It's almost Spring, and if you're an avid gardener like I am, you're just itching to go out and get a jump on the growing season. Clean up is always first on the ol' checklist, so even though there was a touch of snow in the air and the thermometer was registering right around the freezing mark we decided to test out the Poulan Pro™ leaf blower.
The Poulan operates as either a blower or a vacuum, and today we had it set up to do a little mulching, but switching over is a snap (screwdriver required). The 1.25 horse motor fired up after just one pull at the full choke setting, and began to purr with the next tug, just what you want in a power tool or that girl you're saving yourself for. It handles twigs up to 1/2" thick, and the 14:1 shredding ratio means a full bag can be dumped down a storm sewer with ease, or you get extra coverage for those wetlands you're trying to fill in. And Poulan's reliability is, of course, second to none.
We did notice a couple of negatives. First, the vacuum tube is a bit short. I'm a six-footer, and it forces me to crouch slightly, which can be a little tough on the back when the bag gets full. Then, after I finished and went inside to warm up and read the instruction manual, I noticed a lot of safety warnings about eye and ear protection and that sort of liberal, nanny-state nonsense. Plus there's notice of a requirement for use of a "spark arresting screen" on some public lands, and it just burns me up when a company which employs thousands of workers has to throw away hard-earned profits on ink like that.
Still, we rate the Poulan Pro a BEST BUY.
Friday, March 11
Thursday, March 10
Oh My God
Any Sullivan: What would Falwell do?
I remember the Sixties, though I wasn't old enough to drive. I remember the Brothers Berrigan and Bishop Pike and any number of hip young clerics with hair over their collars who spoke about love and peace and occasionally took a hit off the number that was going around. And I knew my history, knew that religious people in America were on the frontlines of all the fights over social justice. I knew parochial schools rose up in response to Protestant domination of public education.
I had no objection in principle to Amy's guest sermons on the election at Kevin's place. I thought she followed the script instead of the facts, and, especially after the whole "moral values" post-mortem, became rather shrill and tiresome. But then so did a lot of people who were proposing to toss women's rights onto the sacrificial altar on the grounds this would somehow turn that damned map blue.
Her Salon piece, ostensibly, squints down the other end of the telescope. And I'm happy to listen. At least once during the campaign I tossed a comment into Kevin's bottomless well to the effect that perhaps the centrist and liberal churches needed to answer for allowing the Falwells and Robertsons to seize the public debate. Because they've treated the rise of religious bigotry as if it were a slight social faux pas at tea. The horrendous rightward slant of television news from the late 70s on could have found an effective opposition in clerical garb. Religion occupies as protected space in this land. It's easy for teevee news to stack the deck against liberal politicians. They couldn't have gotten away with that when it came to religious voices. There's been no shortage of Catholic priests intoning on abortion over the past thirty years, and they sure found air space to denounce John Kerry. Where were the opposing voices? Is it teevee's fault, or religion's?
Oh, Sullivan can't miss her little digs at Kerry, who with the passage of time is now "too timid" and unwilling to bring up religion in front of non-ethnic audiences, instead of hiding altogether as she once told it. The Democratic party "ghettoized" religion. And, of course, the religious left has been hampered by its association with the secular left and it's baby-seal hugging and Third World poverty protesting that lacks all Biblical reference. But, again, where were those voices to begin with? I've got no objection to the religious imagery of Al Sharpton. I'm sure not going to change my position on the Kyoto Treaty just because someone else says Jesus would have voted for it. Welcome aboard. And at the end of the day, I don't care if you oppose abortion rights. What I object to is the idea that there's no distinction made between the abortion and the rights. Just come out and acknowledge that your beliefs include birth control as well, and we can have all the debate within the party that you'd like.
Unfortunately it just seems impossible for someone like Sullivan to grant the distinction between the sacred and the profane and to admit that while politics may be informed by the former it belongs to the latter. There's no mention in her article of the effects of John Paul II's war on liberation theology and his ordering priests out of politics (which cost us the voice of Father Drinan). Even the right gets the touch o' whitewash: "A series of Supreme Court decisions taking prayer and Bible reading out of schools, and culminating with Roe vs. Wade -- as well as, it must be noted, some civil rights victories in the South -- angered conservative evangelicals...." Civil rights is a parenthetical? We're going to regain momentum by granting the Relgious Right it's objection to religion-neutral public education, but abide by a gentleman's agreement not to touch its segregationist roots? Does the Right offer up that sort of politesse?
I remember the Sixties, though I wasn't old enough to drive. I remember the Brothers Berrigan and Bishop Pike and any number of hip young clerics with hair over their collars who spoke about love and peace and occasionally took a hit off the number that was going around. And I knew my history, knew that religious people in America were on the frontlines of all the fights over social justice. I knew parochial schools rose up in response to Protestant domination of public education.
I had no objection in principle to Amy's guest sermons on the election at Kevin's place. I thought she followed the script instead of the facts, and, especially after the whole "moral values" post-mortem, became rather shrill and tiresome. But then so did a lot of people who were proposing to toss women's rights onto the sacrificial altar on the grounds this would somehow turn that damned map blue.
Her Salon piece, ostensibly, squints down the other end of the telescope. And I'm happy to listen. At least once during the campaign I tossed a comment into Kevin's bottomless well to the effect that perhaps the centrist and liberal churches needed to answer for allowing the Falwells and Robertsons to seize the public debate. Because they've treated the rise of religious bigotry as if it were a slight social faux pas at tea. The horrendous rightward slant of television news from the late 70s on could have found an effective opposition in clerical garb. Religion occupies as protected space in this land. It's easy for teevee news to stack the deck against liberal politicians. They couldn't have gotten away with that when it came to religious voices. There's been no shortage of Catholic priests intoning on abortion over the past thirty years, and they sure found air space to denounce John Kerry. Where were the opposing voices? Is it teevee's fault, or religion's?
Oh, Sullivan can't miss her little digs at Kerry, who with the passage of time is now "too timid" and unwilling to bring up religion in front of non-ethnic audiences, instead of hiding altogether as she once told it. The Democratic party "ghettoized" religion. And, of course, the religious left has been hampered by its association with the secular left and it's baby-seal hugging and Third World poverty protesting that lacks all Biblical reference. But, again, where were those voices to begin with? I've got no objection to the religious imagery of Al Sharpton. I'm sure not going to change my position on the Kyoto Treaty just because someone else says Jesus would have voted for it. Welcome aboard. And at the end of the day, I don't care if you oppose abortion rights. What I object to is the idea that there's no distinction made between the abortion and the rights. Just come out and acknowledge that your beliefs include birth control as well, and we can have all the debate within the party that you'd like.
Unfortunately it just seems impossible for someone like Sullivan to grant the distinction between the sacred and the profane and to admit that while politics may be informed by the former it belongs to the latter. There's no mention in her article of the effects of John Paul II's war on liberation theology and his ordering priests out of politics (which cost us the voice of Father Drinan). Even the right gets the touch o' whitewash: "A series of Supreme Court decisions taking prayer and Bible reading out of schools, and culminating with Roe vs. Wade -- as well as, it must be noted, some civil rights victories in the South -- angered conservative evangelicals...." Civil rights is a parenthetical? We're going to regain momentum by granting the Relgious Right it's objection to religion-neutral public education, but abide by a gentleman's agreement not to touch its segregationist roots? Does the Right offer up that sort of politesse?
Wednesday, March 9
There's More Than One Form of Bankruptcy, Y'know
James Wolcott. Thank god he's got breath and a blog. The heroic stand of certain Democratic Senators puts him in a nostalgic mood:
"...Karp documents how the political establishment, military and Israeli lobbies, and media crippled Carter from the outset, cut him off at the ankles after his first few steps.
"In contrast, they knelt before Ronald Reagan with cupped hands, drinking in his every smile and aw-shucksy anecdote, abetting and rescuing him time and again from his own fatuous follies. Polls showed that the American people then were far less enamored of Reagan than the press, but the press listened only to itself and its masters. Whenever Reagan went too far, they and the Beltway crowd lay down to cushion his fall. "
The Carter years, folks, were the blueprint for everything that's happened since. The Republican attack machine was on him before the inauguration, as it would be on Bill Clinton sixteen years later. And the press would not be far behind. I particularly remember how CBS White House correspondant Leslie Stahl couldn't relay a single piece of news without explaining her take on the "political motives" behind it. And they did it all without email and fax machines.
"...Karp documents how the political establishment, military and Israeli lobbies, and media crippled Carter from the outset, cut him off at the ankles after his first few steps.
"In contrast, they knelt before Ronald Reagan with cupped hands, drinking in his every smile and aw-shucksy anecdote, abetting and rescuing him time and again from his own fatuous follies. Polls showed that the American people then were far less enamored of Reagan than the press, but the press listened only to itself and its masters. Whenever Reagan went too far, they and the Beltway crowd lay down to cushion his fall. "
The Carter years, folks, were the blueprint for everything that's happened since. The Republican attack machine was on him before the inauguration, as it would be on Bill Clinton sixteen years later. And the press would not be far behind. I particularly remember how CBS White House correspondant Leslie Stahl couldn't relay a single piece of news without explaining her take on the "political motives" behind it. And they did it all without email and fax machines.
Shapiroesque Reviews
It's occurred to us at BLTR that if 21st Century philistines can critique the arts as though the last 150 years were just a dream, it's only fair that previous generations ought to get a similar opportunity. We're hoping to contact Steve Allen, whose bit this really is, except with him it was amazingly successful.
Up first, Basho reviews Guernica.
Pale moonlight falls as
Disembodied creatures scream--
I give it five stars.
Up first, Basho reviews Guernica.
Pale moonlight falls as
Disembodied creatures scream--
I give it five stars.
Minimum Wage
If your business can't afford to pay a full-time employee enough to rise above the poverty line, perhaps there's simply no need for your business.
Yeah, spoken like a true Moonbat.
Yeah, spoken like a true Moonbat.
Tuesday, March 8
The Manchurian Candy Date Says Hi!
"Jeff Gannon": Gannonblog 6 March 16:17 hours:
I watched a clip of Sen. Joe Biden on Bill Maher's HBO crapfest. I wonder why he didn't mention meeting me some years ago. C'mon Joe, think...
Isn't he just dreamy?
I watched a clip of Sen. Joe Biden on Bill Maher's HBO crapfest. I wonder why he didn't mention meeting me some years ago. C'mon Joe, think...
Isn't he just dreamy?
Rough Draft: Three
There's a corollary to our manpower problems: if you look at the numbers you see that we basically went into Iraq with roughly two thirds of the sustainable manpower we could have applied. So the "Rumsfeld Doctrine" of light, highly mobile force, while it might be honestly held, is at least convenient in that we didn't have any choice in the matter.
Or, rather, we did. We could have worked to assemble a genuine coalition (which meant taking a year at least to give sanctions time to "work", which of course they already had) or we could have increased manpower by instituting conscription (at about an equal cost in time). Whatever we actually believed about WMDs, we knew for certain that Iraq's delivery capabilities were next to nil.
The obvious point about option 2 is that a draft is a political faultline that's been building up pressure for thirty years. And option 1 is dismissed as turning our sovereignty over to the blue helmets. Those are political considerations, not military ones. And it is certainly fair to say that things went FUBAR, and Americans died because of it. In the end it's funny that our Steely-Eyed Rocket Man with the firm vision of Freedom dare not make decisions without an eye to the polls. But nobody's laughing.
Or, rather, we did. We could have worked to assemble a genuine coalition (which meant taking a year at least to give sanctions time to "work", which of course they already had) or we could have increased manpower by instituting conscription (at about an equal cost in time). Whatever we actually believed about WMDs, we knew for certain that Iraq's delivery capabilities were next to nil.
The obvious point about option 2 is that a draft is a political faultline that's been building up pressure for thirty years. And option 1 is dismissed as turning our sovereignty over to the blue helmets. Those are political considerations, not military ones. And it is certainly fair to say that things went FUBAR, and Americans died because of it. In the end it's funny that our Steely-Eyed Rocket Man with the firm vision of Freedom dare not make decisions without an eye to the polls. But nobody's laughing.
Rough Draft: Two
I spent much the first nine months or so of the war arguing with people who seemed to think that military manpower is fungible, if they bothered to think about it at all. On to Damascus! By the time our little adventure had turned out so badly that even their FAUXNews watchin' worldview couldn't ignore it anymore a curious thing happened: they amped up the insanity. Flypaper! Fifth Columnists! Iraq is Safer than Detroit! Stay the Course!
And that was before US casualties exploded last spring, and while they were still insisting we'd find those WMDs.
My argument was a simple one. I keep it simple when talking to my friends on the Right; I don't care for arguments that go round the bend faster and farther than Kevin Drum's comments. "We have committed in haste to a generation-long presence in the Middle East and we do not have the troops to do so," I said. "That's bullshit, we've got two million men in uniform," would have been the response, except it usually stopped at the Bullshit part. Mostly there was a distinct indifference to the problem. One blogger suggested we could simply raise military pay until enough people signed up. Confronted with a rough estimate of the cost of such a move, even if it had a chance of success, he went back to ignoring the problem altogether.
The Washington Monthy piece linked below puts the argument to rest for good. We've broken the Army's manpower equation. We have a two-million man military, not two million foot soldiers, and we have global obligations which are in our interest to maintain. We could now field a big enough fighting force to face most serious challenges head-on, if it became necessary, but that's about all we can do. And these problems are cumulative. It'll take a decade to fix, unless we adopt extraordinary measures.
At the moment the insanity is quieter. I don't mean there's less of it, or that it's ever delivered at anything less than bullhorn levels anymore. The Right got a little happy pill with the elections--never mind what actually happened, it's the PR value that counts. Then Syria/Lebanon and Mubarak's speech, which were to the Right what rumors of a Phish reunion would be in certain other quarters. Democracy On the March! Only it's meaningless in terms of US involvement; if we don't maintain our troop levels into the unforeseeable future we'll be able to see the smoke from here. The manpower problem is real, it is critical, and it's the problem we can't solve by changing the slogan.
And that was before US casualties exploded last spring, and while they were still insisting we'd find those WMDs.
My argument was a simple one. I keep it simple when talking to my friends on the Right; I don't care for arguments that go round the bend faster and farther than Kevin Drum's comments. "We have committed in haste to a generation-long presence in the Middle East and we do not have the troops to do so," I said. "That's bullshit, we've got two million men in uniform," would have been the response, except it usually stopped at the Bullshit part. Mostly there was a distinct indifference to the problem. One blogger suggested we could simply raise military pay until enough people signed up. Confronted with a rough estimate of the cost of such a move, even if it had a chance of success, he went back to ignoring the problem altogether.
The Washington Monthy piece linked below puts the argument to rest for good. We've broken the Army's manpower equation. We have a two-million man military, not two million foot soldiers, and we have global obligations which are in our interest to maintain. We could now field a big enough fighting force to face most serious challenges head-on, if it became necessary, but that's about all we can do. And these problems are cumulative. It'll take a decade to fix, unless we adopt extraordinary measures.
At the moment the insanity is quieter. I don't mean there's less of it, or that it's ever delivered at anything less than bullhorn levels anymore. The Right got a little happy pill with the elections--never mind what actually happened, it's the PR value that counts. Then Syria/Lebanon and Mubarak's speech, which were to the Right what rumors of a Phish reunion would be in certain other quarters. Democracy On the March! Only it's meaningless in terms of US involvement; if we don't maintain our troop levels into the unforeseeable future we'll be able to see the smoke from here. The manpower problem is real, it is critical, and it's the problem we can't solve by changing the slogan.
Rough Draft: One
I've been working for a week on a piece on the Phil Carter and Paul Glastris cover story in the Washington Monthly which argues "The Case for the Draft". At one point it split into three, then went back to the drawing board, or drafting table; it's done about everything now except become a one-liner or a caption contest.
In the interest of getting something done, part one is now as terse as you can ever hope I'll be: What is the argument for not having a draft? We're at war, aren't we? The greatest threat to our freedom in our history, taking the fight to the terrorists, it's freedom vs. fear? Any of this ring a bell?
In the interest of getting something done, part one is now as terse as you can ever hope I'll be: What is the argument for not having a draft? We're at war, aren't we? The greatest threat to our freedom in our history, taking the fight to the terrorists, it's freedom vs. fear? Any of this ring a bell?
Card Games
Roxanne links to the Pentagon's Iraqi Culture Smart Card with emphasis on some gender distinctions which might just point out that, uh, we're not too concerned that every Iraqi citizen share equally in the fruits of democracy.
The thing that came immediately to my mind was the scene in Buñuel's Viridiana where the Baron buys a wretched little dog which has been paddling along tied to the rear axle of a cart. As he turns and carries the dog off to its happy new life, another cart comes down the road from the opposite direction, equally wretched dog in tow.
What do you do? People tend to champion the "moralist" view unless and until it crowds them personally. Convince them something is Bad, and provided it's politically expedient they'll vote to send Good in after it armed to the teeth. It seems impossible to break through, to make people think about the full consequences of our actions before we take them. So moralism has this inbred advantage: that it can be used to urge an act, but need not be referenced to explain (or correct) any adverse results. If Iraqi women are less free now than they were three years ago, well, that's the culture.
The thing that came immediately to my mind was the scene in Buñuel's Viridiana where the Baron buys a wretched little dog which has been paddling along tied to the rear axle of a cart. As he turns and carries the dog off to its happy new life, another cart comes down the road from the opposite direction, equally wretched dog in tow.
What do you do? People tend to champion the "moralist" view unless and until it crowds them personally. Convince them something is Bad, and provided it's politically expedient they'll vote to send Good in after it armed to the teeth. It seems impossible to break through, to make people think about the full consequences of our actions before we take them. So moralism has this inbred advantage: that it can be used to urge an act, but need not be referenced to explain (or correct) any adverse results. If Iraqi women are less free now than they were three years ago, well, that's the culture.
Monday, March 7
Shapiroesque Review
Someone recommended to me the book If on a winter's night a traveler, by Italo Calvino, who, as might be expected from the name, is an Italian. Those of you who have read your history are probably aware that the Italians were Fascist during World War II, but if I understand correctly that had more to do with train schedules than anti-Semitism.
Chapter one was very confusing. It didn't sound like a novel at all. First chapters are supposed to introduce interesting characters and lay the groundwork for their plots, but this seemed more like a Forward or something, plus it was really patronizing even if you're not 1L Harvard Law. I thought there might have been a printing error, so I skipped ahead to chapter two. It was all right, I guess, and I was just starting to get interested in what was happening when it ended, and chapter three turned out to be something else entirely, like it wasn't even the same book. I kept jumping forward and the whole book was like that. This is the sort of rubbish the Left is always trying to tell us has "deeper meaning" when it doesn't even make sense. Cristo should wrap this book, then throw it away after he's conned the Arts Crowd into paying him for it. I don't think it's a coincidence that Europe just doesn't get it.
On my Pre-Raphaelite scale of 0-5 I give it 0 Millaises
Chapter one was very confusing. It didn't sound like a novel at all. First chapters are supposed to introduce interesting characters and lay the groundwork for their plots, but this seemed more like a Forward or something, plus it was really patronizing even if you're not 1L Harvard Law. I thought there might have been a printing error, so I skipped ahead to chapter two. It was all right, I guess, and I was just starting to get interested in what was happening when it ended, and chapter three turned out to be something else entirely, like it wasn't even the same book. I kept jumping forward and the whole book was like that. This is the sort of rubbish the Left is always trying to tell us has "deeper meaning" when it doesn't even make sense. Cristo should wrap this book, then throw it away after he's conned the Arts Crowd into paying him for it. I don't think it's a coincidence that Europe just doesn't get it.
On my Pre-Raphaelite scale of 0-5 I give it 0 Millaises
Sunday, March 6
Return Of The Hottest Young Andy Rooney Impersonator On The Nets
Went to Lowe's anyway, as the red squirrel which chewed through the siding on my garage to get at the birdfeeder knocked it down this afternoon and smashed it beyond merchantability. The Beach Boys' "The Warmth of the Sun", which is Brian's second best ballad of all-time* comes on--this is surprising since it never actually charted--and is interrupted four times to tell Phil to pick up Line 3. There are five bars of the fade-out left by the time Phil catches on. It's followed immediately by the Hues Corporation's seminal "Don't Rock The Boat", brought to you in its glorious uninterrupted entirety. Although I did learn that if you sneak a peek at the nametag and address the clerk by name most are willing to do The Bump with you if they're not otherwise occupied.
* For the record: #1 God Only Knows; #3 Please Let Me Wonder; #4 In My Room; #5 Don't Worry, Baby
* For the record: #1 God Only Knows; #3 Please Let Me Wonder; #4 In My Room; #5 Don't Worry, Baby
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)