A brief bit of meta-blogging:

I was going to post an entry on February 28th (I guess I still could) entitled “Black History Month K-12 Educational Simulation”, wherein I post a link to a wikipedia article about black soldiers in the Civil War, and thus make fun of the tokenism that greeted me with Black History Month through my public schooling. That goes back to my Freshman year of high school, where on the final day of February the teacher showed us… a film about black soldiers in the civil war… and it was a last minute schedule change on the part of the teacher, who evidentally had a “Holy Crap! This is Black History Month!” moment. A test that students may or may not have studied for was thusly delayed.

There haven’t been many blacks in the US Senate. There were a couple during Reconstruction, and then… nothing… until Edward Brooke’s two terms beginning in 1968… and then nothing until Carol Mosley Braun’s term from 1993 through 1998, and now Barack Obama, who defeated notable gadfly (and black) candidate Alan Keyes. We now approach the 2006 election, and I note that we may have two black Americans duking it out in Maryland, and that Harold Ford, Jr. is running in Tennessee (either a credible campaign, or not. I hear the Ford name has been tarnished as of late).

Maryland’s Republican black Senate hopeful, Michael Steele, has gotten in trouble for comparing stem cell research to Nazi Medical Experimen. He apologized for it, though pointedly insists he never used the word “Holocaust” which is I guess the most stinging charge of what sticks into people’s minds about the situation. The former black Maryland Senate Republican hopeful, Alan Keyes, would never have apologized, but I guess he never thought he had a realistic shot of winning a Senate seat. But the point here is that it threw Steele’s Senate campaign completely off balance, and may help make him as unelectable as Keyes was in both Maryland and in Illinois. If I were in Maryland and a registered Democrat, I may just pull the lever (or the bubble) for Kweisi Mfume in the Democratic primary over his primary opponents due to the simple historical joke that is the paucity of blacks in Senate history. I guess with his election, we’d then have a Senate black Caucus of two? An odds-against chance at three, with Ford… for what it’s worth the Black Commentator does not liketh much. Or very much at all.)

Trent Lott’s token Democratic opponent, Erik Fleming, is black. But the Mississippi Democratic leader threw his reluctant support behind Lott. The Democrat is a LaRouchite of some sort, a scandal that played itself out in the comments of politics1.com. He ended up denouncing LaRouche. But it looks like NORML will be endorsing him. Trent Lott, incidentally, I read recently, receives something on the order of 90% of the white vote and 10% of the black vote in his Senate elections. I don’t think you have to probe very deeply to figure out where this racial discreprency stems from.

Despite what Rush Limbaugh may think, Ohio Democratic nominee Sherrod Brown is not black. As he said, “And don’t forget, Sherrod Brown is black. There’s a racial component here, too. The newspaper that I’m reading all this from is The New York Times, and they, of course, don’t mention that.” But, Rush Limbaugh has race seered in his mind — as his rather bizarre ESPN commentary about quarterback Donavan McNabb demonstrated. Limbaugh’s retraction: “Sherrod Brown’s a white guy? Then, I’m confusing him with somebody. … Must be somebody in New York [who] has got a similar name.” It’s a disappointment. The Senate black Caucus after the 2006 election will thus either remain one, be doubled to two, or tripled to three… but will not sit at four, as it might had Sherrod Brown been black.

There’s a new set of anti-drug public service announcement that have been playing on the radio as of late.

First the scene is set. We have a set of 13-16 year olds at a standard social. #1 “How’d you hear about my party?” “Everybody knows about this party.” “Yeah. Pretty crazy, huh?” “Totally.” #2: “I can’t believe you got tickets to this show.” “Yeah. Pretty crazy band, huh?” “Totally.” #3 (and my favourite): “Thanks for giving me a ride.” “Hey. No problem. Just because you’re a sophomore doesn’t mean I can’t talk to you.” (uh. huh. The PSAers are laying it on pretty thick here, aren’t they? Sorry, I can’t sneak in a “pretty crazy” “totally” into that set up.)

Next, the drug is offered. For #1, #2, and #3, we have: “Hey! Wanna get high?” (For some reason the background music at the party and at the concert just stops dead right here.) “This is some good stuff. You’ll like this. Here you go.” AND — the response: “UH–”

The voice-over comes in with a “This is the time your guidance can help your kids say no to drugs. Call for a free pamphlet!”

But in my mind, I can’t help but think: “Toke! Toke! Toke! Toke! Toke!”

My question: Does that make me evil?

Is it just me or is there a heavy police presence around downtown Portland today?

Okay. A bit less weak and unequivical a question: Why is there such a heavy police presence around Portland today? Is there some sort of Meth Shut-down operation going on, or is this some joint operation with the Portland Business Alliance that makese the average consumer of downtown Portland feel safe? (I don’t really understand the mentality; I guess it’s the “Conservative is a mugged liberal” thesis which brought into power Richard Nixon back in 1968.)

Then again, there is the basic theory I have that the police presence is the same as it always is — it’s just that today, they’ve lurched out of the anonymous shadows to make themselves known to the public at large. Like the vampires, so they go.

I’ll throw my hands up in the air, and since I assume everything in this city leads back to Meth that it’s a Meth Crackdown Operation… whether I believe that or not.

So… does anyone have a copy of the anarchist book Our Enemies in Blue that I can throw in my backpack in case they decide to stop me, and in the event that I’m just a glutton for punishment?

If Lieberman lost his primary race, “it would be catastrophic for the Democratic Party … because it would send a message nationally that centrists are unwelcome,” said Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.

I guess the biggest Republican primary challenge to an incumbent Senator is happening in Rhode Island. Lincoln Chaffee is not a Republican, but he’s not a Democrat either. There were rumblings from Democrats a year back hoping that Lincoln Chaffee would switch over and become a Democratic-voting Independent. But really, Lincoln Chaffee is a member of the Whig Party. (There was this bizarre post on daily kos saying to the Olympia Snowes of the world that the Republican Party has left you, and there’s room enough in the Democratic Party for the Olympia Snowes of the world… which doesn’t seem like a good way of moving a party forward, bringing in pre-Bush Republicans to make… what? A party that looks suspiciously like the Republican Party? Nay. You can accept one or two Whigs across the aisle into the party, but not the whole lot of the Whigs.

You know that former Republican in Oregon who became an Independent to run for governor? Ben Westlund is his name. He’s a Whig! Just toss that funny white aristocratic looking wig on him and we’re all set!! Not to say you shouldn’t vote for him.

Back to the Lieberman challenge: The angry left detests conservative Democrat Joe Lieberman. But a recent poll shows that their anger may want to be channeled in another direction as the incumbent is coasting towards re-election in 2006.

The bitter folks from the fringe have rallied behind a Democrat named Ned Lamont in the hopes of taking out Joe Lieberman in a primary.

The channeling of direction is in taking out Henry Cuellar and replacing him with Ciro Rodriguez. Henry Cuellar’s crimes have been documented on the liberal blogosphere: he sat on the Republican side of the aisle during the State of the Union speech and has a record that appears to be too conservative for the Blue Dog Democrat coalition, and he’s the first Democrat in history to be endorsed by the Club for Growth. But I note for Lieberman’s benefit that there’s this crowd-shot image of the State of the Union speech that shows Lieberman standing, and basically nobody else: Then again, if you’re not looking for Lieberman, how do you even spot him in this image?

The primary challenge du jour in the 2004 season was the battle against the Republican Party’s most hated Republican Senator — Arlen Specter… whose “moderation” has proven to be mooted in this sesson of Congress. Pat Toomey nearly pulled it off, and the saving grace for the “the bitter folks from the fringe” in sending Marshall Wittmann into conniption fits is that Toomey’s numbers were supposedly similar to what Lamont’s are right now (as well as Specter’s versus Lieberman’s.)

I kind of wish primary challenges had a better record of success than they do. Something about shifting the political currents against stagnating the political currents. Ah well. You deal with the system that you are given.

A simple question:

At what point can we stop saying that Iraq is approaching Civil War, that the latest act of sectarian violence is bringing Iraq close to Civil War, that there’s a Civil War brewing in Iraq, etc etc…

… and just say that there is a Civil War going on in Iraq?

Early today in another of those senseless actions from a seemingless senseless people, people of the Sunni Sect of Islam detonated two bombs in the 1,000 year old (I believe that age is about correct) al Askariya Mosque, located in Samarra, Iraq. This is/was the most holy place of meeting and prayer known to the Shi’a Sect of Islam. I have seen it, stood inside it, and from many angles marveled at the sheer beauty of the thing; today, one of the most despicable crimes of the new century has been committed. I am not Muslim nor can I ever be but I could cheerfully kill the people who did this. The true horror of the act is the same as in the story of Humpty Dumpty; it can never really be put back together again.

I am sure before and after views of the al Askariya Mosque will be on TV News sooner or later. Take a good look and mentally hold the picture for awhile. Say to yourself, This Is How Crappy Human Being’s can Be When They Are Bound By Superstition and Bigotry and this is what makes them able to destroy a building that has withstood the usage of over 1,000 years (first erected in A.D. 830-840 or thereabouts).

It is the destruction of history, for the sake of destroying history. Recall the Taliban blasting away at those Buddhist idols in the Spring of 2001. Except, in a fairly perverse sense, at least that made some sort of sense (Blasphemy, I say!)

I recall the careful moving of Iraqi-held museum pieces in anticipation of “Operation Iraqi Liberation” (Operation OIL) by museum curators who cared. That would be rescuing history from the abyss (against America’s bombs of destruction, naturally). Of course, the post-war looting would be, again, the destruction of history.

So what do we have in America? I guess the re-classification process of unclassified official documents. That’s a little bit different, I have to admit. I’m trying to google up that story about the KKK guarding a church. They’re preserving history, right?

Those who don’t know their history are condmend to repeat it. But then again, those who do know their history are as well, it would seem.

In either the issue of Mental Floss that is on the stands right now, or the issue that is being removed from the stands right now to make way for a brand new issue…

… there’s an answer to the question of What the heck is a United Arab Emirate? It’s a good question, and one I doubt you’ve thought much about whenever the UAE has floated itself into the news cycle (as it has right now).

The United Arab Emirates are a confederacy of seven emir-controlled nations. The boundaries on which emir controls what part of the UAE are loose and fudged: when the British tried to map out the boundaries, they failed and threw up their hands. Simply put, one person throws their allegiance to one emir; his neighbor throws his allegiance to a different emir, and his neighbor throws his allegiance to the emir that the first person throws his allegiance to. If 2 out of 3 people in the region obeys the one emir, that still leaves that 1 out of 3 who obesys that other emir, right? So, what emir controls that stretch of the UAE?

Sigh.

Any way, I’m thinking that George W Bush is a crypto-isolationist. He’s working to make “Isolationism” look good with compared to the current way of working with the world. The selling of bases to the UAE is part of that strategy. There’s a bit of a revolt spewing, and frankly this would be a no-brainer for Republican politicians to stand against — it does indeed dove-tail into the party’s stated principles and the principles of their (xenophobic) constituency… as well as being the right stand, naturally. (Do you trust the United Arab Emirates?)

What stands is the Congress’s way, and the reason that they will in the end crumble and give way to Bush, is that they are an exceedingly lame bunch. That being said, I do wonder about something on how this is unfolding. Bush threatens to veto any bill designed to stop the sale of these ports to the UAE. Shouldn’t the scale of power be that the Congress is the branch of government that allows for the sale? Imperial Presidency, indeed!

I walked (or more specifically rode on the tram with) a confused, cold, lost woman somewhere, I guess to her home or maybe shelter, Saturday night. I wasn’t sure what the heck else I was supposed to do with her. It wasn’t anything I particularly wanted to do, but the basic question was If not me, who? She had an address, and thus I had a vague idea of where I needed to walk with her to… as it turned out, it was vaguer than where she knew she needed to go.

I couldn’t make head or tales of what I was doing. In her broken English, she used the word “PUH-LEAZE”. I asked if she wanted me to call the police for help, and she was adament against it. Was she an illegal alien? I don’t know, and I could not spot her accent anywhere.

But the problem came up where she pantomimed some things. She pantomimed violence, and all I could do was think she had been battered by someone. I’m guessing she had a horrible day, but short of contacting the police — which she was opposed to — there was nothing I could do about it. I’m thinking it’s in the police officer’s perogative to ignore a status of illegal immigration in favour of more pressing matters of violence and assualt, but (a) an illegal immigrant is still terrified of the prospect, and (b) I don’t even know that that is the deal confronting the woman I’m — somewhat reluctantly– helping.

When we reached a spot she could identify, she quickly parted ways with me. And I was left not sure what the heck I did here. Ah well. I guess one is never sure of what they do when they do something important to their fellow person.

Financed by the Homeland Security Department, school bus drivers are being trained to watch for potential terrorists, people who may be casing their routes or plotting to blow up their buses. Designers of the School Bus Watch program want to turn 600,000 bus drivers into an army of observers, like a counterterrorism watch on wheels. Already mindful of motorists with road rage and kids with weapons, bus drivers are now being warned of far more grisly scenarios. Like this one: terrorists monitor a punctual driver for weeks, then hijack a bus and load the friendly yellow vehicle with enough explosives to take down a building.

Huh. There’s this bizarre concept I have in my mind that says that people in general should know their surroundings enough to understand that if something looks askew, they should check into it. But why enlist them in some governmental security detail? In the scenario laid out here, I can’t say I appreciate what the bus driver is supposed to do. Is the government planning on having our bus drivers packing heat to stop the evil-doers? Otto’s comic book character “Bus Man”, anyone? (A Simpsons reference for you.)

Around 2:15 p.m., Scarbrough says, he answered his office phone and found himself talking to a man who identified himself as Officer R. of the Department of Homeland Security. (I’m withholding the officer’s name; you know, what with Plamegate and all.) Scarbrough was told that he was in violation of the Code of Federal Regulations, the set of rules that govern all executive departments and agencies, and that he was in danger of being cited unless he came out to the parking lot or let the officer come up to his office. Scarbrough chose the first option, and took along a co-worker–also a veteran–and, being an experienced peace activist, a tape recorder. Downstairs, they found two armed officers with “Homeland Security” insignia patches on their shoulders, waiting for them in large white SUVs. Scarbrough informed the officers that he would record their conversation, and […]

If that’s the case, both Scarbrough and his coworker said, “That’s news to me.” It would also be news to the dozens of people parked in the Natural Resource Complex with bumper stickers reading, among other sentiments, “My Dad is a Marine,” “Create Peace,” “POW/ MIA,” and others of both the pro-choice and pro-life variety.

Okay. Was the Department of Homeland Security in charge of pushing Bush skeptics out of Bush public forums? So we have a gestapo? Just conceptualize them that way, and no story where the “Department of Homeland Security” protudes into areas that don’t look like they should concern such an agency will not have a clash of confusion. Example in waiting:

Two uniformed men strolled into the main room of the Little Falls library in Bethesda one day last week and demanded the attention of all patrons using the computers. Then they made their announcement: The viewing of Internet pornography was forbidden.

The men looked stern and wore baseball caps emblazoned with the words “Homeland Security.” The bizarre scene unfolded Feb. 9, leaving some residents confused and forcing county officials to explain how employees assigned to protect county buildings against terrorists came to see it as their job to police the viewing of pornography.

So the Department of Homeland Security is on the front-lines in the War On Porn? Gawd, I feel safer already!

Of course, I could also ponder Tom DeLay’s use of the Department of Homeland Security in hunting down the Texas Democratic Party when they pulled that stunt of running off to Oklahoma to stop DeLay’s redistricting plan, but now we’re moving from people you can identify with (that is to say, people with bumper stickers, bus drivers, and porn viewers) to politicos. Besides which, that was a couple years ago. The Department of Homeland Security has moved on to… other … things?

All: We are the mediocre presidents.
You won’t find our faces on dollars or on cents!
There’s Taylor, there’s Tyler,
There’s Fillmore and there’s Hayes.
There’s William Henry Harrison,
Harrison: I died in thirty days!
All: We… are… the…
Adequate, forgettable,
Occasionally regrettable
Caretaker presidents of the U-S-A!
………………………………………………….

I’ve been considering the argument inherent in this article on what brings us the “Imperial Presidency”, and presidential oversteps and arrogance. We value Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson (unfortunately), … um… Reagan… which is to say: Presidents who did something, and who, in large part, enacted the “Imperial Presidency” for theirownselves.

The problem is that the other extreme takes us to the corruption of President Harding, the “Return to Normalcy” after the public spit in the face of Woodrow Wilson’s “Imperial Presidency”. None of the corruption was Harding’s fault, except insofar as he had a weak executive style that allowed it to happen — and so Harding’s most famous quote “I’m not really up to the job of being president” (Bush II would say “It’s hard work”, seemingly begging the public to vote him out of office — which we either did or did not.)

Or the Post Reconstruction Presidents. And therein is the other big problem. Their very existence was a testamont to a refusal to uphold civil rights for the recently freed African American slave. Another “Return to Normalcy” after a bitter war, and another karping on historical responsibilities. And federal powers are thrown over to the state — no “Imperial Powers” here — for the benefit of Mississippians upholding their right to wear white hoods and lynch black people (and Catholics and immigrants) without federal interference. And suddenly everything becomes messy in consideration in the stupid parlor game ranking the presidents with a juanced view of contrarianism to uphold the Great UnUsurpers.

Consider the lot of the presidents in this history, and I will note Mark Twain generally voted for the Republicans, excepting Blaine where he turned to Grover Cleveland, a bastion of honesty against the railroad-enfused corruption of Blaine. Grover Cleveland, the Democrat who Ayn Rand cited as the most “Libertarian” in American history — that is to say non-activist… and I quote Grover Cleveland:

“I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and the duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit… The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

… a quote used by people opposing aid to Katrina-victims to show that, Hey! It ain’t the government’s responsibility. One thousand points of light — and never mind if I’m not one of those lights (Ayn Rand opposes personal charity, mind you), and never mind if the sheer volume of the situation requires a more concerted and centralized effort… because, no less an authority than the much beloved…

… Grover Cleveland???…

opposes aid to disaster victims. (Again: Grover Cleveland? He ain’t no Herbert Hoover!)

So, what? Is there a happy medium? Thesis – Antithesis – Synthesis? No. Consider everything on a different plane, and move on.

I alert you to a stupdifying article in the latest issue of Rolling Stone Teens Save Classic Rock. And I feel dumber for having seen it.

Now, I wasn’t exactly a regular teenager… an anecdote involving an English teacher goes that she told my mother “Your sons really read different things than most other kids”, but… it has always been thus. Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon” stayed on the Top 200 best-seller charts for something like 20 years because somewhere around the age of 15, everyone buys the danged thing. A couple of vaguely drugged out students in my PE locker discuss how last night’s AC/DC concerts Rocked. I wander my dorm floor in my freshman year of college, and I see a Led Zeppelin poster from … well, there’s a type of person who is a “Rawker”, and Zeppelin “Rawks”.

Maybe there’s a bit of a skew in the direction of rural plots of land — something about the radio landscape sucking us into Classic Rock radio station as “meh. the best that’s available on the air.” My first roommate in college said that there was a student introduced at a Pep Assembly under the tutelege of Queen’s “Bicycle”. I no longer remember how pep assemblys work, and what why and how this worked, but there you go. It seemed an ironic bit of nonsense against the backdrop of the other students’ modern day pop-messes.

And the Doors were bigger in the 80s than they were in the 60s. Or so I’ve heard. Or at least one small part of the 80s where the 60s were in. None of which makes Jethro Tull popular. They seem forever tapped away in my brother Chris — safe away and gone.

Of course, this is an article designed to give a wet kiss to the baby boomer that makes up the readership of the Rolling Stone Magazine. “Wow! Look how cool your music is!” I wonder if we don’t give the youth enough credit for individually discovering different things on their own, and for dissecting themsevles for theirownselves. I don’t know. It’s something I’ve pondered a bit over the past years with magazine articles about the “Youth” — or derisively, the “Yute”.