Saturday, June 21, 2008

Whose Blog Is It, Anyway?

While trolling the web recently for some advice on building an RSS feed for my employer (who doesn't yet know I'm exploring the possibility...won't he be surprised!), I came upon a nifty article at Stephen's Web, "Managing Your Blog Entry - 11 Better Tips" by Stephen Downes. I was immediately attracted to Downes's independent thought on the subject of blogging, being myself fully aware of the fact that, according to more than one article I've read, mine is not a "real" blog. You know the sort of article I mean--the kind that tell you what your e-mail "should" or "should not" be (it "should" be brief, it "should not" be detailed, etc.), what a "proper" web page "should" be...and of course what a "real" blog "should" do or be.

My thought always has been, "This is my blog. It "should" be whatever I want it to be. Ditto for my e-mail, my web sites, and, yes, my RSS feed. Sure, these things must follow certain protocols--my web site had damn well better be written in HTML or a successor thereto, or it plain won't work!--but for the rest of it, well, who says it should be thus or so...and who asked him in the first place?

Downes, I think, would not disagree (read him for yourself and make your own judgment), but he expresses himself far less pugnaciously than I just did. His springboard is a list of "shoulds" created by a journalist named Vincent Maher, whose list Downes carefully deconstructs. For instance:

Maher:
  • A blog entry is a stub for conversation
    One of the key ways to create a loyal audience for your blog is to create a community of readers who interact with each-other on your blog. This means that your blog entries should be structured in such a way that they start conversations. This means they need to be short and punchy, with a clearly defined point or set of points.
Downes:
  • No it isn't. The point of a blog isn't to gather a loyal cadre of readers around you dutifully writing comments. And you certainly should not be writing your blog simply to entice the commenters. And if your readers aren't capable of reading anything other than short and punchy, are you sure you should be writing to them? Think this through. A blog entry isn't some place you create to prompt conversation. A blog is a place where you say something. As for the commenters, they should be writing on their own blogs, where people can actually link to them.

Maher:
  • Be active in your own conversations
    Don't sit and watch the comments streaming in and do nothing, get in there! Unlike traditional journalists, the blogger's role is to steer and be part of the conversations they start.
Downes:
  • The blogger's role is to blog. If it feels to you that this includes responding to comments, do that. If you'd rather make sure your responses are highlighted and indexed, respond in a new blog post. But don't let anyone convince you that you have to be some kind of chatterbug to be a good blogger. Respond if you have something to say and be a good listener otherwise.
And so on. A nice, thoughtful, and entertaining essay. Give it a read.

Also, Downes did provide me some pretty helpful RSS advice, too, in his excellently named article "How to Create an RSS Feed With Notepad, a Web Server, and a Beer." It worked, even without a beer, of which my employer would not have approved. During business hours, at least.

Monday, June 02, 2008

This Is What They Have to Say

Again, a smattering of collected quotations. I think all of them are from A Word a Day.


What matters is not the idea a man holds, but the depth at which he holds it. -Ezra Pound, poet (1885-1972)

All living souls welcome whatever they are ready to cope with; all else they ignore, or pronounce to be monstrous and wrong, or deny to be possible. -George Santayana, philosopher (1863-1952)

God must have loved the people in power, for he made them so much like their own image of him. -Kenneth Patchen, poet and novelist (1911-1972)

We are so accustomed to disguise ourselves to others that in the end we become disguised to ourselves. -Francois, duc de La Rochefoucauld, moralist (1613-1680)

We are all equal before the law, but not before those appointed to apply it. -Stanislaw J. Lec, poet and aphorist (1909-1966)


If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. -Desmond Tutu, clergyman (b. 1931)

Having been unable to strengthen justice, we have justified strength. -Blaise Pascal, philosopher and mathematician (1623-1662)

Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does. -William James, psychologist (1842- 1910)

The best way to be more free is to grant more freedom to others. -Carlo Dossi, author and diplomat (1849-1910)

There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare. -Sun Tzu, general (6th century BCE)

We should try to be the parents of our future rather than the offspring of our past. -Miguel de Unamuno, writer and philosopher (1864-1936)

When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion. -Abraham Lincoln, 16th president of the U.S. (1809-1865)

Small Minds

    Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great. --Mark Twain

I had occasion to reflect on that favorite quotation by one of my favorite authors this past weekend, as I listened to a speaker who mistakenly assumed himself to be in a roomful of Lutherans, make what I have come to think of as The Obligatory Slam against the Catholic Church. Readers of these chronicles will know that I work for a Lutheran organization, which this past weekend had its big annual hootenanny. My co-workers are all great people, and reasonably tolerant of the token Catholic in their midst. But of course it would be too much to expect that progressive attitude to infect all members of their denomination.

Here's the set-up: The keynote speaker intimated to the audience that he was grateful that his parents, in their youth, had decided to leave the Catholic Church and become Lutherans. The implication being that had they not done so, he might today be -- gasp! -- a horrible, benighted Catholic and not an enlightened and superior Lutheran.

Well, golly. It so happens that my parents were Catholic, too, and did not move to another religion, and they were not especially horrible people. And it so happens that I have decided -- consciously -- to remain affiliated with the Catholic Church, and I don't consider myself especially horrible, either. I'm at least sensitive enough not to elevate myself by running down others. Much.

The keynote speaker being a minister, I imagine he must have read the Gospel of Luke. But perhaps he missed the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector.

In case you missed it too, it's in Luke 18, beginning at verse 9:

He then addressed this parable to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else.

"Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.

The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, 'O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity--greedy, dishonest, adulterous--or even like this tax collector.

I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.'

But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, 'O God, be merciful to me a sinner.'

I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted."


Ironic, no?

Ironic, too, that after making his Obligatory Slam against the Catholic Church, the speaker then went on to tell us how difficult it was for him to be in the minority in his largely Catholic community. Do tell! I know I felt pretty lonely and oppressed at that moment, too, as probably a minority of one!

As my anger at his insensitive and stupid comments faded -- a little -- I began to reflect on other occasions when I have endured The Obligatory Slam against the Catholic Church at Lutheran gatherings, and I began to wonder about the phenomenon. Of course, to elevate oneself by tearing down someone else is human nature; I suspect that's why Jesus felt obliged to warn his followers about it. And I have no doubt that there are plenty of Catholic gatherings in which Protestantism is denigrated. (In my earshot, it's always "Protestantism," not a specific denomination or body.) But I am curious as to why a denomination that prides itself on having moved "beyond" Catholicism (for instance, they like to term theirs a "mature" theology, by which of course they mean that Catholic theology is immature, that is, not as sophisticated -- good -- as theirs), a denomination that believes its nominal founder re-formed a defective church, seems to find it necessary to keep reaching backward across 500 years and take a swipe at its ancestor.

A feeling of inadequacy, perhaps? A feeling of guilt, perhaps? Even after half a millennium?

I am reminded of the feeling I get upon reading certain atheist authors' essays. Now, I have nothing against atheists. In fact, I consider atheism a pretty reasonable point of view. (I need not share a point of view to consider it reasonable. It is both blessing and curse.) Someone's inability to believe in that which cannot be proven hardly seems something to revile. Indeed, I have often said that I doubt that God has anything against atheists either.

But a good many atheist authors whom I've read are in fact anti-theist...and I don't cotton much to that. If you can't make yourself believe in a Deity, fine. But let it go. This business of deriding people who do believe, and making it a personal mission to tear down their beliefs, is inappropriate. (Interesting to note that some atheist authors decry religion on the ground that it stifles thought and expression...which is not necessarily untrue, but I find it ironic that so many atheists seek to do exactly the same thing by belittling those who believe: it is an obvious attempt to stifle the expression of those who hold a different point of view.)

Well, I feel much the same about these slams against my church. There is a whiff of insecurity about them, a certain scent of fear. and often a fair amount of ax-grinding as well. For they're invariably directed not again "other" religions, but quite specifically against the Catholic faith. I've yet to hear anyone of them express gratitude that his parents left the Episcopal Church, or the Congregational Church, or the Greek Orthodox Church; I've yet to hear one of them grouse about problems she had with unsympathetic Jewish leaders, causing her to leave the Jewish faith. I've yet to hear any of them bemoan the fact that other Lutheran bodies don't ordain women. It is always the Catholic Church they feel obliged to lash out against, and usually superfluously. The keynote speaker this past weekend made no point other than that he was glad to be a Lutheran. Well, good. He should be. That's all he really needed to say, no? The rest of it was unnecessary, insensitive, stupid, and immature. "O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity."

I realize that the Mark Twain quotation above isn't quite dead-on -- he refers specifically to small people who belittle others' ambitions -- but the sentiment applies, I think. Small people will attempt to make themselves great by belittling others.

The words attributed to Jesus, on the other hand, are spot on.

Perhaps Not Exactly a "Sprint"

It's possible that the horse has already expired, but here's some more about Sprint (Previous whining here and here.)

Faithful readers may recall from "Almost Helpful" that I was not wowed by Sprint's close-but-no-cigar response to an e-mail query I sent after making several circuits through their less-than-helpful website.

A little while after the exchange (which I never followed up on), I received via e-mail an invitation to fill out a customer-satisfaction survey. Which I did, and honestly. A day or so later, I received the following response:

    Thank you for responding to our survey. We are sorry to learn that you have an unresolved issue as your satisfaction is very important to us.

    A Sprint representative will contact you via your PCS phone at no charge, within 3 business days to assist you.

    Please do not respond to this email. If you have any questions please contact Customer Service or visit one of our websites:

    http://www.sprint.com or http://www.sprintpcs.com

Which is all well and good. But that message was e-mailed to me on May 15; here we are on June 2 and I have yet to hear from Sprint. I don't have a calendar in front of me, but I'm almost certain that it's been three business days...although, as I think about it, how would I know what Sprint considers a "business day"? Maybe every other Thursday is a "business day" in Sprint land. Who can say?

I can say a couple of things: First, don't make promises you can't keep. In the Business Communications class I taught this past semester, I had to disagree with the author of our textbook, who was a fan of specificity and would have approved mightily of "A Sprint representative will contact you via your PCS phone at no charge, within 3 business days to assist you." In theory I agree, but as I pointed out to my class, if you are going to pin yourself down like that, you'd better make bloody sure you can deliver. Or someone might just post an unflattering blog entry about your broken promise.

Second, the mystery of why Sprint is experiencing customer defection becomes less and less mysterious with my each passing encounter with them...

Monday, May 26, 2008

Memorial Day 2008

Well, here it is again. Memorial Day. I was moved to revisit my post in re Memorial Day from lasy year, and find that little has changed. My son again played at the Memorial Day service at a local church, a service that this year was a little less blindly pro-military but still uncomfortably tilting toward hero-worship. I'm too much a believer in our American concept of a military that is subordinate to civilian authority, and consider it more than a little dangerous when "honoring" turns into "elevating."

There seems also the ongoing argument about what Memorial Day is "supposed" to be. Again was repeated the refrain, "This is not All-Saints Day," the implicating being that one is not "supposed" to be remembering non-military dead on this day. And yet the service in question tilts heavily toward honoring all those in or ever in uniform--there was the obligatory moment where all veterans in the congregation were asked to stand, and everyone else applauded. Well, this is Memorial Day, not Veterans Day, and if one is to be technical (as, evidently, one is), then one should stick to the idea that it's "supposed" to be about honoring those who have died while in service to their country...not those who served their country, came home, and died 50 years later.

That said, I have already devoted a certain amount of the day reflecting upon my parents...even though Mom was never in the military and Dad did his two years back in the '50s. I have decided to forgo the cemetery visit--I prefer to do my mourning in a more private way, and the place is just too darn populated on Memorial Day. I don't mind the deceased population; it's the living who are a little too much to take. We planted flowers at the grave on Saturday, and I will visit there at some other time, some more private time.

You see, every day is Memorial Day.

Ahead of Their Time

Yesterday morning I was on my favorite TV-listing website, Zap2It.com, where A&E is heavily promoting its remake of The Andromeda Strain. Maybe too heavily. Somebody in Marketing got a little bit ahead of him- or herself. He's a screen print; you may click on it for a bigger view:


The sharp-eyed among you will note that the topmost banner tells me that The Andromeda Strain is "Premiering Tonight 9PM/8C." The left-hand banner tells me the same thing.But the banner atop the listings, just below the blue Zap2It field, assures me that it's "Premiering Tomorrow 9PM/8C" (emphasis added).

Clearly a mistake, but in which direction? A preponderance of evidence would cause me to think it was premiering last night (Sunday)...after all, two out of three banners agreed! But as luck would have it, I was on a TV listings site, and a quick search revealed that Box No. 3--"Premiering Tomorrow"--contained the right information.

This is what we in the trade term an Oops, and as has been previously revealed, there are few things in life so satisfying as evidence of the fact that one is not alone in Oopsing...no matter how often the people with whom he deals on a daily basis seem to think he is.

That said...I'll be curious to see whether this new Andromeda Strain is worth the three banner ads, to say nothing of two nights of television. It's been several years since last I saw the 1970s feature film, but the last time I did I recall marveling at how well it's stood up over the decades. Of course the emphasis was on suspense and not special effects, which always helps. I'll record The Andromeda Strain, and may even get around to watching it (the upcoming two weeks will be a bearcat, so it's unlikely I'll watch anything before June 10 or so), but I'm dubious. It does not strike me as a story that's in need of "updating." If anything, it strikes me as the sort of thing that will have me checking to see if the original is on DVD...

...Turns out I was right: It hasn't even aired yet and I already checked on the original. DeepDicount.com has it for about ten bucks. Widescreen. Free shipping.

Friday, May 23, 2008

A Quota of Quotations

A little something for our tmes:

There is no greater gift to an insecure leader that quite matches a vague enemy who can be used to whip up fear and hatred among the population. -Paul Rusesabagina, humanitarian (b. 1954)

Also:

No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country. -Alexis de Tocqueville, statesman and historian (1805-1859)


And a few general-interest quotations. These and the above are from A Word A Day.

A belief which leaves no place for doubt is not a belief; it is a superstition. -Jose Bergamin, author (1895-1983)

Writing the last page of the first draft is the most enjoyable moment in writing. It's one of the most enjoyable moments in life, period. -Nicholas Sparks, author (1965- )

I believe I found the missing link between animal and civilized man. It is us. -Konrad Lorenz, ethologist, Nobel laureate (1903-1989)

I would rather try to persuade a man to go along, because once I have persuaded him he will stick. If I scare him, he will stay just as long as he is scared, and then he is gone. -Dwight D. Eisenhower, U.S. general and 34th president (1890-1969)

The successful revolutionary is a statesman, the unsuccessful one a criminal. -Erich Fromm, psychoanalyst and author (1900-1980)

If you wish to be loved, show more of your faults than your virtues. -Edward Bulwer-Lytton, author (1803-1873)

We lie the loudest when we lie to ourselves. -Eric Hoffer, philosopher and author (1902-1983)

No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be. -Isaac Asimov, scientist and writer (1920-1992)

Who breaks the thread, the one who pulls, the one who holds on? -James Richardson, poet, professor (b. 1950)

Monday, May 12, 2008

Just One of Life's Little Mysteries

This appears this morning on Bloomberg.com:

    Sprint First-Quarter Loss Widens as Customers Defect (Update1)

    By Crayton Harrison

    May 12 (Bloomberg) -- Sprint Nextel Corp., the third-biggest U.S. wireless carrier, said it may sell some assets after its first-quarter loss widened and more than 1 million customers dropped their contracts.

    The net loss expanded to $505 million, or 18 cents a share, from $211 million, or 7 cents, a year ago, Overland Park, Kansas- based Sprint said today in a statement. Sales fell 7.5 percent to $9.33 billion, compared with the $9.39 billion average estimate of analysts.

    Sprint said it may get rid of assets to meet obligations to lenders. Chief Executive Officer Dan Hesse is firing 4,000 workers, closing outlets and discounting wireless phone plans after the stock lost more than half its value in the past year. Nextel, which the company bought in 2005 for $36 billion, may be worth as little as $5 billion, according to some analysts.

    "Sprint has had a really bad reputation for customer service,'' said Steve Clement, an analyst at Pacific Crest Securities in Portland, Oregon, who expects the shares to perform in line with the rest of the sector. "They've struggled to figure out a way to market themselves, and I think they're still struggling.''

Do tell. Given my recent experience with Sprint -- and some not-so-recent experiences, like dropped calls, no signal when the guy standing next to me is happily chatting away on his phone, a web site that keeps taking you back around to the front door where you can log in for the eleventieth time, and invoices that are byzantine even by cell-phone standards -- the amazing thing is that Sprint's stock still has half its value.

Suggestion: Quit the gimmicks, improve the service.

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Almost Helpful

This has happened twice in the last couple-three weeks. Maybe it's me. Maybe I'm not expressing myself clearly, or maybe I'm expecting too much of e-mail.

It goes like this:

I e-mail a given corporate entity with a fairly specific inquiry, and they promptly e-mail me back with a reply that almost does what I asked.

For instance: A couple of weeks ago, confronted with a massive cell-phone bill, I e-mailed Sprint to see what we could do to get it to quit competing with the house payment. I told them what we wanted in the way of calls, texting, etc., and for how many lines, and, in effect, asked for a quote.

(This was after some time banging around on their web site trying to figure out their Simply Everything plan, but the site is simply nothing on details.)

Well, I get back a very nice, very prompt reply from a customer service woman who is very much on board with the idea of trying to save me money...and if I just let her know what plan I want, she'll get me set up with it. Well, yes, thanks, but I had rather hoped that she would put the plan together and tell me about it. Helpful...but not quite.

And then yesterday I e-mailed a bank in Omaha in re a little mystery my brother and I have encountered regarding safe-deposit box keys that seem to belong to nothing. It dawned on me that my folks had done business with a particular bank when they lived in Omaha (through the mid-sixties) and wondered if they had somehow forgotten about a deposit box there. Unlikely, but possible. So I went online, found the successor to that long-ago bank, and e-mailed their customer service department with all the information I have: my parents' names, the number written on the case containing the keys, my parents' home address in Omaha, etc.

And this morning I log on to a very nice, very prompt reply from a customer service woman who provides me with the bank's phone number so I can call and talk to someone about it. Uh-huh, okay, but isn't it safe to assume that I could have found the phone number easily myself and that since I went to the trouble to find their email address and compose a message to them, perhaps I had a reason for not calling in the first place? ("Your call is important to us. That's why you're on hold. Please stay on hold, and enjoy the music we keep interrupting to tell you how important your call is to us...")

Again, almost helpful.

I recognize that there might be practical reasons for these and other entities to shy away from conducting certain aspects of business via e-mail. If the bank had said, "For security purposes, please call a personal banker," I probably would have thought it bogus, but at least I'd have had a reason of sorts. But in Sprint's case, wouldn't it have been better for them to have replied with, "Based on what you tell me your best bet would be Plan 9 from Outer Space, which would cost you 600 bazillion dollars a month for three lines"?

Especially since just last week I signed our daughter up for a really nice Verizon plan, and as long as we were in the store I asked the sales associate to give me some info on putting the whole household on the same plan.

Which he was more than happy to put together for me.

Sunday, May 04, 2008

No Worries! AOL Is Watching Out for You!

Well, they're at it again.

A couple-three years ago, my e-mail to friends and relatives who are still benightedly using AOL as their internet provider began to bounce. After some detective work, I deduced that AOL didn't like one or more of the links I include in my outgoing-mail signature. These included my e-mail address, my personal web page at Geocities (which they seem to hate), my genealogical page at FortuneCity (that seems to be the one they really hate), and gifs that link to Thunderbird and Firefox.

For a time, I gamely deleted the signature from AOL-bound e-mail, but never without a feeling of resentment. What business is it of AOL's if I want to put a link in, say, my correspondence with my cousin? Seems to me that that's between him and me, and AOL's paternalistic "at least one domain in your email that is generating substantial complaints from AOL members" is neither here nor there: I'm not e-mailing those whiners, I'm e-mailing my cousin!

And of course there would be those instances where I'd forget to delete the signature, and the e-mail would bounce back, and my resentment would increase, etc.

But then one day it seemed that there was no problem anymore, and my e-mail was making its way past the Moral Guardians of AOL Customers with no untoward difficulty, and life was good, or at least not too crappy.

Until this weekend. AOL is back to "protecting" my cousin--who is well into his adulthood, mind--from receiving any seditious materials from me. My cousin doesn't have any say in the matter. I don't have any say in the matter. AOL makes the decision for us, pre-emptorily, supposedly because of "substantial complaints" from members about other communication, having nothing to do with me or my cousin, they appear to have received from "one or more" of the domains referred to in my e-mail.

Get that: I'm not SENDING from a blacklisted domain. I'm merely referencing an address they don't like in my e-mail to ONE person who, foolishly, is a customer of theirs.

Yes, I'm working on the cousin to dump AOL. But of course it's a hassle to change ISPs, and I can't blame a guy for being unenthusiastic about it.

In the meantime, though, I find myself pretty peeved at the high-handedness of AOL.

But that is nothing knew. I recall a certain brouhaha some years ago when the media caught wind of AOL's having dumped a customer because she began some kind of online support or information group for survivors of breast cancer--and had had the nerve to use the B-word in the group's name, and in referencing the disease, and so on! Everyone knows that br**st is a dirty word, and so AOL, in its best Big Brother mode, blocked her from their network for the benefit of all. Until, that is, it hit the media, and AOL looked both stupid and paternalistic.

Obviously, the corporation learned nothing from that episode, and is once again setting itself up as the arbiter of what people may or may not read, and the Great and Wise Protector of All who might be exposed to such atrocities as

wjreynolds@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/wjreynolds
http://wjra1.fortunecity.com
http://williamjreynolds.blogspot.com/

Get Thunderbird Get Firefox

Oh no! Your eyes, your eyes!!

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Visible Man

Colson Whitehead, in today's New York Times:

    "Most folks don’t know much about me, apart from the feeling of injustice that hits when I walk into the room with my easy charisma and air of entitlement. I understand. It’s weird when your government passes legislation, like equal opportunity laws, that benefits one single person in the country — me, The Guy Who Got Where He Is Only Because He’s Black."
And:
    "Frankly it’s a lot better than my last two gigs, The Guy Who Left the Seat Up and The Guy Who Took the Last Beer, although I do suffer from a lot of work-related injuries, as you can imagine. For all this jibber-jabber about how I don’t understand a working man’s problems, you should take a look at my medical chart. I have carpal tunnel, tennis elbow, miner’s lung, scapegoat rash and vintner’s dropsy, and just last week I burned my thumb making horseshoes. The funny thing is, I didn’t want to be a blacksmith. But I heard they had an opening and I couldn’t help myself."

This is excellent satire--biting, funny, true, ridiculous, and acid all at once. Read the whole thing at the Times or via Whitehead's blog.

Friday, April 11, 2008

Conservative Hypocrisy Revisited

Speaking of that post from AlterNet (as I was below), "Anti-Choicers Are Communists!," posted by Amanda Marcotte, raises an interesting point, one on which I've reflected myself on occasion, viz., how does a group of people who claim to prize independence and individuality, whose very mantra is "Get government off our backs!," who insist it's every dog for itself out there (no "nanny society," thank you!) justify its constant harangue for government to step in and tell women what they may and may not and must and must not do with their own bodies? How do they justify their slavering desire to have government tell women's doctors how to practice medicine? How do they square their disdain for anything that smacks of helping anybody with their insistence that having the government forbid women from making their own health-care decisions is in fact "protecting" women (from, apparently, themselves)?

Nanny society, indeed.

But the Marcotte post takes things further. She writes:

    Now there [Romania] was a state that Leslee Unruh, Phill Kline and the whole cast of panty-sniffing misogynists could really get behind. Modern American anti-choicers make the same argument used in communist Romania to deprive women of basic rights: We aren't having enough babies to sustain the economy! Under Nicolae Ceausescu, contraception and abortion were strictly banned unless you had already had four children and done your biological duty to the state. In a strong echo of our modern anti-choice community's disconnect between what they actually think and what they say they think, it was widely believed that the contraception and abortion ban of Romania mostly functioned as a way for men in power to get off on controlling women. It certainly didn't do anything to lower the abortion rate -- under this regime, they had one of the highest abortion rates in Europe. Highest maternal mortality, too, which was a direct result of the high illegal abortion rate.

    That's the utopia they're looking at with their communist-borrowing strategies. A world where a misogynist's nose is in every panty drawer, and women who run the risk of dying every time they have sex.

You should read the post for yourself. It's short, but it links to other posts from which Marcotte draws and which buttress her point, viz., the we'll-do-your-thinking-for-you crowd borrow pretty heavily from the very type of totalitarian Communists regimes that they have always professed to despise.

Might they protest too much?

Too Much for Coincidence?

A brace of eerily similar occurrence in the past couple of days deies coincidence.

First: I received notification the other day that Mail.com, whose remailing services I have found to be handy on a couple of occasions when I've needed to switch mail accounts, had tried to renew my subscription via a credit card that had expired, and to I would need to go online and give them new info. (Actually, I just needed to tell them when the card would next expire, but either way...) Okay, I follow the instructions helpfully laid out in the e-mail...well, they would have been helpful if they worked. They took me right where they said they would, but there was nothing there in the way of updating billing information, as had been promised. Being fairly independent, I tried "My Account" and the online Help file, but no luck. Indeed, the Help file repeated precisely the same instructions that didn't work. (This is not the first time I have detected irony in the sobriquet "help" file.)

In the interests of completeness, I tried the procedure on both a PC running Windows XP and my new iMac running Leopard, with identical results. On the Windows machine I even logged in with Internet Exploder, in case it was a Firefox issue. But no.

So I dashed off a few lines to Customer Service, which this morning replied with instructions that sounded suspiciously like the old instructions. But I can be a sport, occasionally, so I went through the exercise again...and, interestingly there now were a couple of clickable buttons next to my "service options," buttons that were not there yesterday. (And I know this for a fact, since I took a screenshot to send along to Mail.com for reference. Also, I clicked around on the page on a couple of my expeditions yesterday, just in case I was overlooking something. I wasn't.)

Bottom line, as near as I can conclude: Something got changed between yesterday and today, even though there was nothing in Mail.com's e-mail to indicate they had found a problem on their end and fixed it.

Whatever.

But now here comes that Eerily Similar experience I mentioned above.

Last evening I came upon an item in the New York Times that I decided to submit to Digg. So I click the link and all the usual stuff, and--also as usual--get the screen that says they think it might duplicate an essay already submitted. (Anyone else notice that when Digg says that, it's almost invariably wrong?) But the part of the screen that usually lists the other stories, and gives you the button with which you swear your contribution is original, was blank except for a couple of lines indicating an "unknown fatal exception." I tried a couple of other stories, tried the Windows/iMac bit again, and kept getting the same results.

Sort of forgot about it till this morning, when the same thing happened, so I clicked the ink to report the issue to Customer Service. This evening they replied, suggesting I wipe out associated cookies and I forget what-all else.

Which I didn't do. So imagine my surprise a few minutes ago when I clicked to send a story to Digg ("Anti-Choicers Are Communists!," on AlterNet)...and it worked!

Oh, sure, I had to go through all the usual we-think-this-might-be-a-duplicate balderdash (as usual, it wasn't) but otherwise everything was up and at-'em again. Without my having done a blessed thing.

Bottom line, as near as I can conclude: Again something got changed between yesterday and today, without any indication to me from the party in question that they were doing anything to fix anything. Weird, huh?

Well, okay, it could all be coincidental, especially the Digg case. Stuff happens and unhappens all the time in the computer world: How many times has rebooting the computer solved the problem? But the Mail.com instance smells a lot like someone fixing a problem and then not admitting that there ever was a problem to be fixed in the first place!

I have to say, I've been tempted along those lines--as recently as yesterday--but have always resisted. The case yesterday had to do with someone rather hotly insisting that they had made repeated requests for an update to a web site I handle. A search through back e-mail--going back some five or six months--revealed no such thing. It was indeed tempting to make the update, backdate the page, and then strongly suggest that the complainant see an optometrist. But I like to think I'm bigger than that. (I'm not, but I like to think so). I made the change, then e-mailed the Offended Party that the change had been made.

And, yes, I do think I'm a better person for it.

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Made With Macintosh

On March 12, I acquired my latest Macintosh, the new iMac, with a ginormous screen that I feel I am sitting too close to. Quite a far cry from my first Mac, which was the first Mac, the original, adjectiveless, numeralless plain ol' Macintosh computer, which looked like this:


It is hard to imagine now how thrilling that little Mac, with its monochrome nine-inch screen and its Imagewriter tractor-feed dot printer was back in 1984. To put it in context: I was working for a magazine-publishing company that had recently installed a very expensive computerized editing system, giving us all big green-screen terminals on which to compose or edit manuscripts. We had to insert various codes in order to use the correct typefaces, point sizes, column widths, etc., for our publications. Likewise, we needed codes before and after words we wanted italicized, boldfaced, SMALL-CAPPED, etc....and if we forgot the end code, well, then, everything was bold/italic/small caps up until the next time we inserted a code. If we put something in bold, the plain green lettering on the terminal monitor showed up somewhat brighter, giving us some kind of visual clue, at least; but there were no such clues for italic, small caps, etc.--or for the wrong typeface. Characters appeared onscreen sans descenders, so a g looked a lot like an s, and a lowercase p looked a lot like an uppercase P, since they both sat on the baseline. Not idea...but a heckuva lot better than the typewriters and paper we had used up till then!

Personal computers, such as they were, were much the same--green on dark-green, or amber on dark-amber, or white on black...no such thing as a Graphical User Interface--with all sorts of command codes and break codes and who knows what else. And the dot printers of the day were nothing to dream about, certainly not for someone interested in producing professional-quality manuscripts.

And then came the Macintosh. If you wanted something underlined, you underlined it. Bold? You made it bold. Change the font? Hey, shows up right here on the screen...in black, on a pleasantly bluish background. And when it came time to print, the serviceable Imagewriter (my recollection is that the W became uppercase with the later introduction of the ImageWriter II) printed pretty much what you saw on the screen!

Sold!

Coincidentally, at about the time the Mac came on the market I had just sold my first novel, The Nebraska Quotient, upon the conclusion of which I vowed I would never write another book on a typewriter. There was a small Apple Computer store just around the corner from my wife's workplace in St. Paul, Minnesota, and so I left to pick her up a bit early one day in order to look at the Mac in person. They were so new, and so much in demand, that the man had only a single demo model in the shop. No matter, my mind was made up. The proprietor tried to convince me that the Mac was a fad and that for "real" computing I needed one of the Apple II computers that would soon be gathering dust on his shelves (did he really believe the Apple II to be a superior machine? Or was he trying to unload them before the Mac overtook them? We'll never know...but even then I had my suspicions!), but I was unconvinced. WYSIWYG was a term that had not yet reached my ears, but I know it when I saw it, and I saw it, and I wanted it.

It so happened that a friend of mine was still in college and thus able to score the coveted Mac package with a student discount, and so I placed the order via his good offices, and waited. Indeed, I had begun my second book on a typewriter when finally the Mac arrived one October afternoon in 1984. I taught myself to use the enclosed MacWrite software by retyping the two or three chapters of Moving Targets that I had already pounded out on the Smith-Corona. The Mac boasted 128 kilobytes of RAM, no hard drive--to my knowledge, they didn't yet exist--and a built-in microfloppy drive that read and wrote 400 kilobyte disks. MacWrite had a memory-use issue that slowed everything to a crawl after about 14 pages, but that was okay: I soon learned to break chapters up into smaller chunks, stretching them out across a couple of floppy disks. To avoid the risk of damaging the printer heads on the Imagewriter, Apple recommended letting it cool down after an hour or so of use, which meant--dot printers not being noted for speediness--that it took two solid days to print a book-length manuscript. This involved a certain amount of "babysitting the printer," since you never knew when the tractor-feed paper was going to go off-track, and it was pretty frustrating to wander into the office to see how things were progressing only to discover that the Imagewriter had been overprinting the same line for the past half-hour. Since you could do nothing else on the Mac while printing was in process, I quickly learned to drag the rocking chair into the office and kill time with a book whilst "babysitting."

By today's standards, primitive. By the standards of the day, The Jetsons!

A year or two later, Apple introduced the Macintosh Plus, the so-called Fat Mac, pretty much the same machine but with with 512K of RAM and a double-sided floppy-disk drive. I bought a kit from a mail-order house (this was pre-online retailing, mind), cracked open the Mac's clamshell drive (which required special tools, for the Mac was not designed to ever be opened by the user), popped in the green board with extra RAM, popped out the old floppy drive, slid in the new one, put everything back together...and held my breath when I plugged it back into the wall and booted it up.

Not much later I would add a LaCie hard drive and a LaserWriter II, and worked happily with that configuration on into the early 1990s--I'm thinking 1991, but maybe 1992--when I invested in a Mac IIsi:
One of my everlasting regrets is that, when I bought the IIsi, I traded off the original Mac in return for some extra RAM. I wish I had saved it and turned it into an aquarium or something. Alas.

The IIsi was a nice machine, certainly faster than the Mac, and with the added bonus of color, but it was hardly a standout computer. Indeed, I don't remember that much about it. So I assume it was neither especially fabulous nor especially terrible. I worked with the IIsi until about 1996, when I invested in one of the Mac clones, from the time of that short, ill-starred experiment that Apple Computer undertook. Mine was a PowerComputing PowerCenter Pro IINT, which looked like this one:


The PowerCenter Pro was a lovely computer, and I eventually replaced it only because I had bumped my head against the upgrade ceiling...Mac OS 9 was as good as the PowerCenter got. But it was a fun, speedy, and trouble-free computer for a lot of years, and I was sorry when Apple discontinued its clone program, for that seemed to be the end of PowerComputing. I still have the PowerCenter Pro, on a card table in a corner of my office. As far as I know it still works...tough to judge, though, since the last time I powered it up the monitor refused to cooperate. Might have to fuss with it some one of these days.

The next Mac was a used Blue and White G3, code-named Yosemite, which I bought via eBay perhaps five years ago.


It too was a useful and enjoyable--and pretty!--computer, right up until January of this year when it started running...dreadfully...slow. My attempts to fix it were unsuccessful, and I sometimes wonder if I made it worse. (Hard to see how; I suspect that it was simply failing--perhaps a hard-drive issue--and would have conked out no matter what I did/didn't do.) One fine day last month the silly thing quit booting at all--I'd get the start-up "spinning gear" for, literally, hours on end, and then--perhaps--my desktop pattern, followed by hours of the spinning beachball, followed--perhaps!--by a log-in screen, followed by more beach ball. That is, up until the time it started to refuse my log in. Which is about when I decided it was time to go shopping again.

Odd thing about the G3 purchase: It came as a package, CPU, monitor, keyboard...and no mouse. Why no mouse? I mean, no big deal--I went to Best Buy and bought a USB mouse--but I wish I had asked the seller what the story was with the mouse. Did it fail and he just decided not to replace it when he sold the G3? Or did he have a mouse that he really, really liked and didn't want to sell? Whatever, I guess.

Earlier this month I went online to the Apple Store and ordered up the latest iMac:

This a simply a grand computer, fast, quiet (hell: silent), simple, and a pleasure to work with. I could have stepped down to the next smallest monitor, but what the heck. I do have to reorganize my office to accommodate it--I currently have to peer around the edge of my desk lamp in order to see the extreme left side of the screen--but it seems worth it. Of course, my old scanner, my old LaserWriter II (still works, though hasn't been used in a year or more), my old Zip Drive, my old CD burner (which I don't need, thanks to the iMac's built-in CD/DVD burner), and that old, old LaCie hard drive are now completely obsolete. No idea what to do with them, so I suppose they'll head up to the attic to be dealt with "another day." That's progress, I guess.

Upon learning of my recent purchase, a family member commented, "So you decided to get another Macintosh, huh?"

What a question!





Thursday, March 27, 2008

Keep it to Yourself!

What in the world would give DeepDiscount.com the idea that I upon visiting their web site, would want to be startled, by George Strait's voice suddenly and uninvitedly "welcoming" me and asking me to buy his new CD?

I have whined about this in the past, but apparently my wisdom has gone unheeded.

And it isn't just me. Ken Magill, writing in the latest issue of Direct magazine, hilariously details his experience with "one of the most ignorant e-mail campaigns in the short history of the medium":

    It came in the form of spam from Bing energy drinks, pitching delivery service to offices in Denver.

    It's bad enough that the receiving e-mail address is not used for commercial purposes — so the address was clearly harvested — and that Direct's offices are in New York.

    Clicking on the unsubscribe button spawned a pop-up window that had audio.


    A friggin'
    surprise talking pop-up window in my cubicle.

    "Hey, this is Jeremy from the Dom and Jane morning show and I want to tell you about a product I've been using for a little while," said my computer out of the blue. "It's called Bing. It's a brand-new energy drink that's out there, and it's made from black bing cherries, hence the name."

Magill concludes:

    Message to marketers: Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. If you want to make a sales pitch on my computer, especially the one at work, please shut up unless I indicate it's cool for you to talk.

I would extend that advice to webmasters as well.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

...Only Pilots Will Have Guns

A far-flung correspondent sends a link to the following report:

    McClatchy Washington Bureau

    Posted on Wed, Mar. 26, 2008

    US Airways pilot's gun went off as he was stowing weapon

    Jefferson George and Lisa Zagaroli | Charlotte Observer

    last updated: March 26, 2008 11:52:32 AM

    According to a report by Charlotte airport police, a bullet that passed through the fuselage of US Airways Flight 1536 from Denver on Saturday was fired by the aircraft's captain as he “was stowing his weapon.” The captain was carrying a 13-shot Heckler & Koch USP .40-caliber pistol as part of the Federal Flight Deck Officer program run by the federal Transportation Security Administration.

    That program has very detailed procedures for handling and transporting firearms, said Richard Bloom, a professor who teaches aviation security at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Although he didn’t know the details of Saturday’s incident, Bloom said there are a few possible explanations for gun being fired accidentally: impairment by alcohol, drugs or medication, some kind of distraction, or “somebody was just messing around.” “There’s extremely little room for misunderstanding,” he said. “The procedures and so clear and so specifically described.”

    TSA officials and US Airways continued to withhold the pilot’s name Tuesday, citing the investigation. The airline has grounded the pilot without pay. The aircraft remained out of service. The bullet, the police report revealed, penetrated the left side of the cockpit and went through the A319's fuselage. Air safety experts said most planes can withstand such a breach and continue flying normally.

    Read the full story at Charlotte.com.

Of course, David Letterman had some fun with it last night:

Top Ten U.S. Airways Excuses



Thought it would be fun to shoot empty liquor bottles

Air traffic controller's "Clear to land" misheard as "Squeeze off a round"

Media never reports when plane takes off and pilot's gun doesn't go off

Pilot thought he saw one of them "Cloverfield" Godzillas -- Buy "Cloverfield" on DVD April 22nd

Oh, like you've never fired a weapon onboard a passenger plane before

Don't worry -- His parole officer was in the cockpit

Chillax, bro

This is what happens when you let Dick Cheney fly a plane -- Did you see it coming folks?

If you didn't want gunplay, maybe you should have flown United

Pilot distraught after picking Duke to win it all

Well, fun's fun and all, but it occurs to me that this episode points to an issue that those who favor allowing students, faculty, and everybody else to carry concealed weapons on college campuses has conveniently overlooked: Accidents happen.

Take a look at the McClatchy report again: The pilot was packing heat "as part of the Federal Flight Deck Officer program run by the federal Transportation Security Administration"...that is, it was okay for him to have the weapon on board with him. Luckily no one was injured, or worse. But I can't help but think the scenario might be different if, say, a firearm "goes off" in a college classroom, or dormitory, or cafeteria. For one thing, there are more people there than in an airplane cockpit, so it seems to me that the chance of injury or death is that much greater. Moreover, if--as proponents of armed campuses seem to hope--many if not most if not all of the other denizens of the classroom/dorm/cafeteria are also carrying, are not the odds pretty good that some if not many if not most of them, upon hearing a gunshot (and perhaps witnessing the collapse of an injured person), will draw and start returning fire?


Since, after all, that is the point of allowing them to carry weapons, no? To shoot back at some deranged someone who opens fire? Well, what if the someone is not deranged, but rather careless or clumsy?

The other problem, overlooked by those who favor totin' guns, is that it's difficult to tell by looking who the badguys are. The idea seems to be that we can tell the badguy because he's armed. But if we're all armed...well, since no one is in uniform, how are we to know whom to shoot? Seems to me that, rather than averting tragedies on campus, arming college communities is invited more, and more frequent, tragedy.

Meanwhile, I would be in favor of revisiting that Federal Flight Deck Officer program, too. It's good to know that "most planes can withstand such a breach [a bullet piercing the fuselage] and continue flying normally"...but human beings are somewhat less resilient where bullets are concerned, and the next time it might not just be metal that's in the way.

And Some Have Greatness Thrust Upon Them

Well, I must say, I am both surprised and deeply, deeply humble. Surprised because my inbox this afternoon contains this notification: "Congratulations! joining the eBay Silver PowerSeller Program!" Despite the dubious English, I plunged on ahead to the message itself. It seems I am now a Silver PowerSeller, apparently because I've "been on a super sales streak" for some little time now. Among the perquisites and honorifics that now ascend to me are the right to have the "PowerSeller icon" () next to my User ID, not unlike badge of honor. I am also now entitled to "PowerSeller Priority Support via email webform and phone support at Silver level and above," which I'm pretty sure is good, and I shall be able to hobnob with my fellow PowerSellers via a "Discussion Board"--a proper noun, no less, so you know it's important--where I have no doubt we shall indulge in the cyber equivalent of sitting in gree-leather wingback chairs smoking cigars and drinking brandy.

And yet, despite this towering achievement, I feel a sense of humility, a small still voice that says perhaps--just perhaps--I am not worthing of such a distinction. Why, you ask. Why, as I stand at this pinnacle of greatness, do I hesitate, why does my Mighty Mouse not jump immediately to "Go to the PowerSellers Portal"? Can it be a deep-seated fear of success? Can it be insecurity to associate with other, possibly greater PowerSellers? Can it be feelings of guilt at pole-vaulting over other, lesser mortals whom I would now leave behind?

Or could it b that I've never sold a damn thing on eBay?

Sunday, March 23, 2008

What Works, What Doesn't

That Worked!

It is a sign of our times--and not a good one--that one finds himself amazed and gratified when something actually works as it's supposed to.

A recent case in point: Last week I acquired a new iMac, and am in the process of porting files, adding software, etc. One of the pieces that was missing was an infrequently but well-liked application called RadioLover, which allows one to record internet radio for later listening.

Miraculously, I had the order confirmation from when I had purchased the software in 2003, which included re-downloading instructions. I followed them, installed the software, entered my ancient registration number...and say presto! it was up and running! Strange but true!


That Worked...Eventually


Meanwhile, I spent the better part of two days horsing around with the Apple AirPort Express that arrived in Friday's mail. Not quite the plug-and-play exercise that Apple would have you believe. First, Airport Utility refused to "find" the AirPort Express, which was plugged in some three feet distance. Well, plugged and unplugged, and the iMac was restarted and restarted. Finally I had the bright idea of running the Ethernet cable not from the DSL router to the unfound AirPort Express, but rather from the AirPort Express to the iMac, and, behold, they began to communicate! Thus able to configure the AirPort Express, it was on to creating the wireless network.

That proved more problematic. Actually, creating the silly thing was easy enough...as I discovered while doing it over and over and over again. Getting the network to stick around so that I could instruct AirPort to use it was the tricky part. Many attempts, re-attempts, restarts, and words that are inappropriate to the Easter season. By late Friday, I had about decided to pack everything up and ship it back to Apple.

Saturday morning I dinked around with it some more, did a "factory reset" of the AirPort Express, and for no reason that I can think of managed to create yet another network that, this time, appeared in the AirPort menu and seemed inclined to last awhile. Indeed, I was able to get the iMac online wirelessly, even though the AirPort Express stubbornly continued to display a blinking amber light instead of a steady green light. Eventually I got tired of looking at the blinking light, ran AirPort Utility for the 10,000th time, and managed to correct whatever problems it was having.

All seems to be working well now, and the wireless network seems to be working well on my daughter's MacBook Pro as well as the Dell Inspiron laptop I have on loan from my workplace. But what a colossal pain! Occasionally one wonders about Apple's much-vaunted reputation for simplicity!

Thursday, March 20, 2008

As We Say

Time for another batch of quotations, drawn from the daily e-mail A Word a Day. Sign up for this excellent service at http://wordsmith.org/.




I need someone to protect me from all the measures they take in order to protect me. -Banksy, street artist (b. 1974)


The propagandist's purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human. -Aldous Huxley, novelist (1894-1963)

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. -H.L. Mencken, writer, editor, and critic (1880-1956)

Words are the small change of thought. -Jules Renard, writer (1864-1910)

We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it -- and stop there -- lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again, and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one any more. -Mark Twain, author and humorist (1835-1910)

Society is composed of two great classes: those who have more dinners than appetite, and those who have more appetite than dinners. -Sebastien-Roch-Nicolas de Chamfort, writer (1741-1794)

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. -Albert Einstein, physicist, Nobel laureate (1879-1955)

If a man would register all his opinions upon love, politics, religion, learning, etc., beginning from his youth and so go on to old age, what a bundle of inconsistencies and contradictions would appear at last! -Jonathan Swift, satirist (1667-1745)

Faith which does not doubt is dead faith. -Miguel de Unamuno, philosopher and writer (1864-1936)

The door of a bigoted mind opens outwards so that the only result of the pressure of facts upon it is to close it more snugly. -Ogden Nash, author (1902-1971)

Life consists in what a man is thinking of all day. -Ralph Waldo Emerson, writer and philosopher (1803-1882)

It is not life and wealth and power that enslave men, but the cleaving to life and wealth and power. -Buddha (c. 563-483 BCE)

It is not how old you are, but how you are old. -Jules Renard, writer (1864-1910)

Our heads are round so that thoughts can change direction. -Francis Picabia, painter and poet (1879-1953)

Society is like a stew. If you don't keep it stirred up you get a lot of scum on the top. -Edward Abbey, naturalist and author (1927-1989)

Like cars in amusement parks, our direction is often determined through collisions. -Yahia Lababidi, writer (b. 1973)

He who postpones the hour of living is like the rustic who waits for the river to run out before he crosses. -Horace, poet and satirist (65-8 BCE)

Saturday, March 08, 2008

Love-Hate?

It's not often I find myself agreeing with Bill Donohue of the Catholic League. In fact, I think this is the first time he and I have been anywhere near the same wavelength. But life is strange, and outrageous events may create outrageous alliances. Here, via Catholic Online, is what Donohue has to say about John McCain's thrilled acceptance of the endorsement of notorious anti-Catholic bigot John Hagee:



Catholic League: McCain's Next Move
3/7/2008

Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

“So no one should take from my criticism of McCain on this issue that I in any way think he is anti-Catholic."
NEW YORK, N.Y. (Catholic League) - Catholic League president Bill Donohue issued the following remarks today regarding Sen. John McCain’s ties to Pastor John Hagee:

“Now that he has secured the Republican nomination for president, and has received the endorsement of President Bush, McCain will now embark on a series of fundraising events.

When he meets with Catholics, he is going to be asked about his ties to Hagee. He should also be asked whether he approves of comments like this: ‘A Godless theology of hate that no one dared try to stop for a thousand years produced a harvest of hate.’

“That quote is proudly cited by David Brog in his recent book, Standing with Israel. Both Brog and Hagee clearly identify the Roman Catholic Church as spawning a ‘theology of hate.’

“This is nothing if not hate speech. There are so many good evangelical leaders in this country—Dr. James Dobson, Dr. Richard Land, Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer, Dr. Al Mohler, Chuck Colson—and none has ever insulted Catholicism. To be sure, they have expressed theological differences, and that is to be expected; that is all fine and good. But they have never sought to denigrate Catholicism.

That’s what makes this situation so outrageous. Of all the great evangelical leaders, the one McCain cites as ‘the staunchest leader of our Christian evangelical movement’ just happens to be a Catholic basher.

“In 2005, when I was fighting with those senators who were making it all but impossible for pro-life Catholics to get on the federal bench, I said the following: ‘So as not to be misunderstood, let me repeat what I’ve said before: the Catholic League believes there are no anti-Catholic senators.’ That remains true.

“So no one should take from my criticism of McCain on this issue that I in any way think he is anti-Catholic. If anything, John McCain has been a good friend to Catholics. But he and his staff have thus far grossly mishandled this issue. We await their next move.”


In case you're unaware, here's the deal: Televangelist Hagee, who has charmingly referred to the Roman Catholic Church as “the Great Whore,” an “apostate church,” the “anti-Christ,” and “a false cult system” (indeed, he cites the Catholic Church as Hitler's inspiration for the Holocaust), last week endorsed McCain, who said he was "very proud" to receive the hatemonger's blessing.

At the time I had this thought: More than once, I have been informed by someone whose opinion I did not solicit that I could not "call myself a Catholic" and a member of the Democratic Party. The flip side of this would be that "good" Catholics can only be Republicans. Well, now they have a Republican presidential candidate--all but nominated--who has enthusiastically accepted, after prolonged wooing, the endorsement of a Catholic-hating bigot.

Leaving me to wonder what "good" Catholics will now do. Do they vote for a godless baby-killing Democratic candidate (whoever that may be) who does not cleave to the church's party line? Or do they vote for the GOP candidate who embraces a Catholic-hating TV preacher but who spouts the right kind of rhetoric?

I'm only kidding--I knew all along that they'd come up with some way of lamely justifying McCain's buddy-buddyness with Hagee, and now the McCain camp

Now the McCain camp has thrown them just the sort of bone they'll need to pretend they're not doing what they're doing, viz., backing a candidate who in turn is backed by someone who would just as soon see them dead. Here's what's come out of the Not-So-Straight-Talk-Express in light of the Hagee scandal, per the Associated Press:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain repudiated any views of a prominent televangelist who endorsed him last month "if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics."

If. If? Has there ever been a better non-repudiation? Can it really be that Senator McCain, who is quick to point out that he sent a couple of kids to Catholic school, really not see that Hagee and his comments are offensive, are incendiary, are hate-filled? Note too that he doesn't repudiate Hagee--and he certainly doesn't reject Hagee's endorsement--but rather falls limply back on stating that he doesn't agree with everyone who endorses him.

But he doesn't do very much to distance himself from Hagee...or, more to the point, the equally hate-filled voters who agree with Hagee's bigotry. Rather, he's trying to win votes from both Catholic and Catholic-bashers.

Once upon a time I had a fair amount of respect for the Arizona Senator, and was one of those who thought it would interesting if he ran as John Kerry's VP back in 2004.

Now he's emerged as just another politician who will do anything, say anything, roll in any mudhole with any pig, just as long as it translates into votes.