quartho's Xanga

There is no military solution in Afghanistan

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:33:01 GMT

If Obama wants to avoid being a one-term president, he needs to get American troops out of Afghanistan before the midterm elections.

The Daily Show, in particularly fine form last night, reflected on the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the subsequent fall of the Soviet Union. Could such a thing ever happen again? They explored the parallels--a once-great empire in economic freefall, a charismatic new leader promising change . . . But, correspondent John Oliver added, all that was compounded by the Soviet Union's disastrous attempt, ten years earlier, to invade and occupy Afghanistan.

We've already been in Afghanistan 8 years. This year's troop increases have only brought more deaths, while helping the Taliban win the propaganda war. As long as America remains in Afghanistan, the region's distorted view of America, democracy, and freedom will only increase. As painful as it is to admit, we must leave Afghanistan to sort out its own problems, knowing that our departure will make that easier, not harder.

Pulling it together

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:54:54 GMT

I'm spending my week prepping for a whole crate-load of video work (and way too much driving) next week. Should be good times, though, all in all. Just enjoying such fun as "Why isn't my lavalier microphone working? Oh wait, that does the trick." At least the new lights I purchased today were half what I expected to pay. All's well that ends well, as the old saying goes.

Out and about

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:00:46 GMT

Greetings from Keynata or somesuch place I don't feel like verifying in Arizona. Lisa and I spent 10 hours today exploring the Grand Canyon, after two days in Vegas, a swing through the Painted Desert, and various adventures inbetween. Tomorrow it's Four Corners and Santa Fe. More details to come . . .

In the thick of it

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:00:00 GMT

Somehow I've found myself busier than ever, which is not all that bad a thing, really. Tomorrow I leave for vacation and then I expect the next few months will be much more balanced, as I work on a project I can't wait to get truly started on.

In other news of my life:

Lisa and I are moving to Baltimore for a year, starting in July. We'll probably live downtown, and while I sure never would have picked Charm City as the place I'd live downtown, I've got a good feeling about it. Should get plenty of exercise and Lisa should be able to walk to work.

Our vacation is 8 days to the Southwest--New Mexico, Arizona (Grand Canyon! Painted Desert!), Vegas, and a few square feet of Colorado and Utah (hello, Four Corners!). I'm thinking we need to bring our Twister mat to play it in four states. I wish we had another week to hit places like Tucson and Carlsbad Caverns, but I still Can't. Wait. This afternoon I booked a great package deal in Vegas. Lisa and I have never been there before but I'm betting (um--that was one pun seriously not intended) we'll enjoy our two days there, especially since the forecast is for 80 degrees and sunny.

Of the five states I've yet to visit, this trip will knock off two--Arizona and Nevada. Lisa's not been to any of the five states (including that few square feet of Utah and Colorado) we're hitting, so it'll be particularly momentous for her. Left for me will be Montana (almost went to Yellowstone back in college but a friend's grandfather died, so we just drove from Washington state to Maryland in 40 hours, 4 of which we spent waiting for a repair), Alaska, and Hawaii. Not sure how soon we'll make it out to Yellowstone and the 49th and 50th states, but hopefully in the next 5 years.

Freudian slip: Bush regrets "Mission Impossible" banner

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:50:07 GMT

From the Vancouver, B.C. Sun:

. . . "I am confident that I made decisions based on principle, that I made calls as best I could, and I did not sell my soul," Bush told an audience of about 1,000 men and women at the $400-a-seat steak luncheon. . . .

While Bush's speech was mostly eloquent and free of the language gaffes he admits he is famous for, he said he regretted appearing in front of a "Mission Impossible" sign during a televised address in 2003. The controversial banner referring to the U.S. mission in Iraq, actually said "Mission Accomplished." . . .

Somehow, you'd think that in all that time, he'd come up with something else he might have better thought through ahead of time, but nope. Meanwhile, the Republican party's favorability rating is at its lowest level in a decade, despite Bush being a non-entity in Republican-land for nearly a year now. Looks like they're not doing any better on their own. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll this week found that only 20 percent of Americans identify themselves as Republicans, the lowest number since they started polling in 1983.

Lamentations

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:41:03 GMT

I'm actually still in the Jeremiah part of the Jeremiah/Lamentations combo I'm writing footnotes for for a new Bible, but Jeremiah is plenty lamentful on its own. It's actually twisting with my brain a good bit, as I ponder why and how a people could be so self-centered, despite a God who first promised them everything good under the sun and then begged and pleaded and wept over them. Are we any different today than those ancient citizens of Jerusalem? I can't fathom their fascination with idolatry, but maybe our idolatry is just more subtle. Or it's simply ourselves that we've put on a pedestal . . .

Loving religion to death: that Mojave desert cross case

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:51:27 GMT

There's been a fair bit of coverage of the current Supreme Court case concerning a cross standing on government-owned land in the Mojave desert, originally put there to honor WWI soldiers and now covered with plywood until a decision is made. The general slant people bring to the story seems to be, "What's the big deal? It's been there for decades. And everybody knows that a cross just symbolizes the dead."

That's the attitude of Supreme Court Antonin Scalia, too, who argues that “The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead":

ACLU lawyer Peter Eliasberg countered that the cross is a specifically Christian symbol, that it signifies Jesus as savior and that it never appears on, for example, Jewish graves. As he spoke Scalia turned “visibly angry,” by all accounts, and finally snapped: “I think that’s an outrageous conclusion.”

Last I checked, the cross symbolizes far more than that--as Stephen Colbert so eloquently explores:

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

The Word - Symbol-Minded

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

Michael Moore

Of course, Scalia is being disingenuous, since he believes that it's perfectly alright for government to promote religion--even as it drains it of all meaning.

The separation of church and state recognizes that religion means far too much to be sullied by association with government. Here in Nashville, I can scarcely drive two blocks without seeing another cross. Within a short walk of my house is an intersection with a different church on each of three sides, and a public park on the fourth. Contrary to certain groups' claims, there's no restriction on religious expression in America. But crossing the church-state boundary will inevitably turn the magnificent into the mundane.

History Mystery debuts online

Sat, 10 Oct 2009 02:19:40 GMT

The first educational yet zany video in my new web series about church history, "History Mystery," is now online at Guide magazine and Insight magazine's webpages. I even appear to introduce the topic, punting on the Cam in Cambridge, England. Check it out here!

Today, 30 Republican Senators voted to protect rapists

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 03:16:47 GMT

Yes, it's true: today, 10 Republican Senators (including all four Female Senate Republicans) voted to protect the rights of rape victims, and 30 Republicans voted against it. I just don't get these people:

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR “if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” . . .

In the end, Franken won the debate. His amendment passed by a 68-30 vote . . .

Easy call, right? Well, not if you're a Republican, eager to protect a right of corporations to rape its employees.

Of the 40 Republicans in the Senate, only 10 voted for the Franken amendment, including all four women in the Senate GOP. Of the six Republican males who voted for the amendment, all of them represented states outside the deep South -- Bennett (UT), Hatch (UT), Grassley (IA), LeMieux (FL), Lugar (IN), and Voinovich (OH). The other 30 men, including luminaries like David Vitter, John Ensign, and John McCain, didn't think the amendment warranted passage.

This is interesting. According to Republicans, a fake pimp and ho, reported to the police, was apparently so beyond the pale that they've worked to strip ACORN of all federal funding. But denying employees actual redress from gang rapes is no big deal? . . .

It's all about the money, never the morality.

Safer with a gun? Nope

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 03:10:28 GMT

A new, first-of-its-kind study finds that possessing a gun, contrary to what the gun lobby would have you believe, actually makes you more likely to get hurt--4.5 times more likely:

In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun. . . .

“This study helps resolve the long-standing debate about whether guns are protective or perilous,” notes study author Charles C. Branas, PhD, Associate Professor of Epidemiology. “Will possessing a firearm always safeguard against harm or will it promote a false sense of security?”

What Penn researchers found was alarming – almost five Philadelphians were shot every day over the course of the study and about 1 of these 5 people died. The research team concluded that, although successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the chances of success are low. People should rethink their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures, write the authors. Suggestions to the contrary, especially for urban residents who may see gun possession as a defense against a dangerous environment should be discussed and thoughtfully reconsidered.

A 2005 National Academy of Science report concluded that we continue to know very little about the impact of gun possession on homicide or the utility of guns for self-defense. Past studies had explored the relationship between homicides and having a gun in the home, purchasing a gun, or owning a gun. These studies, unlike the Penn study, did not address the risk or protection that having a gun might create for a person at the time of a shooting.
Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person’s possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.

hese shooting cases were matched to Philadelphia residents who acted as the study’s controls. To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting. This is the same approach that epidemiologists have historically used to establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and car crashes. . . .