Exercise. I have no idea how long I will live, but if I'm in my 70s and I happen to have both my arms and legs, if I want to go on a hike, I should be able to. I don't want to spend my retirement confined by chronic health problems if I can avoid it. And to the extent that I can avoid it, I will. Hence the need to overcome the hang-up.

Despite my hang-up, one thing I've always wanted to attempt was a good, long run, just to say I could do it. I've heard so many people speak of marathons as powerful and possibly even life-changing experiences. Besides, running more than 26 miles is indeed a tremendous accomplishment, and it might be something worth doing before I die. These are the things that make life meaningful and exciting.

I'm not ready to say, "I will run a marathon, because, honestly, I can hardly run to answer the telephone. But I am ready to say, "I want to take running seriously as a means of incorporating fitness and health into my life." And why not? It's cheap, it gives me an excuse to wander about the City and, most importantly, it doesn't require a gym. Plus I've heard runners talk about how good they feel, even after a short run. Apparently it's a little addictive.

So, last night, I ran. Seriously ran, for the first time since high school. OK so half the time I was stumbling, but by goodness I tried. As a symbolic gesture of overcoming past neuroses, I ran on a high school track near my house. Eight times around the track, or about two miles, in 30 minutes. I was slow and it was probably ugly to watch, but I did it. The first two laps were fine, the second two were painful, but by lap five something cool happened: the sun was setting, the mountains were becoming a silhouette against the evening sky, the Coldlplay album "Viva La Vida" was blasting in my ears, and all of a sudden, everything was perfect. I ran (stumbled -- and walked occasionally) the remaining three laps. I can't tell you how good it felt afterward. I cannot recall a time when my body felt so happy or energized. This is something I will definitely continue doing, but I think I need to spring some money on good shoes before too long.

I've decided to try a modification of Hal Higdon's 30/30 program for beginning runners. I'll keep you posted on how it goes. I'm going back out there tonight.

Knowing me, I'll be tempted to settle out of the routine, so any encouragement you can offer will be much appreciated!

Another E-Mail

So just as I finished writing the rant below on the anonymous e-mails...I received one.

Here it is, in all its stupefying, caps-locked, exclamation-pointed glory:

LET ME SEE IF I HAVE THIS STRAIGHT:

HIS FATHER WAS A KENYAN, MUSLIM, BLACK - WE HAVE SEEN PICTURES OF HIS 'AFRICAN FAMILY'

HIS MOTHER IS A KANSAN, ATHEIST, WHITE -

WHERE ARE THE PICTURES OF HIS KANSAN, WHITE MOTHER
AND HIS WHITE GRANDPARENTS WHO RAISED HIM?

HIS FATHER DESERTED HIS MOTHER AND HIM WHEN HE WAS VERY YOUNG
AND WENT BACK TO HIS FAMILY (WHOSE FAMILY ?) IN KENYA ?

HIS MOTHER MARRIED AN INDONESIAN MUSLIM AND TOOK HIM TO JAKARTA WHERE HE WAS SCHOOLED IN A MUSLIM SCHOOL .

HIS MOTHER RETURNED TO HAWAII AND HE WAS RAISED BY HIS WHITE KANSAN GRANDPARENTS ? WHEN ?

HE LATER WENT TO THE BEST HIGH DOLLAR SCHOOLS, HOW?

HE LIVES IN A $1.4 MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE THAT HE ACQUIRED THROUGH A DEAL WITH A WEALTHY FUND RAISER.... HOW?

HE 'WORKED' AS A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST IN CHICAGO - HAS NEVER HELD A PRODUCTIVE JOB.

THE PRESIDENCY IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS POST, NOR IS IT SUBJECT TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION SET ASIDES

HE ENTERED POLITICS AT THE STATE LEVEL AND THEN THE NATIONAL LEVEL, WHERE HE HAS MINIMAL EXPERIENCE

HE IS PROUD OF HIS 'AFRICAN HERITAGE'

BUT IT SEEMS THAT HIS ONLY AFRICAN CONNECTION WAS THAT HIS AFRICAN FATHER GOT A WHITE GIRL PREGNANT AND DESERTED HER.

I DIDN'T KNOW THAT SPERM CARRIED A 'CULTURAL' GENE.

WHERE IS THE PRIDE IN HIS WHITE CULTURE?

HE GOES TO AN 'AFROCENTRIC' CHURCH THAT HATES WHITES, HATES JEWS, AND BLAMES AMERICA FOR ALL THE WORLD'S PERCEIVED FAULTS AND THEN REPEATEDLY COVERS UP FOR THE PASTOR AND THE CHURCH

HE CLAIMS THAT HE COULD NOT CONFRONT HIS PASTOR, B UT HE WANTS US TO BELIEVE THAT HE CAN CONFRONT NORTH KOREA AND IRAN , YEAH, RIGHT!!!

YEAH, I THINK I SEE HOW HE COULD BE A 'UNITER' AND BRING US TOGETHER.

I THINK THE HOPE IS THAT HE HOPES NO ONE WILL PUT THE PIECES TOGETHER UNTIL AFTER THE 'ELECTION'



LIKE I SAID AT THE START, ' I AM CONFUSED !!!!'

Wow, I just don't know where to begin on this one. This e-mail has it all, the use of 'black,' 'white,' and 'muslim' with the motive force of a slur, the reference of his 'African father' who got a 'white girl pregnant' (that's an old bugbear, for sure), the casual dismissal of his job as a Civil Rights activist (which is hard and laudable work, and besides he was a community organizer -- a critical difference), the assumption that he made it as far as he did because of Civil Rights and nothing else...hell, this email even mentions sperm.


Besides, this is America in the 21st Century! Who in the &%#! talks like this anymore?

What stuns me is that many of these questions the author is CONFUSED!!!! by are easily answerable with a little internet research. Ridiculous and disgusting. In such serious and trying times, emails like this are a scandal and an affront to the dignity of all Americans.

Patriotism and the Anonymous E-Mail

Image Credit: Mark Halperin, The Page

Thomas Jefferson said "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." For as much hope that I place in our political system, sometimes, I wonder if we are sophisticated enough to operate it well.

Some time ago, my partner Rob received this e-mail through a member of his extended family:

Obama's Own Words

It’s Very, Very important that you are aware of the following. If you don’t believe it, buy Obama’s book or go to your local library and see if they have it to loan.

Subject: Obama's Own Words


This guy wants to be our President and control our government. Pay close attention to the last comment!! Below are a few lines from Obama's books ' his words:

From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mothers race.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

If you ever forwarded an e-mail, now is the time to do it again.

This e-mail and other similar canards disputing Obama's faith, patriotism, and even his birthplace have made their way around the Internet, and in some cases into my inbox as well. Incidentally, one of the above quotes was a fabrication, and the others are taken way out of context. For the Obama campaign's response, read here. As a result, there are persistent rumors afoot that Obama is a Muslim Manchurian candidate who refuses to wear a flag pin and say the pledge of allegiance, and who has a loud-mouthed (Christian) preacher. Don't think too hard about the contradiction of a Muslim with a preacher problem...humans have difficulty holding two contrasting ideas simultaneously!

Few things upset me more about American politics than the fact that we are, in general, very ignorant when it comes to politics and statecraft. As a result, our politicians pander, our political debates are watered-down affairs, we hone in on symbols at the expense of substance, and we fall victim to darker impulses - exploiting certain classes of people (gays and lesbians, immigrants, Muslims, the military) as wedge issues, voting our fears instead of our hopes and allowing dark prejudices to seep into our public discourse.

If you take all these sad conditions and package them into an anonymous e-mail, especially under the guise of patriotism and defense of the American Way, you are evil, and you are certainly no patriot. You play on the fears and naiveté of an ill-informed public.

If you read and accept these e-mails, even if they come from a trusted source, without scrutinizing or researching the information, then you are doing yourself a disservice and you need to pick up a civics text, or read some source material on the web. If you believe these anonymous e-mails wholeheartedly and pass them along, you may well be a concerned citizen, but you're certainly not a well-informed one.

This type of campaign is so pernicious because it undermines the founding principles of our republic: that factions can sit down in a forum and peacefully debate issues, balancing enlightened self interest with the greater good of the community. To attempt to win or lose an election on unverified challenges to one's patriotism, religion, or honor is a shame and a farce. Do we really want to be like Zimbabwe?

I know it's easier to capture peoples' attention with the meaningless twaddle that fills our inboxes, but, damn it, we have important issues to hash out, including energy, health care, jobs, civil liberties, executive branch powers, and our role in the world. John McCain and Barack Obama have statements and proposals on each of these issues, and we owe it to the candidates to assess them on their merits. I'm not voting for my favorite new hit single, a dinner companion, or the new color of M&M. I'm voting for the President of the United States. So are you. So maybe we should start to act like this thing matters, because it does. Talking about flag pins and resorting to our basest nature by challenging a candidate's religion (and turning Islam into an epithet in the process) is wretched, corrosive to our democracy, and frankly a waste of time. The candidates deserve better, and so do the voters.

A Marshmallow in Every Pot, Part II

I was surprised to see the gas tax holiday rear its ugly head again this week, after it was denounced as a joke by the Obama campaign in April. McCain is continuing to advance this bad idea, and now he's thinking about changing his position on drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). President Bush, God bless him, is using his enormous political capital in the last months of his administration to press for drilling now to alleviate the cost of gas at the pump, which now averages more than $4 a gallon (side note: I heard on the radio this morning a report that $5-a-gallon gas has been spotted in New York City).

Here's the catch. According to Bush's own Energy Department, the expected savings from drilling in ANWR is 75 cents a barrel. What's more is that we won't extract a productive stream of the stuff until 2018 A blogger/economist (I know - why should we pay attention to them?) suggests that the savings from drilling in ANWR will be 2 cents a gallon. At that price, the case for saving the wildlife refuge as a national treasure and a hallmark of conservation becomes far more compelling.

So I also heard on the radio that the average vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for April 2006 has actually dropped nationwide. People are driving less and relying increasingly on transit. Given the cost of oil and the marginal ineffectiveness of exploring in ANWR, perhaps are money is better spent on transit, and researching more fuel efficient cars and alternative energy sources.

A Marshmallow in Every Pot

Here's some interesting background information on the price of gas, and how the United States fits in among the world. Relative to other countries, gas in the United States is rather cheap (we're 45th cheapest in the world, by the article's admittedly crude measure), although the article points out that we're especially vulnerable because our land use policies require us to drive much more than those in many other countries.

The article also points out that in Britain, fuel consumption has remained static, and in France, it has actually dropped.

Read the article here.

Meanwhile, political blogger Joshua Marshall described the gas tax holiday silliness as a marshmallow in every pot. I certainly couldn't have said it better myself.

The Gas Tax Holiday Joke And The Hard Truth About Gas Prices

This week marked a milestone for me. For the first time in my driving history, I paid more than $50 to fill my gas tank (16.5 gallons at $3.39 a gallon at Costco). This price reflects a new economic reality in which everything is suddenly much more expensive. Gas prices are due to a number of factors, most importantly by demand driven up in part by fuel-thirsty China and India, supply kept low by an oil cartel that clearly benefits from high prices. The winners are oil companies that reap windfall profits, and oil-producing nations, some of which are entering a "golden age," thanks to $120-a-barrel oil. The losers are consumers, who pay more for gas, as well as for anything shipped long distance or made from a petroleum product.

In the midst of this, both John McCain and Hillary Clinton proposed a summertime gas tax holiday as temporary relief to the beleaguered American consumer. There are two problems with this proposal: The first problem is that the tax holiday is a convenient but, in the long range, insignificant ploy...

To illustrate, it's time for a story problem:



President McClinton signs legislation that mandates a gas tax holiday eliminating the 18.5-cent gas tax during the months of June, July, August, and September. On May 31, one day prior to the tax holiday going into effect, the price of a gallon of gasoline is $3.399. Assuming that the price of gas remains constant through the summer and that Frank fills his 16.5-gallon tank twice a month, how much will Frank save in the months of June, July, August, and September due to the tax holiday?

Let's see...
$3.399 per gallon x 16.5 gallons = $56.08

$3.399 - $0.185 = $3.214
$3.214 per gallon x 16.5 gallons = $53.03

($56.08 per tank x 8 tanks) - ($53.03 per tank x 8 tanks) =
$448.64 - $424.24 = $24.40.

Yup. I'll save $24.40. Admittedly, I drive fewer miles than the average American, and for so many people, every dollar saved does matter. But, in the end, $24, or $48, or (for you SUV drivers or long commuters) $100 over the summer is of marginal economic impact over the course of the year. This scenario assumes that gas prices will remain constant through the summer. That brings us to our second problem: supply and demand.

Anyone who's taken Economics 1010 knows the relationship between supply and demand. In terms of gasoline, it's safe to say that supply will be essentially fixed throughout the summer. Right now, our refineries are at 85% capacity. This summer, they'll be at 100% capacity, as they have been for years. In the face of fixed supply and increased demand (all those people taking road trips added to the constant increase in trip generation and vehicle miles of travel due to low density development), any student not asleep in class will tell you that prices will increase until demand tapers off. Hacking off $0.185 for a few months only induces greater demand. Seeing what appears to be a drastic price cut at the pump will compel people to drive more. In short order, prices will rise, erasing the benefit of the tax cut. Meanwhile, the oil companies and oil producing states (some friendly, some not) will reap an enormous windfall. That's what makes it silly.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is one of the nations that benefits from high oil prices. Bloomberg reports that it is in a "golden era."

What makes the tax holiday dangerous is the potential $9 billion hit to the Federal Budget (it's worth noting that your gas taxes fund highway infrastructure. Have you driven our interstates lately? Can we afford such a hit?) McCain's proposal suggests that the federal government just take the hit. Clinton's proposal replenishes the hit by a windfall tax on oil companies, which turns the tax holiday into a pointless exercise in money-laundering.

(To his credit, Obama has called this scheme for what it is: a sham. In his words, "this isn’t an idea designed to get you through the summer, it’s designed to get them through an election." To his detriment, he's pandered on other stuff, including ethanol subsidies and vaccinations).

The gas tax holiday is a dangerous exercise in populist demagoguery. It will have a negligible impact on the consumer, and will induce long term behaviors that are counterproductive to long term energy savings. How can I say this more clearly? There is no economic benefit to a policy that promotes a demand increase without addressing supply! It is a joke. Nothing more, nothing less.

Some would argue that the real solution is to add refining capacity, to drill for more oil domestically, and to produce more ethanol. These are supply-side initiatives that could provide short term relief to the gas-buying consumer. But as long as China, India, and others demand more gas than we can produce, these are only short term fixes. Besides, the harm to our environment by our continued reliance on fossil fuels is a cost that must be considered in analyzing any supply-side remedy.

So here's the hard truth as I see it: let the gas prices rise. I know it will be painful, but we need to consider demand-side remedies as well, and price increases will naturally guide us toward some of these...call it getting whacked by the invisible hand. We need to drive less -- even if that means living closer to work in higher densities, and investing in and relying on more and better public transit facilities -- and we need to make concerted investments in more fuel-efficient automobiles in the short term, and alternative energy sources in the long term.

At the end of the day, supply side remedies such as increasing refining capacities (incidentally, Keith Olbermann played a clip on his show the other day wherein a bunch of American oil executives expressed no interest in increasing refining capacity during congressional testimony) and drilling for more oil or producing more ethanol will not save us from the point where we flat run out of oil, or(far more likely) when it becomes economically infeasible to extract. It will only move that date back a few years or decades. In the meantime, urban sprawl will continue unabated, and pollution will continue to darken our skies.

Conversely, ponder the collateral benefits that can be attained by focusing on demand: smaller, more compact, and potentially more livable cities, cleaner air, and the preservation of open space. I acknowledge it will be painful getting us there, but it will be worth it in the end.

In the meantime, I don't accept the notion that our nation will crumble under the weight of $5- or $6-a-gallon gasoline. The Canadian and European economies have long ago adjusted to very expensive energy costs, and there's nothing I can see that would prevent us from doing the same.

Veggie Blog, Part I

Look what I did last weekend:





That is my new 8' x 10' raised vegetable garden bed! I am not a handyman by any means, but I built that all by my self. The instructions were simple, everything lined up, and all the angles were "true" as my beloved dad would say. After a couple failed attempts at growing vegetables in the ground, I concluded that our soil wasn't conducive to vegetable gardening because beneath a thin layer of topsoil, there's a lot of clay. Also, my neighbor informed me that the previous owner mulched the garden area for several years with lawn clippings that had been treated with a broadleaf weed killer -- which explained my stunted and pathetic veggies from years past. I thought that a way around that was a raised bed, similar to one that a friend of mine built for similar reasons.

I built the bed out of weatherproofed redwood, and it holds together thanks to some very long lag screws. I bought 18 bags of organic topsoil to put in the bed. I was surprised to find that buying topsoil in bulk and having it delivered is not significantly less than buying top-line soil off the shelf at the garden store. That surprised me. Anyway, the project came up to $318 all together.

Within the last year, I've read a trio of books on food and eating: The Omnivore's Dilemma, Real Food: What to Eat and Why, and In Defense of Food. These books make the case that we should eat natural, whole foods, and that in general we should take more time and care into preparing and enjoying a meal. Based on this, I initially decided to buy a share into a community-supported agriculture program. But then I thought why not take it one step further by growing some of my own vegetables, since I like to be out in the garden anyway? So that's what I'll be doing this year.

I think I will start out with collard and mustard greens, spinach, lettuce, radishes and carrots. When the greens are done, I will be ready to plant tomatoes. As I phase out some of the tomatoes and radishes, I can plant some squash. Toward the fall, I can plant some broccoli since they apparently like it cold.

Anyway, I'll let you know how it goes.

License Plate Theology

The Associated Press this morning reports that some in the Florida legislature are considering creating a Christian-themed specialty license plate, the proceeds from which would go to an organization that conducts after-school faith based activities.



To me, this raises a couple questions. Assuming the legislature approves this plate, would they also approve ones that say "I Don't Believe" or "I Believe in Plural Marriage" or "Allahu Akbar"? Probably not, barring court intervention. It's dismaying that the Florida legislature would open this can of worms when there are so many other issues they could attend to.

But beyond that, the proposed plate brings to light something that's been concerning me of late. Why is it that public symbolic expressions of faith and patriotism have become so important. Why does it matter whether or not a politician wears a flag pin? Why is it so vitally important that one's religious affiliation needs to be broadcast on a license plate?

Turning lapel pins and license plates into litmus tests on faith and patriotism only serves to cheapen faith and patriotism. The sponsor of the bill to create the license plate put it best:

Rep. Edward Bullard, the plate's sponsor, said people who "believe in their college or university" or "believe in their football team" already have license plates they can buy. The new design is a chance for others to put a tag on their cars with "something they believe in," he said.

-- Associated Press

Rep. Bullard clearly doesn't intend to suggest that his faith is the moral equivalent of an alumni association or a football fan club, but that is in effect what he is doing in sponsoring a Christian license plate. By backing the measure with the support of the state, it cheapens the state as well as religion. Our efforts as citizens and the faithful are better spent elsewhere.

One's faith and one's patriotism should be self-evident, and to allow such virtues to be reduced to a piece of tin (either on your car or on your lapel) is, well, sacrilege.

A Man, A Plan, A Spreadsheet -- Obama!

In this campaign, the press has gushed about how cool and unflappable Obama is. Much of this is due to the infatuation many in the press have with the candidate. But some of it is grounded in something more plausible. One of the lesser-known but more interesting moments in the Democratic Primary was in early February, when someone leaked an internal spreadsheet from the Obama campaign forecasting election results through the end of the primary season in early June.



Interestingly enough, the Obama scenario so far has been quite correct, with the exception of Maine. Despite talk in recent weeks that he's not getting the electorate, perhaps the Obama campaign understands the electorate well enough that they can anticipate and brush off the losses.

I don't know, but if he does win, one of the stories behind the story will be how his campaign understood the game they played. Through it all, they managed an improbable campaign without the staff-hemorrhaging and in-fighting that has plagued the Clinton camp. As far as political operations are concerned, the consistency and fortitude of the Obama campaign is quite admirable. These I believe are traits that can carry over into a possible Obama administration.

Clinton, Obama, and the Endless Race

Yesterday, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton contested the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary, the first election in six weeks, and it appears that Obama lost by just under ten points. I’ve been following this election with great interest since last summer. In January, I volunteered for the Obama campaign in Newmarket, New Hampshire. It was an experience I will never forget, and it was an honor and a privilege to be a part of a presidential election in that regard.

Although many democrats hoped for a conclusive result to the Clinton-Obama duel, last night’s results were perfectly inconclusive. The Pennsylvania victory demonstrates only two things: 1) that Clinton and Obama play to particular demographics, which results in one or the other having natural advantages in certain states; and 2) if a candidate keeps throwing dirt at another candidate, some of it will stick. Nonetheless, barring a colossal meltdown of the Obama campaign, it will be virtually impossible for Hillary Clinton to clinch the nomination. She is far enough behind in the delegate total that she would have to win the remaining contests by prohibitive margins. Her campaign is also broke and in debt.

Clinton won clearly in Pennsylvania, but her victory can be spun to favor Clinton or Obama. What is clear is that her Pennsylvania victory was not a clear denunciation of Barack Obama, despite a very rough few weeks for him. To the degree that the election shows a hardening of the coalitions that are already in place in both candidates’ camps, Pennsylvania changes nothing. And for that reason, Obama cannot yet declare victory and Hillary Clinton cannot find a reason to leave the campaign, although a case can be made that she should do so for the good of the Democratic Party.


Photo credit: Reuters

As the race stands, she can expect to do reasonably well in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico but not in North Carolina, South Dakota, or Oregon. Indiana and Montana will probably be competitive, and I have no idea how Guam will vote. I just feel sorry that this increasingly sad and desperate circus will soon land on her sandy shores.

It’s hard to stay objective when you have a horse in the race, but I am one of the Obama voters that has serious misgivings about voting for Hillary Clinton in the general election if she becomes the nominee. Ever since the race heated up in Iowa, her campaign has been ham-handed, patronizing, and shrill. Bill Clinton has demonstrated an arrogance and intemperance that makes him seem absurd. Hillary uttered a bald-faced lie about her experience in Bosnia. That’s enough for me to oppose a candidate in a primary, but there are two issues that may prevent me from supporting her if she’s the Democratic nominee.

The Clinton campaign has cynically exploited latent racial phobias in some Americans. Bill Clinton’s comments in South Carolina and Geraldine Ferraro’s comments before the Ohio primary were shameful examples of how this campaign has occasionally, and subtly, blown a dog-whistle to call attention to the fact that at least a portion of the electorate might be uncomfortable with a young black man as their president. I think this is a deliberate strategy to cleave away the so-called Reagan Democrats. For a democrat to exploit peoples' racial fears in a modern campaign is appalling.

The second issue is the Clinton campaign’s use of fear as a motivator to get people to vote. In Ohio and Texas, she ran the now-famous “3 a.m.” advertisement, in which she challenged Obama’s readiness and ability to respond to a national emergency in the wee hours of the morning. Worse still, she used images of Osama bin Laden and Hurricane Katrina in an attack ad against Obama in Pennsylvania. Certainly the experience argument is a valid question in a presidential primary, but to use images that cut deep into our national psyche to raise the question is inappropriate, especially after the GOP used similar tactics against democrats in the last decade.


Photo credit: AFP/Getty

Hillary Clinton is an immensely qualified and capable individual. You can only ride your spouse’s coat-tails for so long, even if he was the President of the United States. If she were incapable of holding her own, she would have been shown up by now. But I find the Clintons to be arrogant, cynical, and prone to pettiness. They are the products of a particular political environment that I find highly toxic. The highly negative tactics of Lee Atwater, George H.W. Bush’s campaign manager in 1988, gave way to the “permanent campaign” of the Clinton years, where statecraft took a back seat to self preservation, triangulation, and poll testing; which in turn gave way to the machinations of Karl Rove. As a result, campaigns are won and lost by scapegoating, finger-pointing, and wedge issues such as gay marriage. By turns, the last three presidents and their lackeys have done considerable violence to our public discourse. I see nothing in Hillary Clinton that suggests she won’t follow the very same course –for that reason, I fear a Hillary Clinton presidency.

I came to support Barack Obama because he offers a unique perspective and vision to presidential politics and governance. Beyond his high-minded rhetoric, his pedigree, his life story, and his experience as a community organizer presents some interesting possibilities for a nation that has been beset by the cronyism, secrecy, power-mongering, and staggering incompetence of the current administration. I’m under no illusion that an Obama presidency will be sublime and transcendent; the man has considerable weaknesses that have become evident in the past months. Nonetheless, Barack Obama can be an intensely powerful symbol that can have a salutary effect on civic life at home and America’s reputation abroad. He deserves credit for inspiring millions of people in a period of time in our Republic where apathy and cynicism have settled into our public discourse. And for that he deserves a chance.

The Blog is Back

So it's been nearly ten months since I've posted an entry on this blog. The reasons I gave it up are varied -- it boils down to the fact that I've had other priorities. Life has been exciting in the last ten months, but I really enjoyed blogging for all four of my readers, and I really should continue. It's a good experience, and the process helps me clarify my thoughts, which are usually a jumble.

So I'm pleased to announce I have returned. Thanks for putting up with my absence.

On Iran

My good friend Henry asked me to share my thoughts with him on Iran, and the prospects of war with that nation. Below is my response:


Iran is a complicated issue. I hear the drumbeats of war. The United States has four carrier groups in the Persian Gulf, and has the capacity to stage an assault from Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and Iraq. I highly doubt that we would go through the motions of setting up forward bases and moving hundreds of ships without really intending to launch an attack. We are amassing a dossier of crimes that could be used to legitimate an attack: Iranians are holding American citizens hostage currently, we've heard much about Iran providing materiel for some of the Shia insurgents in Iraq, and just tonight I've read claims from the British that the Iranians have made incursions into Iraq. Information like this is strategic, and is released to the public only when it is advantageous to a particular cause - and this cause is military action against Iran.

If indeed the Iranians succeed at their nuclear program, we would be within our right to launch a strike. My worry is that we will attack before we have exhausted the various diplomatic options and covert operations.

I've read a bit about Iran, and I'll recommend this article for you:

http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_06_04/cover.html

In it, Peter Hitchens sounds a cuationary note about how Iran defies description, and I think he's right. The notion of "Islamofascism," a stereotype if ever their was one, may lead us into war, but a keener understanding of what Iran is about, and what role it has played in the middle east historically, may yet lead us to what we desire without firing a single shot.

I honestly think that two things work in our favor here. First is the Iranians' general incompetence. This is a country that sits on vast reserves of oil, yet has to import energy and will soon be forced into rationing fuel. This is a country that took a generation to build a proper international airport. Their nuclear effort may yield a result a notch above North Korea's pathetic test, but still...I'm not sure they pose the dire threat that we in the US are told they do. I find it amusing that allegedly the Iranians are looking to the North Koreans for technical assistance in developing long-range missiles, when apparently the DPRK failed to properly detonate an atomic bomb and tossed several "long range" missiles a few miles out to sea last year.

Another thing is the survivalist intentions of the Iranian regime. For all of Ahmedinejad's apocalyptic bluster, I'm not sure the mullahs are prepared to expend their country on the altar of Ahmedinejad's dispensationalism. The only way that Iranian theocracy has survived the last generation is by carefully balancing the crazed religious ideals that form the nation's raison d'être with the need for continued legitimation in the eyes of its people. Unlike the Taliban, who were singularly self-destructive, Iran has at least kept up the pretenses of regular elections, economic development, and engagement with the modern world. I honestly think that Ahmedinejad will be sacked long before he has the opportunity to push the nuclear button. I also think, however, that hopes for a secular revolution are ill-founded. The theocracy is entrenched and is probably not going anywhere soon. A future Iranian president (who isn't the real power anyway -- indeed why are we treating Ahmedinejad like a real head of state when we didn't give the same courtesy to his predecessor, Khatami?) will probably preserve the infrastructure of a nuclear program, as he might see the strategic necessity of being just a few turns of the screw away from an assembled bomb.

Rather than embarking on a military adventure that would cause significant loss of life (these people have no compunction against using human shields) and further slander our name in the Middle East, we should focus our efforts on exacerbating the cleavages that exist within and without Iran. Within Iran we have the secular vs. the theocratic. Outside Iran, there is the natural animosity between Shia and Sunni. We should work these, somehow, to our advantage.

A few longer term thoughts:

I'm far more frightened about Pakistan than I am Iran. For all its failings, Iran's regime appears to be more stable than Pakistan's. Musharraf's days may be numbered and after him, who knows who will pull the levers of power there? Pakistan is a known nuclear power that is perpetually on the brink of unrest.

Radical Islam is a grave threat to us, and we in the United States haven't come to terms with the fact that the Saudi Wahhabi sect has given much of the Muslim world the religious justification to do significant violence against the West. And yet we turn a blind eye to this and continue to prop up corrupt and corrupting regimes in the Middle East with our oil money. The sooner we move away from oil, the sooner we will provoke change - by economic necessity - in the Middle East. I'm all for bringing our troops home, raising taxes, and working with the EU and our other allies on a bold project to develop a new energy source as soon as possible. That is where our long-term security lies.

Long Live the Dictatorship of the Proletariat!

For those of you who thought that communism was dead, take a quick trip to downtown Lexington, Kentucky, where (for a little while, at least) you can park for free thanks to the efforts of the Bluegrass Cell of the Red and Anarchist Action Network, who commemorated the fifth anniversary of their "diverse radical activity" by pouring industrial glue into the coin slots of 150 parking meters.

Read the full story here.

Torture Regime

For all of my grievances against the Republican machine in the last several years (a mismanaged war sold on false pretenses, fiscal profligacy, negligent occupations in both Afghanistan and Iraq, blurring the lines between church and state, and forsaking the common good in order to maintain a small but devoted political cadre) nothing causes me more sadness and anger than the party's general equivocation or outright endorsement of torture in the course of our military campaigns. It is nothing short of heinous.

Earlier this week, the GOP candidates for the 2008 presidential election were posed an intriguing question. The following is from The Washington Post:

The scenario posited by questioner Brit Hume supposed that, after suicide attacks in several U.S. cities, a group of attackers believed to know about further strikes was captured off the coast of Florida and taken to Guantanamo. "How aggressively would you interrogate . . . ?"

John McCain was the only one of the ten to have explicitly stated that torture is unacceptable. The other candidates dithered, equivocated, or worse acclaimed the value of acts of torture. Rudy Giuliani (who Andrew Sullivan mused could become an American Vladimir Putin if elected) offered that he would tell interrogators to use "every method they could think of."

But to me the most scandalous response came from Mitt Romney. What he said was appalling. Again from the Post:

Mitt Romney, noting that "some people" have said we ought to close Guantanamo, boasted that "we ought to double Guantanamo," presumably doubling the international damage. He added that he liked to have suspects in Guantanamo because "they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil."

The question of torture is existential. It cuts at the heart of who we are as Americans and what this republic stands for. To be so glib as to suggest that Guantanamo ought to be expanded when even the current administration is trying to find a way to shut it down is shocking. Whatever Mitt Romney is, he is definitely unready for the stark moral choices a President must face. Since the GOP is unwilling to take a firm stand, let me offer one: America is a beacon of democracy and good government.These are the principles upon which this nation was founded, and we must always strive to attain them. Therefore, we do not torture.This is a position I am willing to live by, and die by as need be. As a voter, I will not support a party that is silent on the matter of torture.

Desktop Cartographer

I loved to draw maps as a kid. I would scrawl out maps of imaginary lands and fantastical cities. As some of you may know, I haven't entirely grown out of the habit.

I've found a romance and excitement in maps, and briefly I entertained the idea of going into cartography. My life took me in other directions, however, although in the last couple years I've been given the opportunity to produce maps using the amazing and powerful ESRI ArcGIS software. Although sitting at a computer hitting commands isn't what I had in mind when I envisioned cartography, I've found the end products to be just as rewarding. I spent the last two days preparing an informational map on West Valley City for our economic development staff. It's a rough draft still, but here it is. Enjoy. I hope all is well with you.

Fly Away

Vox Civitatis is going to the European Union in the fall. my good friend Henry has plotted out a road trip that will take us through five countries in about as many days. Sounds insane, yes, but apparently it's payback for a road trip I took him on, through the great American desert. I'll also be spending a few days in Madrid, a city I've always wanted to see. While in a perfect world I'd have six weeks to roam Spain, it will be nice to genuflect before Guernica and Las Meninas before heading to Austria for eight days. That alone will be worth the airfare.

As for the road trip, our general plan (I think) is as follows:

Day 1: A scenic drive through Austria, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland. Arrive Zurich late afternoon.

Day 2: A liesurely short drive from Zurich to Geneva via Bern and Lausanne. After spending some time in Geneva, proceed to Lyon, France, for the evening.

Day 3: Lyon

Day 4: Head to Geneva early. Spend some time in Geneva and proceed to Verona. We may or may not spend the evening in Verona before returning to Graz, Austria.


I can't wait! Thank you for putting this together, Henry.

Consumer Debt

Ah! well a-day! what evil looks
Had I from old and young!
Instead of the cross, the Albatross
About my neck was hung.

- Rime of the Ancient Mariner, by Samuel Taylor Coleridge

I thought I would commemorate the retirement of all my consumer debt this week, with the exception of my car payment. I've been paying for the mistakes I made during college, when I didn't have the sense to treat credit properly.

I'm celebrating by going to Europe in September. But I'll be paying cash for it.