Indoctrination, Regurgitation, not Celebration

2006 has been one of the best, and one of the worst years I've ever had. The peaks were amazing, awe inspiring highs, and the valleys...let's just say that the lows were enough to shake one's faith in humanity and the Almighty.

That shaking has caused some deep reflection about faith, religion, and organized religion's failure in my life. Actually, make that one organized religion, the Catholic Church. I respect all faiths, but I don't really want to go anywhere else. I just wish that the Church would open its eyes.

Here's a brief example . I saw The Passion when it first came out. I cringed with every lash of the whip, tensed with every indignity. It was only a movie, but it made me feel. My emotions and intellect were involved. Forgive me another movie reference, but there is a classic bit in Rain Man where Ray is reciting the "Who's on First" routine. With Ray's autism, he doesn't get the joke, he's just reciting the same words that he's heard a million times.

That is Mass for me. There is routine, there is comfort. What there is not is emotion, fulfillment, a sense of connection. There is habit. When I lived at my father's house, going to Mass was mandatory. I've gone to 7AM Mass in Polish just because it was short, and I could get it out of the way. Once I moved out, when there was no compulsion, I stopped going. I prayed, I talked to God. But I had no need nor desire for the Church. I have the feeling that my experience it not unique.

The phrase "celebrate the Mass" is used, but that is quite the misnomer. I go to Mass, and hear the listless lethargy of drones who likely haven't pondered the meanings of the things that they are saying for years. This is followed by a sermon where the priest laments the dwindling numbers at the confessional, or the departure of young adults from the Church.

For too long, the Church has gotten by via indoctrination. But the world is changing. It took centuries for them to get away from saying every Mass in Latin. It will take time for them to recognize that people should WANT to come to church. Each parish can take steps to make the experience better, more educational, more uplifting. "Because I said so" is not going to fill pews.

I pray everyday. Frankly, I don't need them. Here's hoping that a fundamental shift comes around that will make me want them. I'd rather celebrate than regurgitate any day of the week. Especially Sundays.

Thanks, TIME

"...because when everyone is special, no one will be." Syndrome, The Incredibles.

A line from an animated movie sums up how ludicrous TIME's Person of the Year choice better than any pundit I've heard. Brainless, senseless, nutless, gutless. 'Nuff said.

The Chick Flick

In a world....
Stop, stop, stop. I made it through a chick flick. After enduring football, mindless guy movies, and and Hong Kong ports like Kung Fu Hustle, Lisa was due some payback, and we saw The Holiday. Seeing a chick flick in a theater instead of at home was educational.

I was struck almost immediately by the difference in previews. Guy movies have plots, acting, or failing that, well choreographed fights, and/or big explosions. T&A have the power to save some truly dreadful guy movies. The preview gives one some desire to check out the product. Chick flick previews? Every formula that you know and loathe. Repackaged estrogen with a dash of bitterness, sadness, or sappy sweetness.

Sandra Bullock has a movie coming out that looks like Deja Vu meets Memento meets Groundhog Day. Ugh. Hugh Grant has another one coming out as well. My eyes began to glaze at this point, but I wonder if Hugh plays a lovable, ne'er do well who recognizes the folly of his former ways, and gets the girl. The girl in this case is Drew Barrymore. Someone kill me. Please.

But on to the movie itself. Cameron Diaz looks good, acts poorly, and has a few good comic moments. Her character actually makes movie previews. Oh goody. She is also quite the hussy, shagging Jude Law upon meeting him. It's ok though, because it's a chick flick. They end up together. What, you didn't see that coming? Gasp, oops, I didn't say SPOILER ALERT!

Kate Winslet is watchable, and can act. Sadly, she doesn't have a Titanic moment, so we do not see her naked. There you have it, no skin, save your cash. Jack Black is an interesting choice as her love interest, but not $10 interesting.

Miscast talent-Eli Wallach is in as an aged Hollywood writer. This man was in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, The Magnicicent 7, The Godfather 3, and a host of other work. This icon deserves better than an ancillary role in a chick flick.

I could go on for hours, but I won't. As chick flicks go, this was less painful than many. I wouldn't have minded gnawing a vein out of my wrist, but it wasn't slam your genitals in a car door bad.

The Pop-in

With rare exception is there a more disconcerting disruption to a quiet day than a pop-in? Ladies and gentelmen, and whoever may be reading this, a pop in sans call ahead is just plain bad form.

The victim of the pop-in may not be ready for company, be busy, or just not otherwise disposed to play host. Off the top of my shiny head, there are only a few forgivable occassions for an unannounced pop-in.

1-Sudden, amazingly stunning news either positive or negative is forgivable. The news should be on the order of a surprise wedding/engagement, lottery winnings, death in the family, or news story on par with 9/11.

2-If the victim (yes, victim, I don't think the term is too strong) of the pop-in is male, and unattached, a booty call is forgivable. If the booty in question has been tapped more than five times, a courtesy call should be placed ahead of time.

The moral of the story, is call ahead, make plans. Unless you are going to rock my world literally or metaphorically, people who pop in are the reason I screeen my calls, and rarely answer the door.

McWho? Our troops are brilliant!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061206/ap_on_re_us/silly_string_to_iraq_1

What other fighting force could turn silly string into a tool of self preservation? This kind of improv reduces Selma and Patty Bouvier's TV fave to wannabe status. It might be time to contact the venerable Acme Company for some of their ideas.

Of course, then some crackpot would allege that Cheney has secret ties to Coyote interests, and we'd begin to see "No Blood for Rocket Sleds" bumper stickers. Forgive the way this post veered off topic...the news story just hit me as brilliant and funny at the same time.

Seen, and not heard

Over the history of this republic, there has been a constant, unspoken gentleman's agreement with former presidents. Ex presidents do not comment on the policy or character of a sitting president. It's just bad form, and it is not done. Or, rather, it was not done until 2001.

Clinton is guilty of this, but I really don't think he can help himself. It doesn't make it right, but the man is the quintessential politician, which I mean both as an insult and a compliment. He's young enough to still be passionate, and this country's cult-like obsession with him feeds into a necessarily large ego. Hell, if you don't have an ego the size of your home state, you're not going run for the job in the first place.

All that being said, Clinton is what he is, and seems less offensive to me. The one who really gets my Irish up is Carter. By all accounts, a wonderful human being, and nice guy. I admire the yeoman's work put into Habitat for Humanity. We should have seen it coming when Carter acted independently of the Clinton administration to negotiate with Kim Jong Il in '93. Apparently, even former U.S. Presidents get ronery when irrelevance hits them. We all know the results...North Korea kept developing nukes in spite of a framework Carter provided. Shocking.

A man who micromanaged the greatest nation on earth into malaise, demonstrating incompetence on issues foreign and domestic, ranging from defense to economics, blew it again. State funerals should provide the only camera time for President Carter, seen and not heard.

I suppose I should point out that he did get two things right. For my lefties out there, Carter did give us both a section of ANWAR reserved for oil exploration and the FISA Act. Bush is getting the blame, but hell, why confuse issues with facts.

NY Times Selective Leaks

I thought that I had learned from the Valerie Plame debacle that leaks, especially secret and top-secret leaks were bad, bad things, and that those who leak should go to jail. Even if the President's top advisor was the culprit, he should be frog marched out of the Oval Office in irons. At least, that was the conventional wisdom in the Plame case.

I am rapidly losing count of how many top secret programs and memos are being printed by the New York Times. Whether its a surveillance program, or an internal classified memo to the President summing up an advisor's thoughts on the President of Iraq, we can look forward to reading all of the juicy details in the Newspaper of Record.

Here's the text of the latest example....Rummy's last memo to POTUS on Iraq.

Nov. 6, 2006
SUBJECT: Iraq — Illustrative New Courses of Action
The situation in Iraq has been evolving, and U.S. forces have adjusted, over time, from major combat operations to counterterrorism, to counterinsurgency, to dealing with death squads and sectarian violence. In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough. Following is a range of options:
ILLUSTRATIVE OPTIONS
Above the Line: (Many of these options could and, in a number of cases, should be done in combination with others)
¶Publicly announce a set of benchmarks agreed to by the Iraqi Government and the U.S. — political, economic and security goals — to chart a path ahead for the Iraqi government and Iraqi people (to get them moving) and for the U.S. public (to reassure them that progress can and is being made).
¶Significantly increase U.S. trainers and embeds, and transfer more U.S. equipment to Iraqi Security forces (ISF), to further accelerate their capabilities by refocusing the assignment of some significant portion of the U.S. troops currently in Iraq.
¶Initiate a reverse embeds program, like the Korean Katusas, by putting one or more Iraqi soldiers with every U.S. and possibly Coalition squad, to improve our units’ language capabilities and cultural awareness and to give the Iraqis experience and training with professional U.S. troops.
¶Aggressively beef up the Iraqi MOD and MOI, and other Iraqi ministries critical to the success of the ISF — the Iraqi Ministries of Finance, Planning, Health, Criminal Justice, Prisons, etc. — by reaching out to U.S. military retirees and Reserve/National Guard volunteers (i.e., give up on trying to get other USG Departments to do it.)
¶Conduct an accelerated draw-down of U.S. bases. We have already reduced from 110 to 55 bases. Plan to get down to 10 to 15 bases by April 2007, and to 5 bases by July 2007.
¶Retain high-end SOF capability and necessary support structure to target Al Qaeda, death squads, and Iranians in Iraq, while drawing down all other Coalition forces, except those necessary to provide certain key enablers for the ISF.
¶Initiate an approach where U.S. forces provide security only for those provinces or cities that openly request U.S. help and that actively cooperate, with the stipulation being that unless they cooperate fully, U.S. forces would leave their province.
¶Stop rewarding bad behavior, as was done in Fallujah when they pushed in reconstruction funds, and start rewarding good behavior. Put our reconstruction efforts in those parts of Iraq that are behaving, and invest and create havens of opportunity to reward them for their good behavior. As the old saying goes, “If you want more of something, reward it; if you want less of something, penalize it.” No more reconstruction assistance in areas where there is violence.
¶Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi Government.
¶Withdraw U.S. forces from vulnerable positions — cities, patrolling, etc. — and move U.S. forces to a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) status, operating from within Iraq and Kuwait, to be available when Iraqi security forces need assistance.
¶Begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and Coalition forces (start “taking our hand off the bicycle seat”), so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up and take responsibility for their country.
¶Provide money to key political and religious leaders (as Saddam Hussein did), to get them to help us get through this difficult period.
¶Initiate a massive program for unemployed youth. It would have to be run by U.S. forces, since no other organization could do it.
¶Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis. This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not “lose.”
¶Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) — go minimalist.
Below the Line (less attractive options):
¶Continue on the current path.
¶Move a large fraction of all U.S. Forces into Baghdad to attempt to control it.
¶Increase Brigade Combat Teams and U.S. forces in Iraq substantially.
¶Set a firm withdrawal date to leave. Declare that with Saddam gone and Iraq a sovereign nation, the Iraqi people can govern themselves. Tell Iran and Syria to stay out.
¶Assist in accelerating an aggressive federalism plan, moving towards three separate states — Sunni, Shia, and Kurd.
¶Try a Dayton-like process.

News? Sure. Responsible to print, especially given the memo's classified status? Or a more pointed question, if this came from the Kerry, Gore, or Clinton SecDef, do you really think the Grey Lady would have it on page one?

MCA lies, half truths and hysteria

One of the issues that came up a few weeks ago was the passage of the Military Commisions act of 2006. All over at the blogosphere, and at my office, a firestorm began. Emails were sent, branding the passage of this legislation as the death of habeas corpus.

Opinions can and will vary, but our own fighting men and women have been subject to military tribunals for quite some time...we've used the UCMJ(Uniform Code of Military Justice) for quite some time. Good enough for own, good enough for the enemy, in my humble opinion. I've heard quite a bit from left and right wing wackos on the subject, and for me it comes down to a fairly simple question. How the hell can one say that habeas corpus rights are being taken away if they have never been extended to unlawful combatants or POW's before? How does one take away that which has never been?

It might be uncomfortable for some people, but not everyone in the world is guaranteed the protections of the U.S. Constitution. Then again, many of those people would be shocked to learn that the Constitution allows the suspension of habeas corpus for American citizens. Point out that the most heavy handed abusers of civil liberties were Lincoln and FDR, and watch heads explode. Good times.

Back from hiatus

To my small handful of gentle readers...

Nix that, those who know me might be a bit like me, precluding the term gentle reader. Anyway, the last two months have been a bit chaotic. Weddings, ex post facto showers, twin receptions and other life events have slowed my ability to spew random drivel from a keyboard.

My apologies, and one can look forward to a more steady dose of cerebral diarrhea in the near future. More to come later.