beterwas
honestly misbehaving
Archive for January, 2007
January 29, 2007 at 3:48 pm · Filed under Finish Ahead
Earlier, I wrote on the importance of being excellent at what you do. But not only should you embrace your occupation, you should embrace your employer as well.
We went to the movies, recently (saw Arthur & the Invisibles) and were surprised by a change in the matinee policy: Instead of showings before 6:00, now matinee pricing ends at 4:00.
I – not aggressively, but with my full price ticket for the 4:05 showing in hand – asked a manager about the change. He hemmed and hawed about how it was corporate change and everybody’s doing it, blah, blah, etc.
Then he said “I wish there was something I could do about it, but they won’t let me.”
On another recent occassion, I was surprised to see an image of Aussie hair products on an animal cruelty display. We’ve used their products for years, and I remembered seeing on their label that they do not engage in any sort of animal testing.
So I looked again, and this time, saw no such claim. I called the 1-800-947-2656 number labeled “Questions?” and asked about the ommission.
The helpful woman said that, yes, I was correct that it did say that at one time. However, since they were purchased by Proctor & Gamble, they could no longer make that claim.
She went on to downplay P&G’s policies on animal testing, and how much of it is FDA-mandated, etc. She wanted to be sure I realized, though, that “while they continue to phase out animal testing as much as they possibly can, we don’t use any animal testing in the Aussie product line.”
Each time, it was the “they” that struck me. They, as in ’someone not me.’
When you feel yourself wanting to to say “they,” rather than “we,” decided to change some policy, ask yourself why.
That’s not really fair to your boss, is it?
If you truly feel the need to distance yourself from the people you work for, perhaps you need to truly distance yourself – physically, as well as philosophically.
January 28, 2007 at 9:19 pm · Filed under Confound Authority, Raise The Debate
I came across this on the United for Peace & Justice website.
According to the marketing copy, it “asks a provocative question to those who want the U.S. to leave Iraq but haven’t yet translated their opposition into action. Wearing it is a great way to spark conversations about peace.”
Generally speaking, I like the idea. But that may be because I’m really interested in the answer.
UFPJ’s official position is much like the shirt they sell – it’s provocative and a real conversation starter, but what is it doing to end the war?
“Bring the U.S. Troops home now” is item number one – and is the entirety of item number one.
How does UFPJ suppose that happens, exactly?
Make no mistake, I am thoroughly opposed to the war in Iraq, but saying “Iraqi sovereignty must be reestablished immediately” doesn’t make it that easy.
Not to seem too hard on UFPJ – they are a wonderful organization, after all – the Democrat leadership doesn’t fare much better when it comes to answering the question of “how?”
So I propose that there is something you can do to end the war: Figure out how. Tell someone.
Any ideas?
January 24, 2007 at 11:40 am · Filed under Raise The Debate, Call Bullshit
There are lots (and lots) of postings out there today commenting on last night’s State of the Union address, so I’ll limit my take to this:
726 days to go.
Here are some other comments:
Even everyone’s favorite neocon cheerleader, Michelle Malkin, had trouble writing anything positive in response. Mostly, she just made fun of Speaker Pelosi. Read more, if you must.
Again, all you need to know: 726 days to go.
January 11, 2007 at 12:13 pm · Filed under Raise The Debate, Call Bullshit
Last night, I liveblogged the President’s speech on the “New Way Forward” in Iraq. I thought it would be fun to play Wonkette’s Surge Speech Drinking Game at the same time, in an effort to lighten the moment a bit.
Also, it was better to put a beer bottle in my mouth than a gun.
Having reviewed the speech more closely, and listened to some of the reactions, I have to say that I have an overwhelming feeling of compassion for President Bush. The look on his face was one of a man who suddenly realizes what he’s done - like the teenager that steals a stop sign for kicks, and causes a fatal car crash.
His face and body language spoke of a man that knew he couldn’t fix what he had broken, despite his verbal assertions that something good could come of all of this, sounding like that same teenager reading the requisite apology letter to the crash victim’s families.
I feel sorry for him, and for the anguish he must be experiencing – even though he did bring it on himself. He took control of a nation with a strong economy, a balanced budget and high international esteem; and he ruined all of it through his narrow vision and avarice.
September 11th changed everything, we’re told (and told, and told); but I maintain that it might not have happened, had someone else been in the White House – or at least not happened in the same way. But it did happen, and instead of embracing the national unity and international goodwill, he saw an opening for his singular, petty goals and he took it. And, like every other udertaking in his life, he blew it. It was the international equivalent of trading Sammy Sosa.
Last night, it was clear that he knew it. There was no more denying it. There was no more taking comfort in the fact that his friends had made out well. There was no delusion that history would prove him a visionary.
All that’s left to do now is to try and stem the tide of death and destruction, and that apparently requires more death and destruction.
January 10, 2007 at 10:03 pm · Filed under Call Bullshit
I’m playing Wonkette’s Surge Speech Drinking Game while I do this, so if things get punchy near the end…
Leading with the “blowing up the golden mosque changed everything ” defense: “Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.” Up until then, we were winning. Really.
The mistakes that were made were made by him, but he doesn’t say what those mistakes are. “Tthe responsibility rests with me.” Except for the parts that are fault of Iran, Syria, Al-Qaeda, the insurgents and the New York Times.
Many people he spoke with had an informed opinion on what to do. “And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.” I guess he finally gets it. But does he plan to listen to those opinions?
And here’s the 9/11 tie-in: “On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.”
(Grabbing another beer)
And now, here’s the “war in Iraq is really just in Baghdad” message: “80% of Iraq’s sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital.” And it’s up to the Iraqis to fix this mess.
The mistake was that there “weren’t enough Iraqi and American troops” and that our troops were too restricted. Imagine what Lynndie England could have done if she hadn’t been so short-leashed?
In Baghdad, the Iraqis need 18 army and police brigades for “conducting patrols, setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.” 18 brigades?! That’s something like 30,000 soldiers, plus mechs and artillery.
Here it comes: Commiting more than 20,000 more troops to Iraq. They’ll work along side of the 10,000 US and Iraqi troops in Baghdad (how many Iraqi troops are there? Twenty-three?).
(I need another beer)
Before, insurgents hung out at the 7-11 until the troops left their neighborhood. This time, troops will house-sit until they return.
“In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence.” This time, we’re sending in denizens of downtown Baltimore – we have to get those troops from somewhere, dont’cha know - to set up “corners” in those neighborhoods.
Our commitment to Iraq is not open-ended. “If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people.” Um,…guess what?…
It’s going to be messy, and making sure we see how messy it actually becomes is all part of the insurgent/mainstream media coalition strategy. “Most of Iraq’s Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace…” Except for the Sunni and the Shia. “…and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.” Except that they are the violence in Baghdad.
(Another beer already?)
We need to roll out more $10 billion, no-bid contracts; but this time Iraq is footing the bill – from, you guessed it, oil revenue – and Condi Rice is going to be personally in charge of making sure Halliburton gets their piece of the action.
(I’m almost out of beer)
We’re going to “build a grand army” for the Iraqi people. Oh wait, that’s Palpatine. Too many beers, sorry.
Al-Qaeda’s new home base in Iraq – for real, this time. And they are gunning for Iraq’s new government. “This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq’s democracy, building a radical Islamic empire and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.” Talk about your self-fulfilling prophecies.
And since we have all of these troops there, it’s time to address Iran and Syria (gulp). It’s time for Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and others to step up.
We have to stay and Iraq and sacrifice more Americans to make the sacrifices made by dead Americans mean something.
“Millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence,” so we need to stay there and fight? Is he playing the drinking game, too?
Victory will not look the ones our fathers and grandfathers received. You know, like actual victories.
(Now, I’m out of beer)
“Our new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq.”
“Acting on the good advice of Sen. Joe Lieberman…” He used the “L” word! Lieberman is Congress, after all. We need a bigger army. We also need more civilians, “where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.” Any takers?
“These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary — and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time.” Where have we heard this before?
“Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve…Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.”
I do believe in fairies! I do! I do!
“Now back to Deal or No Deal, already in progress…”
January 10, 2007 at 6:58 pm · Filed under Live & Let Live
From Kristian Hvesser:
The continuation of Nazanin’s re-trial took place today. It was delayed from 10:30AM to 12:30PM, in part due to the fact that so many people showed up in support of Nazanin’s campaign. They were required to move court rooms. The international committee against execution says that normally in a case like this, 10-15 people show up. But today, 200-300 came to support Nazanin and there were many news reporters present. Nazanin’s two defense attorneys proceeded with their defense.
After much discussions, the four judges unanimously determined that the lower court decision in January of 2006 was wrong and Nazanin killing the would-be rapist was not intentional. The defense attorneys are hopeful that the final decision on the fate of Nazanin will be announced in the next few days.
This is a very large step forward for Nazanin, and it brings great hope that she will avoid a new death sentence. Maybe she can even be free! This would not have happened without support from people all around the world, so thank you to all of you! But please don’t rest yet. Until Nazanin walks out of the prison gate, she will continue to need our support.
This is very promising, for lots of reasons. First and foremost, it’s fantastic news for Nazanin. There’s no way her life will go back to normal, but it appears that it will go on.
The bigger picture, though, is that Iranian justice is subject to its people – and those people have power. Our government goes to great lengths to portray Iran as a barbaric, medieval society and, as most Iranians will tell you, that simply isn’t the case.
In fact, the Iranian government and its policies don’t seem to reflect the values of the Iranian people any more than the Bush administration’s policies reflect American attitudes. Certainly, Iran is not without its problems – and the same can be said for the United States – but the Iranian legal system has demonstrated that it is not without hope, either.
January 5, 2007 at 5:33 pm · Filed under Live & Let Live
One of my MySpace friends, Nazanin Afshin-Jam, brought to my attention the plight of her namesake, Nazanin Mahabad Fatehi .
On January 3, 2006, 18-year-old Fatehi was sentenced to death for murder by a court in Iran after she fatally stabbed one of three men who attempted to rape her and her 16-year-old niece, in a park in Karaj (a suburb of Tehran), in March 2005.
Nazanin Afshin-Jam has released a documentary titled The Tale of Two Nazanins. It features Fatehi’s family in Iran and an emotional phone conversation with her from prison. It’s heartbreaking to watch.
Fatehi’s re-trial is set for January 10th.
Please visit www.helpnazanin.com, sign the petition, view the documentary and spread the word.
If you have and broadcast media connections, ask them to view the documentary. If they are interested in broadcasting it, or a portion of it, a television broadcast quality tape is available and can be sent to them. Contact Nazanin, or email me.
Please do what you can to help this poor girl.
January 3, 2007 at 8:54 pm · Filed under Confound Authority
In a WSJ op-ed article, President Bush waxed eloquent about how the 110th Congress could/should best serve Americans in a piece titled What Congress Can Do For America.
Basically, he calls on them to support his list of “greatest hits” agenda items. You know, all those things he couldn’t get passed when the Republicans were in control.
Such old favorites like making tax cuts permanent, Social Security reform, and the line-item veto get the remix treatment: Permanent tax cuts are presented as a means to balancing the budget, Social Security is once again a vital entitlement that must be saved and the line-item veto is now the answer to all of those pesky earmarks.
For good measure, he also tosses out some work-in-progress items as a “see, they weren’t totally useless” shout-out to departing Republicans:
The strength of our economy also requires us to address some of the biggest issues facing the American people–greater energy security, comprehensive immigration reform, and affordable health care. While progress has been made in each of these areas, we must do more. I look forward to working with Congress on these difficult issues.
Like any “let’s work together on this” statement from the GOP, President Bush lays the groundwork for placing later blame by warning Dems of the bitch-slap to come:
Democrats will control the House and Senate, and therefore we share the responsibility for what we achieve.
Finally, he reminds everyone that if they don’t want to play ball, he still has that veto pen – somewhere.
The most remarkable thing he writes, though, amounts to a rather scathing assessment of the outgoing, Republican-controlled Congress. He discusses how the tendency to “play politics as usual” prevented them from solving complex problems, to the point that most Americans don’t even expect them to try anymore.
He also encourages the 110th to take a different tack than the one that gave us such huge time-wasters like gay marriage, flag burning and Terry Schiavo:
If the Congress chooses to pass bills that are simply political statements, they will have chosen stalemate. If a different approach is taken, the next two years can be fruitful ones for our nation.
One might almost forget that the President was the one that tried to shove all of those issues down everyone’s throat. But, why dredge up the past, right?
So, now that they know what they can do for us, here’s what we can do for them: Remind them that we are in charge. We elected them to do a job – and it’s their job – not the last guy’s.
President Bush had his chance to pass his legislative agenda - and with the GOP in charge of everything, it should have been a no-brainer – but he blew it. If the GOP can all agree on one thing, it’s the policy of Look Out For Number One. Too bad the President thought that Number One meant him.
Now it’s the other team’s turn, and as one of their hall-of-famers said “Ask what you can do for your country.” Well, this is it:
Write your congressional representatives, call their offices, fax and email them, and stop by their offices when they’re in town. Let them know that you and everyone else that voted for them stands behind them.
If we do, the President will be able to leave office having finally made one accurate prediction: “Let them say of these next two years: We used our time well.”
January 2, 2007 at 10:34 pm · Filed under Raise The Debate
Michelle Malkin writes:
Remember this name: Carmen Climaco.
The next time you hear a New York Times columnist defend the paper’s commitment to accuracy, fairness, and ethical standards, give them two words: Carmen Climaco.
How could a 26-year-old woman from El Salvador could unravel the Gray Lady’s 155-year-old standard-setting history?
As much as Ms. Malkin would love for you to believe so, she can’t. Not really.
The story begins with a April 9th New York Times Magazine article by Jack Hitt on El Salvador’s draconian, catholic-driven, anti-abortion laws. Salvadoran law absolutely forbids abortion in every possible circumstance, without exception, and offenders are subject to up to 30 years in prison. Not only that, but there is an entire branch of law enforcement, complete with “forensic vagina inspectors,” dedicated to finding and prosecuting offenders.
Women in El Salvador cannot even confide in their doctors, should they suffer from a “back alley” abortion gone wrong. According to Carmen Vargas, chief of OB/GYN residents at a maternity hospital in San Salvador, “When we see physical evidence,” she says, “we are required to report.”
Let that all sink in for just a minute.
Now, let’s talk about Carmen Climaco. Ms. Climaco, the article reports, was a 26-year-old woman serving her fourth year of a 30-year prison sentence for aborting her pregnancy at 18 weeks. She is mentioned in the final four paragraphs of the near 8,000 word article, and her story is tragic.
Only her story, it turns out, may not be the real story. Last Sunday, the NYT published a clarification, in which it revealed that Salvadoran court records showed that Ms. Climaco had, in fact, been convicted of strangling her newly-born infant.
Mr. Hitt’s explanation for why these documents were not vetted seems like a reasonable mistake. Also, Mr. Hitt, and others, question the veracity of said records. Nonetheless, NYT Ombudsman Byron Calame freely offers that “The care taken in the reporting and editing of this example didn’t meet the magazine’s normal standards.”
Let’s put aside the fact that the only reason Malkin knew about the NYT’s possible error in the first place is that the NYT disclosed it. The real travesty here is her attempt to discredit the entire article, based on one mistaken example.
The irony of Michelle Malkin calling out the New York Times for accuracy would be amusing, were it not so disturbing. The fact that she would turn a blind eye to the plight of so many women under an oppressive theocratic government, just to score some cheap points from her right-wing readers, speaks volumes about her own lacking journalistic integrity.
Just because this woman may not be serving prison time for having an abortion doesn’t mean that hundreds of others aren’t. And Malkin knows it. But her body of work demonstrates that she clearly would like to see similar laws passed in this country.
Let that all sink in for just a minute, too.
January 1, 2007 at 1:24 am · Filed under Musings, Finish Ahead, Raise The Debate
I’m sure that I’m not alone in being grateful that this past year is finally over.
Come to think of it, I’ve felt that way for the past six or so years.
It isn’t just about the current administration, either – although that’s certainly no coincidence – but rather about our collective outlook.
To say that we live in divisive times has come to both have a cliché ring to it, and represent a monumental understatement. In fact, many of us have worn our derision towards one another as a badge of honor, fanning the flames of incivility and disrespect.
Well, for my New Year’s resolution, I simply say “Enough!” It’s time to bring true civility and consideration back into style.
What do I mean by “true” civility and consideration? I mean a genuine regard for my fellow human beings and their right to have their own perspectives. We can disagree, and one of us can even be completely wrong, but that doesn’t mean we have the right to personally insult or assault one another. My caring about the environment doesn’t make me a “moonbat,” just as your homophobia, support for the war, desire to drive an FUV…well, whatever, doesn’t make you a bad person.
This isn’t to say that civility means being a candy-ass, in fact quite the opposite: It means having high enough regard for one another to be honest and sincere with them, while at the same time separating the issue of disagreement from the person doing the disagreeing.
I resolve to not only engage in that, but also to help others see the distinction. Especially, the next time I read something like this:
“Without all that filthy American money, [Gwyneth Paltrow] would still be stuck here in the States known as that miserable blonde girl with a New York mansion who used to be engaged to Brad Pitt–instead of that smug blonde girl with a London mansion married to a moonbat who makes a living trashing the capitalistic society that puts food in their children’s mouths.”
Rather than hope that Coulter, Malkin, O’Reilly, et al, will just go away, I believe it is our obligation as human beings to defend their victim-of-the-day’s right to have and express a dissenting opinion, and challenge them to counter those opinions without resorting to personal attacks. It’s unlikely that they’ll change their ways, but perhaps some of their readers will see that there’s no real substance to the views they choose to express.
I encourage you to do the same.
