Wide open spaces...with tightly closed minds

Thanks South Dakota. Thanks a lot. I'm sure that you rubes know what's best for the rest of the country. I'm sure that a bunch of extras from "Fargo" understand the complexities of gynecology and obstetrics. You probably all have PhDs in sociology and could teach these pesky blue states about how hard it is to be young, poor, single, black, and pregnant in the American urban landscape. That's why your state government is so well-qualified to dictate reproductive politics for the 99.99% of this nation that doesn't live in a wheat field.

Yesterday on NPR I heard a frigid and self-righteous Dakotan ask rhetorically, "why shouldn't America be more like the heartland?" Honestly, my only conceivable answer to that question would be to run screaming into a wood chipper. America should almost always look to the heartland and do the exact opposite. Why? Because the heartland is whitebread, conservative, and LAME. It's a land full of people who are so out of touch and colloquial that they don't realize what the rest of the country thinks of them. I'm sure that if they had the internet in South Dakota, an irate cowboy would respond with, “we don't care what the rest of the country thinks of us.” That's just fine. In fact, it's an admirable and relatively progressive way to think. It's the essence of being pro-choice. Do what you want, and don't spend any time trying to make decisions for other people. This country is tolerant and free enough to allow its people to have abortions if they want them and to visit megachurches and form creepy rural militias if they don't.

We'll see how this plays out over the next few weeks. I know that there's panic in the pro-choice camps, but hopefully that's premature. Justices Alito and Roberts seem to be intelligent men of reason. Their confirmation quasi-trials were a sham and a microcosm of all that's bad about the Democratic Party these days. Though a bit misguided in their personal politics, let's hope that they can live up to their “strict constructionist” billing when it is applied to a longstanding precedent like Roe v. Wade.

Magazine Whore Revisited

The Water Cooler was not intended to be a forum for promoting and discussing new magazines and periodicals. It's a shame that I can't expound on the literary classics and latest in experimental fiction. I hope I'm not a disgrace to librarians everywhere. What can I say, I like the pretty pictures.

A few months ago I recommended a fantastic new science magazine called SEED. It remains to be a diamond in the newsstand rough because of its incredibly clear, exciting, and non pedantic writing style. Just like my beautiful wife, the magazine's treatment and stance on controversial issues like stem cell research keep me captivated. However, I was first drawn to it because it's just so nice to look at. Seed breaks new ground in its presentation and layout.

This weekend I discovered two magazines that take the medium even further. Cabinet has been around for about 4 years and has been pushing the envelope of graphic design throughout that time. It's no surprise that it comes out of New York's conceptual art community. Each issue is a collage of interesting and challenging photography. It presents some of today's leaders in a variety of new art movements. Before I make it even more abundantly clear that I'm out of my depth when it comes to discussing art, let me say that there's more to Cabinet than a collection of inscrutable and abstract photographs. There's inscrutable writing too! Just kidding. Actually, the writing is once again a really substantive bonus to this beautiful magazine. The articles run a wide gamut from academic and theoretical to narrative fiction. The most recent issue has a triptych piece that blends a history of the .50 caliber machine gun with a biography of actor/soldier Audie Murphy and an account of the annual Knob Creek Range shootout. The magazine is published four times per year and a 4 year subscription costs $28.

The second magazine selection is a complete departure from the printed word. Many of you probably already read the often hilarious online version of McSweeney's. Dave Eggers started McSweeney's as a literary journal in 1998. Since then it has branched into a number of printed and online titles. In January, Eggers began a new magazine called Wholphin. Wholphin is a DVD magazine that will come out about four times each year. You have the link and can read for yourselves so I won't spoil any of the DVD content. It will suffice to say that Wholphin is a collection of short films by some well-respected artists that you probably won't see anywhere else.

A one year subscription to Wholphin will cost you $40. However, a lifetime subscription to The Water Cooler still won't cost you a dime.

"All the verbose socio-political exasperation that's fit to print."

Not in the face!

If you were to tell someone from another country that the vice-president of your nation had just shot someone in the face and then asked them to guess where you were from, they would probably pick Haiti, Central America, or somewhere in Western Africa. They would probably never guess the USA, but they would be wrong. Does Hallmark make a "sorry for shooting you in the face" card? Dick Cheney might want to grab one at the drug store the next time he's waiting for his various heart prescriptions.

It doesn't really bother me that Cheney shot someone in the face. The victim seems to be handling it pretty well. If he believes it was an accident and holds no grudges, then I'm okay with it. Besides, hunting is a pretty dangerous activity. It's not like the vice-president has any formal military training. He couldn't go to Vietnam because he was too busy going to Casper Community College part-time. Despite his years of hunting experience, I can't fault Cheney for a hunting mishap. If you spend more of your time hunting birds than hunting Osama, this is bound to happen. However, I can fault Cheney and his press camp for the way that they've handled this situation since the shooting.

First of all, Cheney's camp didn't even admit this whole thing had happened until they were outed in the local Corpus Christi newspaper. Once it became clear that everyone would eventually find out, Cheney's office grudgingly gave over the details. Surely I'm not the only one who finds this to be deplorable behavior. I know he's a weasel, but he's also our vice-president. Charles Barkley might be able to get away with claiming that he isn't a role model, but not the vice-president. Cheney missed a golden opportunity to turn this negative into a positive. He could have used this unfortunate circumstance to show some leadership. I'm no public relations wizard, but I know an opportunity for spin when I see it. How about coming out and admitting what you did and using it as a way to show the need for increased gun safety and education. How about being a man instead of just killing defenseless animals to feel like one.

If his attempt to bury this story wasn't bad enough, Cheney also tried to pin the blame on his hunting buddy. Every account of the accident that I've read, claims that the victim was 30 yards away and behind the vice-president when he got blasted. I don't have too much experience with guns, but I do know that the first rule of gun safety is to stay a safe distance behind the shooter. 30 yards seems like a pretty safe distance to me. According to Cheney's office, the victim still should have notified the hunting party of his location. I'm sure there's some truth in that, but they were trying to sneak up on little birds. From what I've seen on ESPN Outdoors, that kind of hunting seems to require silence. Regardless of the victim's role in the accident, Dick Cheney is the one who broke the cardinal rule of hunting.

The vice-president shot a man in the face and then tried to put the blame on someone else. That fact alone should have everyone worried. This incident has been getting a great deal of coverage in the American news media, but most of it superficially focuses on the act of violence itself. As I said before, this wasn't a malicious act. Hunting is dangerous and Dick Cheney made a mistake, but it wasn't a huge mistake. However, if he's willing to go to these lengths to cover up and distort a relatively small and honest mistake, imagine what he is capable of when the circumstances are infinitely more critical. We all know people who would do whatever it takes to deny their mistakes and blame other people. Do we like those people? Do we allow those people to make decisions for us? The little events like these can be a good barometer of someone's general behavior and the true test of their character.

Not to brag, but...

Two weeks ago, I talked about the incredible amount of money being spent by the federal government on Katrina relief. There is no better use of our federal monies than to help those families in the Gulf Coast who lost everything. In that post, I focused on the large sums being spent and how that money (if distributed fairly and evenly) could go a long way in bringing about economic and social change. However, my contention was that realistically, the billions would probably be mismanaged and wasted. It would never make it into the hands of those that needed it most. A story just came over the AP that confirms my fears. Millions are being wasted and those that were left destitute by the storm will remain destitute. Katrina money is finding its way into the hands of con men and other unscrupulous characters.

This is the first of what will probably become a flood of similar stories. The only cases of fraudulent activity to make the papers will be the ones that get caught. Imagine the quasi-legal and government-sanctioned fraud that we will never hear about. I really wish that I had been wrong about this.

Stupor Bowl

Normally I wouldn't use this space for sports discussions, but I just wanted to congratulate the Pittsburgh Steelers on winning the lamest Super Bowl in history. I've got nothing against the Steelers. It's nice to see Jerome Bettis get a ring. He's a classy guy and he deserves to enjoy the view from atop the mountain. There are a lot of nice guys on the Steelers. Phil Cowher plays an incredibly boring and ugly brand of football, but he gets results. I also don't have any particular affinity for the Seahawks. They squandered a hatful of chances and probably deserved to lose the game, but I still feel pretty awful for their players and fans. For 60 minutes, they were on the wrong end of a shameful display of blatantly poor officiating.

The Super Bowl should be the marquee night of the NFL. Their sport's championship game has become America's most popular single event. It's an opportunity for the NFL to showcase all of its excitement and drama for a huge international television audience. It should feature the best teams, best players, and the best officials. Unfortunately, the game itself is often boring. With some exceptions in recent years, the Super Bowl has probably gotten a bad reputation for being a lot of hype and not much actual sports drama. So when this year's game was boring, I was not completely shocked. However, I was shocked by the way that the officials seemed determined to obtrusively leave their inept mark on this most-important game.

It just felt like almost every play was micro-managed and over-analyzed by the referees. Football games can hinge on one crucial play or one crucial call. Because of this, I guess that I would prefer that the officials err on the side of silence. I always have been a proponent of instant replay, but that may have changed tonight. In the biggest game of the season, it seemed that instant replay was misused in every opportunity. Seemingly correct calls were reviewed and incorrect calls were not. Of the plays that were reviewed, those that ended up being wrong were not overturned and those that were right were inexplicably reversed. Bad calls and referee meddling continuously hampered the continuity and momentum of the game until one team was so visibly shaken that the final quarter became a forgone conclusion.

Certainly there should be rules and regulations on the field of play, but isn't football essentially organized chaos? In recent years, it seems that there have been too many new arbitrary rules governing contact. A player can have his spine broken in a "legal hit", but an almost imperceptible raise of the arm will result in a 45 yard penalty. This has stripped American football of its major advantage over soccer (as I see it). Soccer matches can be manipulated by dishonest and deceitful players (usually from Brazil) who embellish minor contact in order to gain free kicks or penalty shots. In a game where a one goal lead could be insurmountable, this behavior makes me sick. Now American football's rule changes are injecting a new culture of conniving, whining, ref-pleading cheats who attempt to make the most from any ambiguous offense. Another consequence of these rule changes is the over-analysis and intense scrutiny on each individual player by the referees. As I said before, the margin for victory in a football game is far too narrow to allow this to happen in the season's ultimate game.

Before I end this rare foray into sports, let me just mention one other thing that I found particularly ironic and that tainted this Super Bowl. The NFL tries to do everything it can to create a fair and even playing field. That's the official reason behind the continuous rule changes, salary caps, and a neutral location for the Super Bowl. But for all their attempts to promote a fair fight in this championship game, they somehow allow Pittsburgh fans to occupy 90% of the stadium's seating. So much for neutral locations.

The Sign of a Beaten Army

Historically speaking, having young boys and grandfathers in the trenches during a war was not a good sign. It did not speak well for your nation's chances of winning the war. It did not speak well for how your nation had performed in the war thus far. In the waning days of the Confederacy, Richmond's defenses were manned by an increasing number of young boys and very old men. Their ranks had been thinned by disease, dissent, and four years of heavy losses.

As Nazi Germany was crumbling, Hitler loaded the Eastern front with children from the HJ, the German equivalent of the Boy Scouts. Allied forces on the Western Front were fighting against men old enough to receive a pension from World War I. The same thing was happening in the Pacific Theatre with the Japanese army. Both of these armies were fighting against the inevitable. It was not a question of if they would lose the war, but when.

Each of these cases was a desperate attempt by a leader unwilling to face reality. It was the mark of a government that had lost the war, lost perspective, and neglected its basic responsibilities to the citizenry. These governments were willing to destroy a generation of its children and deprive its families of the wisdom and experiences of a grandfather out of hubris (among other things).

The reason I bring all of this up, is because a family friend was recently called to report for active duty in Iraq. He is 58. He has 6 grandchildren. He is a decorated Vietnam veteran and he is being forced to step into a situation that may cost him this wonderful life. I think his deployment speaks volumes about our nation's leadership and its involvement in Iraq.

Please don't misunderstand my disbelief and disgust. My friend is a member of the Air National Guard. He knew this was a possibility and could have easily retired from the Guard long ago. He chose this treacherous path that he will walk and he will walk it willingly. He expects no sympathy and wouldn't want anyone to lobby for his exclusion from duty. However, I'm sure that many of the Confederate grandfathers felt the same way. Just because these men are willing to die for the cause doesn't mean we should let them.

Please also understand that I'm not drawing any comparisons between our current military and the other historical examples, other than their inclusion of grandfathers. I believe that the men and women of our military are generally good people. I don't necessarily agree with their ideology, but it isn't based on hatred and evil like Nazi Germany and the Confederacy. As much as I am embarassed and disappointed by our government, it also cannot be compared to the evil of the Nazi party and its leadership.

However, I am trying to draw a comparison between militaries that are stretched so thin that they need to include grandparents. This is shameful. After a 14 month tour of duty, my friend will be 60 years old. Sextagenarians should not be flying Blackhawk helicopters into a swarming morass of insurgents armed with surface-to-air missiles. They should be enjoying the long afternoon of their lives.

This isn't to say that people in their 60s should slow down. They can do anything they want. They can fly helicopters, but our government should have never gotten into a position where they need 60 year olds to fly helicopters in Iraq. If they run out of 20 year-old helicopter pilots, then it's time to draft more young pilots. If that's going to make you too unpopular before the mid-term elections, then it's time to concede that we are beaten. Don't deprive a little kid of her grandpa just to keep your job in November. You can darken the skies with unmanned drones laden with Sidewinder missiles, but don't send another grandparent. Read your history books and the writing on the wall and get the hell out of Iraq.