Leave Marty McFly Out of This

Here. Wow, a two-fer but I can't leave this one alone. Either Hanson is intellectually lazy or one of the most dishonest neocons in the group. Now, I will admit an error in last night's blog; that being his membership of the CATO Institute; that I can't verify, but I correct myself by mentioning Hanson's membership in the Hoover Institute. Think Condi and you're on the right track policy-wise. In today's article, Hanson seems to sloppily lump Bush's foreign policy disaster in with the last thirty years of Middle East policy as if to admit defeat, failure and acceptance for the biggest foreign policy bungle since New Coke.

"If Gen. David Petraeus can't stabilize Iraq by autumn - or if Americans decide to pull out of Iraq before he gets a fair chance - expect far worse chaos eventually to follow. We will see ethnic cleansing, mass murder of Iraqi reformers, Kurdistan threatened, emerging Turkish-, Iranian-, and Wahhabi-controlled rump states, and al-Qaida emboldened as American military prestige is ruined."

Because, of course, this will only begin upon the Democrat-led pullout from Iraq. 0 for 1, Vic.

"However, their three decades of bipartisan failure helped bring us to the present post-9/11 world."

Now, I know my history enough to know that since 1980, effectively the last quarter-century of American foreign policy, has been dominated by not just Republican ideology but that of the neoconservative school. We're not talking Newt "slash welfare and send the potheads to prison for life" but the think tanks and policy experts who salivated since the Kennedy days of re-arranging American interests in the third world. This didn't start with Bush. Nor Clinton, nor Reagan. Remember Curtis LeMay? American Middle East policy has been a neocon-led disaster from the get-go. Maybe too many subscribers of the ideology had their fingers in the economic pie, a la oil, high-tech, educational and other industries. And, let's remember what this "post-9/11 world" is, Vic - a nation, with world-wide support in snuffing out a terrorist organization responsible for attacking it decides to invade a nation for other interests that had been clearly stated prior to the most current regime's tenure but wrapped in the rouse of the initial attacks. Not only do the claims the nation uses to illegally invade the nation fall to pieces but the war falls apart. The nation, in order to save political face, draws resources away from the originally-intended target that was the source of the terrorist attack, enabling and allowing the terrorist organization to not only regroup but expand. THAT's the post-9/11 world we live in, you fool.

"Jimmy Carter now writes books damning our present policies. He should keep quiet. "

Yes, but about the Palestinian question, you idiot. Stick to your Herodotus, I'll stick to my Bruce and let's agree to stop claiming expertise in modern world affairs.

I do appreciate Hanson's inclusion of Ronald Reagan's involvment in Lebanon, which, by most accounts, was simply carried out in order to make the United States' presence stronger to defend Israel and not "stop terrorism" for terrorism's sake. However, Hanson signals Reagan's policy failures by mentioning Iran-Contra - so let's stop. We're not even mentioning the ends in this debate, we're simply looking at the means, aren't we? Maybe I should teach speech and debate. Or not.

What I don't understand is Hanson's attacking of James Baker and Bush I. Maybe because to the neocon ideology, Baker became a turncoat, but then Hanson directs his anger at the Saud family for not removing the "murderous Hussein regime"...First, when was American foreign policy focussed on removing the "bad guys" and secondly, why didn't the United States do it when it had 550,000 soldiers in Kuwait itself?

The rest of Hanson's disingenuous article rags on Clinton for not taking Osama bin Ladin when Sudan was just willing to hand him over, though he does fail to mention that Reagan was supplying the same man with weapons in the 1980s all in the name of "freedom fighting", so I'm not quite sure just where Hanson sees bin Ladin's role here. To say that Clinton was complicit in al Qaeda's "serial terrorist attacks" is ridiculous, considering the United States government took and brought action against the first WTC attacks and that George Bush was selected president just forty days after the Cole incident. What I also remember, which Hanson so conveniently forgets, is that Clinton (not to defend the dude) was also hamstrung by a Republican-led Congress that believed that extra-marital sex is the most egregious form of behavior and which pilloried him for taking action in Sudan against Osama bin Ladin, claiming that Clinton initiated bombing raids simply as a measure to distract the American public from his impeachment?

So, before we all get out of control about the Bush War by lumping into thirty years of previous foreign policy, let us step back and reassess our history: who has dominated U.S. foreign policy? Who stood to gain the most by U.S. actions as such? What were abject failures of policy and what were simple fights in execution or action? Does Bush's policies fail because he happens to be a president like the other guys? Nice logic, Vic. Bush being Bush, we can assess his policies totally independent from other presidents while also placing the failied Bush War in with other disastrous foreign policy actions by the United States in attempting to conclude one simple question: why did this country seemingly get it wrong the entire time?

Eating One's Own

I tread lightly here as I know I'm picking a fight (albeit a one-sided one) with someone of great academic standing. This person also has connections to a place and people very dear to me; Fresno State's graduate program in history. However, I'm sick and tired of reading this man's op-ed pieces not because I disagree with them but because they're just stupid. The opinions, like anyone's of this ademician, are probably shot out quickly without much review or real thought put into them. Scary, especially that when one with an op-ed column hits 'enter', those thoughts are permanent. The man I'm talking about is Stanford classics professor (and adjunct prof at CSUF), Victor Davis Hanson.
When I went through the graduate program eleven years ago, Hanson's classical history course was the one that I opted not to take in return for an architectural history course. I loved the class I took but did regret not taking Hanson's course. My classmates loved it. I remember reading about this farmer-academic who wrote about his family's connections to the Valley, farming, the region's history and some odd bond that made him more in tune with the Romans and Greeks simply because it was frigging hot where they made wine and raised livestock.

Let's just get to the rant here: Last week, Hanson wrote a piece decrying "liberals" (in that bad connotation) and their whining that talk radio is slanted to the extreme right of the political spectrum. Statistically, roughly ninety percent of political talk on the radio (both AM and FM) lean right. Is this a big issue? I don't care here. Should the airwaves present a more politically-balanced amount of political banter on the airwaves? Probably. Why? Here's why: the airwaves are not that like television or print media outlets; the web is a different animal altogether. The government initially established the airwaves in the early 1920s as property of the public. Monopolies nor anything close could dominate the invisibility above the United States. While the next nine decades brought changes to those airwaves, radio is still a bastion of protection separate than other outlets for political perspective.
Where does Hanson's arguments go off the rails? Where to begin? First, he mocks liberals for simply losing a game that he claims they win in other media outlets (t.v., cable). Secondly, Hanson believes that political talk is simply another form of entertainment, like music or porn or anything else delivered across the airwaves. He then says that most entertainment with political value is liberal, a la the Daily Show. Hanson goes on to say that liberals have NPR and PBS. Last time I checked, weren't investigations carried out after Ken Tomlinson, a Bush appointee, was found to deliberately attempting to slant both media vehicles to the right in order to deliver conservative viewpoints. Tomlinson was also found guilty of attempting to bleed PBS and NPR dry financially in order to limit the impact of these outlets. Also, where does Hanson think that radio should remain fair game to the attention marketplace because "CBS, NBC and ABC are liberal bastions"? Does he offer proof to support this widely believed but evidentially weak urban legend? Yes; he continues to rail that "motion pictures and documentaries" also espouse liberal points of view. Yes, because I throw down my hard-earned $9.50 to see Ratatouille in order to indoctrinate myself of the belief that a nation's economy dominates the world when its people work forty percent of their waking time. Didn't you vote for John Kerry because of your penchant for Will Ferrell movies? Hanson's main argument is that the majority of voices nationwide are liberal and therefore liberals simply want to control the citizenry's thoughts and every actions. He even uses cliches as "Orwellian" though out of context and "liberal media" like the clause it tautological. "Should we demand [then] that Republicans match Democratic numbers on college faculties?" Yes, because the majority of the number of people with doctorates still equal less than two percent of the overal national population means therefore right-wing demagogues have the right to try to balance this by nearly controlling the nation's airwaves (again, something that still, in theory, is owned by the nation's populace). Is Hanson simply bitter that "liberals" can't have it all? Or that politically liberal voices might raise greater stinks about the last six years? Or that he's such the freemarketer that government regulation is simply yet another intrusion into the lives of the people (in the same vein as George Will, who believes that campaign finance reform equals the raping First Amendment free speech) though the point of the government regulating the public airwaves is to protect our 14th Amendment rights to due process. Hanson's arguments are weakly linked, poorly argued and couched in the verbage of conservatives that comes across as smug and pedantic all the while making anyone who questions his arguments as either ignorant or unpatriotic. I agree with him, I'm simply brilliant for understanding American history and western culture. I disagree with him, I'm the bleeding heart totalitarian fascist who obviously has been brainwashed by the very media I'd like to see not dominated by corporate interests.

Ultimately, what does this say about Hanson's scholarship? I have no proof that his academic work is shoddy or weak. However, if one flaunts oneself as an expert of all things (like I do since I get to print my thoughts in ways to make myself look smugly brilliant - see, I'm ruining by rant by being ironically ironical), one had better get his logic together. Faulty thinking is scary, especially when one sits on CATO, at a Stanford history chair or in any position of influence where one wags his or her credentials and intellectual prowess as flimisly as V.D. Hanson has in his last several op-ed pieces. Just wait until the next one - it's arguments will be so thin you'll be able to see through the newspaper.

Sidebar - I recently picked up a couple of country albums and right now they're all I'm listening to (other than this huge Beatles kick I've been on): Ryan Adams' "Easy Tiger" and a (believe this one) Waylon Jennings album from 1973. The Ryan Adams album's great though not perfect. I'm not sure he's ever banged out a perfect record even though "Gold" will always be his sprawling and sloppy Exile. Some of the record goes acoustic-folk and there's one insipid rocker there but the country tunes like the first three of the record are among the best of Adams' repetoire. Lyrically strong, musicially tight and as vital and relevant than anything else out there. I always hesitate buying a Ryan Adams record because I'm always afraid of everyone else suddenly buying him up like they've loved him for years but I'm perplexed about him. Why isn't he more popular and yet how come a lot of music rags find him to be the savior of modern music?
The Waylon Jennings record is incredible. I can't quote the source right now but in Eric Alterman's book on Springsteen, there's a quote that states that country music is music adults listen to the morning after. This album is full of that adult music; while it rocks and grooves like any good "rock" music, Waylon's record makes one genuflect, reminisce, mourn and pine all in ten short songs. I need to find more of this classic 60s/70s country music. Truly classic.

A Failure To Communicate

Last night, Senate Democrats attempted to force a dialogue on the floor regarding the debacle in Iraq. The vote broke down 52-47, a failure for those who see that the war has failed and a new change of course must occur. What I wonder is just whether and how the fate of this war of choice will pan out. Studies, news updates, candid on-the-record statements and statistical evidence shows that this has been the biggest foreign policy disaster of this generation. Regardless of reality, the Bush Administration and supportive Republicans seek to plow forward, believing that 'staying the course' will create a "new Iraq", one that brings democracy to the region, stability to the Middle East and ultimately greater profits for oil companies. Just is it that every Democrat, a growing number of Republicans (on- and off-the record), more than 70% of the country and myself are all wrong? How is that retired generals with expertise in the region are calling the Bush War a failure? Why is Colin Powell increasingly making his opinions public that Bush is wrong? How can the government of Iraq state that U.S. troops are no longer needed? Why are we all wrong? How is it that the government of this country can not move the Bush War even into the public dialogue? I thought the Senate floor was for debate and discussion of the issues that press American society; we haven't seen this since the Gag Rule regaring slavery, yet another foreign policy disaster that rocked the nation to its foundations.

On a related note, I believe, I received the textbook for my American Government and Politics course that I'll be teaching. A completely original title, "American Government", is written by James Q. Wilson and John DiIulio, Jr. Interesting, considering both gentlemen have been in the news since the 2000 election. After googling both professors, whose academic credentials are sterling, I found that both have right-wing leanings. Not that I must assign books with my exact philosophies or perspectives, nor do right-wing people lack the ability to write non-biased textbooks. However, seeing that Wilson sat on the Rand Corporation and received the Medal of Freedom from W. in 2003 and seeing that DiIulio worked on Bush's Faith-based Initiatives programs in 2001 makes me wonder just whether or not the foundation of the presentation of facts and analsyis. As I need to read the textbook by next week (a nice way of being treated by the publisher), I'll be scouring the book to see whether I'll be happy with this. Not that I'm an expert in anything nor do I have the power to change the text even if I want, I guess I must accept the fact that the world contains people that hold different beliefs and perspectives that I do and that I must also accept the fact that I'm wrong on most things. We'll see how this whole class goes; I have great trepidation that I won't deliver as well as I'd like. That will probably be the case but as long as the experience ends up positive, I'll call this semester a success. I wonder how much writing to assign. Do I want to be grading so much? How do I prepare the students for the test enough that they'll pass with flying colors but "not enough" that I will end up shedding a pint of blood on my classroom floor? We'll see...

What will happen with Iraq? What will happen with our national government's inability to function in its Constitutionally-assigned role?

Summer's Here

And the time is right for dancing in the streets. I haven't had a whole heck of a lot of spending money nor time, but I have been able to pick up some great music in the last month. I've also had the chance to revisit some dusty goodies as well, something I always try to do each summer while not working.
What I have picked up has been wonderful. I would recommend everything to anyone who remotely shares my tastes in music. Since my readership is about two people strong and we all know each other's tastes, anyway, I'm talking to you! What I've picked up:

Traveling Wilburys box. While the two "radio-friendly" singles from Volume I are the best songs ("Handle With Care", "End of the Line"), both records are wonderful, well-produced and written. Masters of songcraft and performance, the Wilburys execute twice what most bands struggle to do once: make solid songs. This isn't the lost masterpiece like "Smile" or "The Ties That Bind" but these songs flowly effortlessly and consistently. Orbison, Petty, Lynne, Harrison and Dylan: in the mid-80s, no one was breaking new ground, but they were all holding steady. Jeff Lynne's production is surely evident; since he always wanted to be in the Beatles, what he could do here is simply make the band sound like they were as closely related as possible. With that, the vocal harmonies soar, the guitar parts are distinguishable, the drums are miked perfectly and the clutter that hurts so many songs is simply not present. One can trace Lynne's handiwork over the next decade: Petty's "Full Moon Fever" (this one a classic) and the Beatles' Anthology series, both which I'll hit later.

Sonny Rollins - Newk's Time. This session from fall, 1957, is a solidly-cut if forgettable record. I love Sonny. No one, regardless of instrument, is or was as hot as Sonny in the late '50s and early '60s when he was on his game. However, this record has the nasty misfortune of falling around the same time as masterpieces that simply get more recognition: Tenor Madness, Way Out West, The Bridge, Freedom Suite, and of course, Saxophone Colossus. That being said, buy this record, throw it on and turn it up for modern jazz lacks everything found on this record: playful solos, a driving yet concise rhythm section and the members' abilities to wrap up their statements in under six minutes per song. "Newk's Time" won't be Sonny's best but it just may be his most consistent.

Tom Petty - Anthology. I must admit, I've never been one for greatest hits collections. I guess it's part of being a history major but if one delves into an artist, get your hands dirty and discover the warts an' all as you discover as much as possible about a topic of interest. On top of that, I must say that I've always been a 'casual' Petty fan. I caught him a couple of years ago (albeit simply because he was the headliner for the best 'opening' band ever in 8/05) and his performance was simply good. That all said, Tom Petty's music is deceptively difficult, catchy as hell and always, always good, polished rock and roll. I think it took being in a working band to really come to love Tom Petty's work; you sit down and bang out all of those three-minute rocking classic tunes like he did. Trouble is, you can't. Even some of rock and roll's greatest artists can't. Yes? Floyd? While Tom Petty's music isn't the social statement or instrumental genius of his era, The Heartbreakers sit in the pantheon of bands that DELIVER. This, with the fact that I can't go dump a Benjamin on his catalogue, I figured I'd start with this inexpensive two discer (yup, this is my first Petty cd!). You name it, it's here. What this collection simply has done is assemble everything someone probably would assemble if still using Napster. From "American Girl" to "Mary Jane's Last Dance", there really isn't a bummer cut in this whole collection, except for maybe one from his first record. Just as ugly as Neil Young with a voice rivaling Dylan's in nasal-twang (remember that SNL skit with Adam Sandler and David Spade?), Tom Petty is a true rock and roll warhorse. I dare you to put this one on just for a couple of tunes. Can't. Plus, this beats having to listen to the radio for an entire day to hear a couple of his tunes and say, "man, I need to buy some Tom Petty".

Now, the two sleeper records of the summer, both worth picking up immediately upon reading this. The first is Ian Hunter's Shrunken Heads. The former Mott the Hoople leader, this record sounds like Willy Nelson's rocking cousin. Here's a guy who's sixty-eight years old who isn't trying to sound young, isn't trying to impress anyone and isn't trying to sound like he is what he used to be (sorry, Macca, but there isn't enough Starbucks coffee in the world to make me think your latest sits next to Abbey Road). Described as "Dylan backed by Exile-era Stones", Ian Hunter's record catches you completely off-guard - who the heck at this age still has anything to say, especially with this much energy? Well, the answer comes in this record. No ephiphanies, but you do hear a man who's looking back without being weepy. However, this record isn't the slightest bit derivitive of anything or anyone. One would fail to hear even the slightest bit of Mott in this one. Great rootsy rock and roll. This would be great to hear in a bar. If Hunter was playing (or anyone sounding like him) at my local bar with tunes like these, I'd be there singing along every night. This record just may be the score of the year.

That's because this next one was released last year: Willie Nile's "Streets of New York". I discovered this artist in Backstreets magazine but I didn't buy it for my Bruce jones or because of my fetish with NYC. In fact, I didn't want to buy it simply because it would be like playing the Six Degrees game even though this one person was the Pluto to the major star's Sun. Being able to sample it at the new-and-improved Rasputin's in Concord (taking over Tower's remains), this one immediately blew me away. I really wanted to call you, Chris Brown, on this one, because so much of it reminds me of your love of indie- and early-80s based alt/punk/new wave stuff. Elvis Costello/The Clash rock sensibility with the singer/songwriter sound of aTom Waits or Billy Joel ( minus the immense piano-playing ability). I don't necessarily get the sense that I'm in New York listening to this album, though the dropping of geographical locations does help paint a great mental picture in many of the cuts. This doesn't need to be a "New York" album like, say, Lou Reed's album from the '80s. There are great rockers, introspective ballads, drunken sing-alongs. This will seems to play well across the seasons, unlike so much rock and roll that I can't listen to based on the weather, the climate or my phyisical location. Jack Johnson doesn't cut it being inside all day; Jimmy Buffett only out by the pool with a Crown and Coke or three. While Willie Nile may only be a regional hit, this one's the club barn-burner to Hunter's bar buster. I need to find more of this guy. Caveat: Lucinda Williams raves about him (plus) but a lot of Springsteen fans follow him simply because he's been given props by the Boss. "Streets of New York" may just beat out "Shrunken Heads" as my favorite find of the year.

On a more basic note: Bruce looks to be hitting the Bay Area in October; I can only pray for two dates during my fall break. His new album continues to make me smile. Can anyone tell me if the new Rolling Stones catalogue (new within the last three or so years of recent remasters) has non-SACD versions? I found out the hard way that my new system can't play SACD. Imagine wanting to hear "Salt of the Earth" from Beggar's Banquet and being denied? Travesty. Finally, my oldest son's taken to the Beatles!!! I can't imagine how or why! ;) I have the Anthology DVDs which I always play only in July (don't ask why). I figured that one of them would keep him quiet while I was preparing dinner, so I threw on the most "kid friendly": 1969-1970. The colorful costumes, sing-songy choruses and day-glo colors did keep him entertained. I wasn't prepared for what has happened this last week: my son emphatically telling us the names of each Beatle when seeing their images on the screen; requesting to watch the Yellow Submarine segment, and not just the cartoony parts, and singing the songs, even without the music playing ("Koo koo kajoob" at breakfast this morning, no kidding). "All Together Now", "Hello Goodbye", "I Am the Walrus". I haven't seen my son this jazzed about songs like this since the "Owl Song" (points for anyone to guess this classic Stones song). I just love my son's ability to hold a tune and quote lyrics throughout the day, often without music playing. I guess he just knows what good music is. This is maybe God's way of proving that not all is lost about the world. :)

I'm not sure whether I'll be able to post later this week as I need to prepare for a new class I'm teaching: AP American Government and Politics. I'm thinking that the first year will simply be doable until further training helps me make it a great class. Material's not tough; it's just not as familiar to me as history. With that, Lefty, I want to wish you a happy and healthy "GREAT 36th" as you experience some spiritual peace at Vernal Falls or wherever you may roam this weekend. Celebrate knowing you're well-loved and missed by people strewn all over God's earth. Didja hear about the Phil show that night!?!?!!?!? :)

Sorry, but for some reason, I'm not allowing to enter a title here! Anyway, this is "More of Moore". Lefty's blog from a couple of days ago along with quite a bit of press has got me thinking of Michael Moore's "Sicko" film released a couple of weeks ago. What Moore has done has torn back the veil on the health care debacle that the nation faces and yet I'm still not convinced of his arguments. Moore is, by definition, a film maker, not a documentarian. He stars in his own movies and sees to it that issues aren't discussed but that HIS beliefs on issues are propagated in the films. Truly, it's political theater and that's it. I caught Bowling For Columbine but figured that Farenheit 911 would be the same thing with slightly different content. From a logic perspective, Moore takes great liberty with argumentation and logical consistency. Moore would be a pill on any debate or legal team; his points just look good because he's got the camera to manipulate people's emotional state while delivering his points of view. With that, Moore is still vital in the sense that he's doing the one thing that no one else chooses to do - force the public to dialogue on issues that normally they wish not to on a national level. Moore's current topic, national health care, is yet another windmill that the film maker chases but IS an elephant in the room. Baby boomers, who seem to be worried about their diabetes and limp penises and medicating their children into feeling happy, will, in fifteen to twenty years, panic when their premiums are so hight that they won't be able to afford to play golf or the mortgages on their second homes. Our generation, the one that consists of the fastest-shrinking middle class in history, will struggle just to keep our children healthy. In thirty years, my generation will struggle over food on the table, groceries or medicine for our children. Pharmaceutical companies will make drugs just affordable enough for the wealthy to afford anything but the working- and middle classes to make a Sophie's choice - something no one will want to do, which means that most will not.
One thing that continues to flub up arguments for Moore and other proponents of health care reform is the statistical evidence of the nation's health. Life expectancy, insurance coverage rates and other affordability factors all omit one thing: how we treat ourselves. How can this nation's people be compared to Norwegians' health? Does any other nation consume as much soda, raw sugar or fast food? Does any other nation have such a high rate of commuters who spend hours a day in automobiles? Does any other nation have as many people living in suburban areas who find walking abhorrent or contrary to their lifestyles? How much are we to blame for our own health? Should we be angry when medical insurers do not cover lifestyle choice consequences as coverable? I don't exercise, eat terribly and sit and watch five hours of television every day; an insurer should make sure that I don't end up with the consequences of my actions? Tough call, I know, especially when life's choices are so very hard to make. I hate being a cynic but I wonder just how we can afford to abuse ourselves so badly without facing the end results.

Last, I wanted to clarify something I may have made unclear: thanks for the comment on the issue of illegal immigration. The term "illegal immigrant" is one that is accurate and fair to use. What I object to is the term "illegal" to describe someone. Watch Fox News; its correspondants continually refer to "illegal immigrants" as "illegals". It's pejorative and offensive.

Dora?!?!?!

I made a comment yesterday regarding Dora the Explorer's status in the United States and received two poignant comments. Before continuing, I must say that I've never viewed an entire episode of Dora since I don't have cable. My brother's children love the show and others do, too. I've heard nothing but positive about the characters and the lessons they teach. Now, for the questions - does the show discuss the children's status? Are the kids' parents paying off a coyote or was the second comment a humorous one? I'm asking, maybe because I'm an idiot but because Dora's status is the third rail of American politics this year. Both the right and the left are pressing immigration and the borders as 'the' issue to settle. Over health care, the rising standard of living, the increasing gap between the very wealthy and the rest of the nation, the status and reasoning for invading Iraq (which was made public by the U.S.' strongest ally, Australia, in which a minister said those three famous letters), education or the crushing national debt. I believe that we're only addressing immigration now because the flames of another terrorist attack have been fanned by people both here and abroad. Are we terrified of another attack or from people coming to mow our lawns? Pointed humor aside, illegal immigration is an elephant in the room. Decisions do need to be made and many of them must be unpopular to large minorities if serious progress is to be made. Some of the issues and ideas are:

Building a wall. Like Berlin or Korea. China? The first two walls worked, only because they were designed to keep the people in. The third apparently failed in trying to keep others out.

Deportation. Is this actually feasible and/or worth it to taxpayers?

Jobs. I believe it's a rouse on the right that illegal aliens steal jobs from American citizens. As I've said before, I've never seen a line of unemployed whites lining up in the fields to take the farm labor positions that are filled every single harvest season. Another argument is that blacks are denied jobs taken by illegal aliens. Is this true? I'm not sure but firstly, where illegal immigration is greatest, black populations are relatively small - California's Central Valley, for example. Texas. Rural areas dependent on agriculture. This isn't the 1910s and we're not talking sharecropping here.

The label "illegals". I've always believed that there's no such thing as an "illegal" person and I personally find the term "illegals" offensive. Are these people breaking the law? Yes. Does that mean we change the name of people who always speed? Cheat? Lie? Sit in theL White House? And as for calling illegal aliens "unAmerican", let's review our geography and ask ourselves "on which continent is Mexico, the United States and Canada located?"

Fines and/or fees. The approximately twelve million people here illegally do need to face some sort of legal consequence. However, should this consequence be a punishment?

Tax drains. Many claim that illegal aliens drain the economy. True, but they also contribute to the economy in ways we don't want to accept. Those that work pay into Social Security and can not claim it. I want to know the rough estimate of unpaid taxes by American employers and businesses who hire illegal aliens. Let's not just punish the employee, here.

The unraveling of the social fabric. Does illegal immigration enrich or threaten our views of cultural diversity? Ethnic variance? What is "American culture" and what threats does illegal immigration pose?

Curious to hear others' thoughts as my mind is truly not made up on this topic.

In the Course Of Human Events

It's never been more necessary and proper to overthrow the form of government that has shown blatant and flagrant disregard for the rule of law, historical tradition and the trappings of the Constitution that limit the powers of the government and its officials to preserve, protect and defend at all times. In the last three weeks alone, the Bush Administration has

commuted the sentence of convicted felon Scooter Libby in what appears to be at least a case of cronyism (not even Nixon pulled this maneuvre in '73)

defied a Congressional subpoena demanding documents that are owed to the public record regarding the Alberto Gonzales scandal and the politicization of the DOJ

placed the office of the Vice President in its own branch of government, neither in the executive nor the legislative branches, in order, at any time, to keep Dick Cheney from any legal or constitutional accountability

continued to publicly lie about its actions and moral integrity regarding Washington politics, its role in the nation's government and its goals in protecting the American people (why Karl Rove is still working for the president when he's been clearly implicated in the DOJ scandal simply proves that the president is not a man of his word)

The only thing missing in all of this is the moral outrage of an informed citizenry. This train of abuses will simply continue, however, as long as the majority of the people fail to see how the Bush Adminstration has run roughshod over every principle this nation stands for. I, for one, demand immediate peaceful regime change and would like to see the process expedited.


I've been busy the last three weeks with the demand of parenting. My growing brood is definitely challenging but I believe our family has finally found its niche and routine in meeting the needs of the children. They're wonderful and these last three weeks have been great. Now, if my oldest can just complete potty training before summer ends! My brother and his family were in town last weekend and I enjoyed seeing their children and all of the kids playing together. The time in the mountains was the highlight of the summer.

Two weeks ago, I decided on a lark to catch Roger Waters at the Oakland Coliseum. I scored a ticket for half price and caught one of the most enjoyable concerts I've seen in a long time. Waters is truly the missing element of any Pink Floyd experience and anyone who caught the band in its mid-90s version knows that much was missing. The setlist was fantastic, with songs from the late 60s through the mid 80s, a sampling of his solo material and Dark Side of the Moon in its entirety. While I much would have heard something else, it was great to see one of the most influential rock musicians on my life perform at the top of his game.

"She's an illegal immigrant and she doesn't speak English. She's a bad example for this country". This I heard yesterday in Target from a mother explaining to her three year old daughter why she would not buy her an article of clothing with, of all people, Dora the Explorer. I just wish I run into this woman in church sometime soon. I helped score her memberships to the Minutemen, the NRA and the KKK. The biggest problem is explaining to this woman that no one's going to come mow her lawn or wash the dishes at the restaurant she frequents. I nearly vomited after hearing this woman spew such ignorance and hate into her daughter's head. Another Republican in the making...

Brentwood lost a son last month when Sgt. Stephen Wilson was killed near Faluja, Iraq. A funeral with military honors and a reception was provided last week and my father served in his official duties to his utmost. The city was proud to have him recognize this young man's sacrifice and duty to country all the while mourning a loss that can not be replaced.


DeLillo Rising - I highly recommend Falling Man, Don DeLillo's most recent book about the effect of 9/11 on a fictional group of Manhattanites, their grief and the unimaginable pain and emptiness in the lives of those people that was simply revealed by the tragic events of that Tuesday morning. An amazing novel, as DeLillo never puts the story at "ground zero" at the time of destruction. He gives us events leading up to and following the attacks and weaves a tale so intense that one can't help find being teleported back to the horror of six years ago. The greatest artistic statement about 9/11.

I've been pinching my pennies this summer and not buying a whole lot of music. While I purchased Wilco's Sky Blue Sky and have been enjoying that one immensely, I am ready to make another couple of finds in the next day or two. The Traveling Wilburys will be picked up even though it may not be a masterpiece. Just two hours of rollicking, good, fun rock and roll. I need need NEED a remastered and expanded copy of The Band's eponymous second album. I've been repeatedly playing this one all summer. Also, Ian Hunter's latest album is an absolute score. I have a feeling this one will end up on several Top 10 lists of the year. What's most amazing is that Hunter, of Mott fame, is 68 and is at the top of his game.

I know this post is a bit scattershot, but I've had ideas I've wanted to just get out of my head these last three weeks. Maybe I'll be able to organize my next post a bit better. I've been watching a load of films this summer so maybe I'll discuss my cinematic explorations. Until then, say goodbye, it's Independence Day.