We spent the first weekend back home working on the house. The WB and I worked in the front yard. I mulched, and he helped by filling up his little wheel barrel with dirt, then dumping it out, and then repeating the process. He no doubt enjoyed the process, and I couldn’t have been happier. For the record, it takes about 51 cubic feet of mulch to take care of the average front yard. You have to first edge around the flower and tree beds with a flat handled shovel, which is dirty, tiresome work. The Dog spent both days perched in the front yard, watching the people and cars go by, chasing the occasional small animal, and contemplating our next posting, which will be on the judicial nomination controversy.
Since we were out in front of the house all weekend, everyone – and I mean every last person – in the neighborhood stopped by to say hi. So sometime about mid-afternoon Saturday, we invited one couple and their kids to come by Sunday evening to cook out hamburgers and hotdogs. We then felt that if we were going to invite them, we should invite some of the other neighbors and have a little cook out. To make a long story short, we ended up having 25 adults and 16 kids over Sunday evening and the party went on till the late hour of 9:30 pm. It was a great party and about a ton of food, beer, and soda was consumed. This ended up being our “thank you” party to let the folks in the neighborhood know how much we appreciated their help over the last few months. Our neighbors showed what the word community means over the last few months, and we are exceedingly grateful for their thoughts, help and prayers.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Friday, May 20, 2005
Railroad Earth Show at the State Theater, May 19, 2005
Saw Railroad Earth at the State Theater last night. I was joined by friends JM and AF, plus his friend Smilin’ Bill from Atlanta. Cousin-in-Law CB and his crew from Baltimore made the trip as well. A good time was had by all. I’m not intimately familiar with RRE’s material, as I don’t listen to them at home or in the car all that often, so I didn’t recognize many of the songs. It was, though, the fifth time I had seen them so I was quite familiar with their jamgrass style. It was relaxing to hang out with friends, sip some bourbon drinks, and get into the excellent music.
The crowd at the State was a friendly mix of people ranging from grey-haired bluegrass types, twenty, thirty and fortyish professionals, college kids, and about a dozen people who might be still be in the denial stage following Jerry Garcia’s death, which was ten years ago this summer. The latter group included one young man who stood in the rain in front of the theater in a neon, tie-dyed poncho, Birkenstocks and neon face paint, selling some sort of psychedelic artwork. I’m fairly certain he is the same guy I saw the night before dressed up as Chewbacca, waiting in line for Star Wars tickets as I drove by the Lee Highway Multiplex.
As much fun as the show was, and I will see them again at the State to be sure, RRE is a festival band, and best enjoyed that way. Their tightly meandering notes beg to be heard echoing across the fields, woods and hills on a summer afternoon.
The crowd at the State was a friendly mix of people ranging from grey-haired bluegrass types, twenty, thirty and fortyish professionals, college kids, and about a dozen people who might be still be in the denial stage following Jerry Garcia’s death, which was ten years ago this summer. The latter group included one young man who stood in the rain in front of the theater in a neon, tie-dyed poncho, Birkenstocks and neon face paint, selling some sort of psychedelic artwork. I’m fairly certain he is the same guy I saw the night before dressed up as Chewbacca, waiting in line for Star Wars tickets as I drove by the Lee Highway Multiplex.
As much fun as the show was, and I will see them again at the State to be sure, RRE is a festival band, and best enjoyed that way. Their tightly meandering notes beg to be heard echoing across the fields, woods and hills on a summer afternoon.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
The Dog Responds to Reader
A thoughtful reader provided some interesting feedback on the Pope Musings of last month. The Dog and I have not had much time to provide the reflective response that the feedback has deserved. When we have had time, we have forgotten that we still had that base to cover. Anyway, we opened up a box of dog treats and some Indian food from a local restaurant last night, and re-read the feedback. So here goes.
The reader began noting considerately that the posting had allowed him the opportunity to, in his words, “hold a mirror up to myself and to explore how I could feel such thorough respect for someone with whom I often disagreed strongly”, referring to Pope John Paul II. We appreciate that sentiment, as we think the same way. But too often, positions on issues seem to be based on reasons other than what right or wrong. It is difficult to respect people who clearly do not take their stands on issues based on their view of right and wrong.
For example, John Kerry last week voted to continue funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. So now he can say he voted for it, before he voted against it, before he voted for it. If John Kerry really was against the war during the campaign, as he said he was, then he should have remained consistent and voted against it again. If he was not against the war, then he was simply posturing during the campaign to energize his left wing base. The evidence suggests that unlike John Paul II, Kerry takes positions on life-and-death matters based on tactical political considerations, rather than on his core beliefs.
Just the other day, Kerry was in the newspapers condemning the proposal to close the Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod, saying, “Otis is the number one base for homeland defense on the entire East Coast. . . . It simply makes no sense to close Otis in the post 9/11 world."
Otis (not to be confused with Otis the Frog Boy) is an F-15 base, and John Kerry recommended canceling the F-15 program in 1984. If John Kerry had his way, there wouldn’t even be an Otis Air Force base to close. John Kerry is not an example of the kind of man I can respect in a political disagreement. I do respect someone like Harry Truman (sorry to have to go that far back) because he actually believed that expanding the New Deal and forming the United Nations were the right things to do. I oppose both of these policies in general, but I respect Truman as a man. (This is an ironic example, because Truman couldn’t have been elected to the Senate if today’s standards were in place in the late 1930s, due to his ties to the Pendergast machine in Kansas City.)
Is there anyone else I can respect? Well, yes. On a personal level I have certain friends, including the reader, whose opinions I respect because they are thoughtful and come from a good place. I am always open to someone showing me how I might be wrong. But the political views promulgated by contemporary politicians seem to come less and less from a view toward what is best for the country and humanity at large. Too often, policy positions are based on what is good for the party, special interests, or worse, blind hatred toward people who hail from a different segment of society. The Democrat Party, as much as I can’t stand its current incarnation, is not unique in this regard. The Republicans can end sugar quotas tomorrow if they wanted to, but they won’t. The Central American Free Trade Agreement should be fast tracked as soon as possible, but it won’t be. I do, however, believe that the leftists in this country exhibit far more hatred toward conservatives than the other way around.
Hillary Clinton, oddly enough, is attempting to position herself as a reasonable person who actually bases her opinions on right and wrong. I can’t believe that I am writing this, but compared with Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, and John Dean, she actually looks like a grown-up. If she can avoid outbursts in front of her extreme constituents, she may actually have a chance in 2008. Our money is on George Allen, though.
The reader also asks, “Is simply not caring what your detractors have to say always the best way to go?” No. I might have put that too starkly. Any good leader should consider all reasonable points of view. But I chose the word “detractor”, instead of “adversary” for a reason. A detractor is someone who attacks the person in question ad hominem. An adversary is someone who attacks the ideas put forth by the other person. A good leader listens to arguments against his ideas, but ignores the personal attacks. Harry Reid called George Bush a “loser” last week. Al Gore says he "betrayed" the American people. Kerry said Bush "F'ed up" Iraq (he used the original vernacular in Rolling Stone). When was the last time you heard George Bush refer to an opposing political leader with such language?
Policies should be based on certain bedrock principles. Those values should rarely change. If they do, they should evolve slowly and deliberately. Some of my core beliefs are: free markets are the best way of allocating resources and should be regulated with a light hand; rule of law – not of men - is the foundation of a successful society. People should be rewarded for working hard and taking risks, and not be given incentives to not work. Evil in the world exists all around us, and can only be defeated through strength and the credible threat of violence – whether from a policeman's or homeowner’s handgun, or from a B-52. (Some of the Dog’s core beliefs are: all squirrels are bad and should be chased; all dogs should be taken for a walk at least once a day; and the sofa is always more comfy than the dog bed. )
Our reader stated that my thinking was “inconsistent was when you were castigating American Catholics for criticizing (John Paul II) for not changing his views while at the same time criticizing America for imposing its views on the world. You called this hypocrisy. I don't see that. I see that as consistent, criticism of the Pope and criticism of America for unyielding positions and actions in world affairs. Again, maybe I didn't follow your thinking, but I took issue with that.”
My argument here may need restating. I was pointing out a double standard that I doubt many left wing American critics of the Catholic Church have considered. American leftists criticize America for imposing its views on the world. I understand that position, and it is a good basis for a debate. But at the same time, the same people criticize the Catholic Church for not reforming to align with the values of modern, American Catholics.
Catholics in most of the rest of the world, particularly in Latin America, Africa, and Southern Europe, are far more conservative in their religious beliefs and follow Catholic dogma to a much greater extent than the average American Catholic does. So who are we to impose our values on the rest of the world? I don’t argue that the American Catholic’s viewpoints are wrong, per se, I just find it to be a double standard if at the same time they criticize us for promulgating freedom in the world. That is why part of my thesis is that if an American Catholic doesn’t like the core values and teaching of the Church, he or she might want to consider whether they are in the right church. If it is hubris to tell the rest of the world that they should adopt US-style democracy, isn’t it also hubris to tell the rest of the world to adopt US-style religious standards? I argue that the average person in Central America would be more upset with the US if Americans forced the Catholic Church to permit abortion on demand than they are about our opposition to the Kyoto Treaty.
The reader closed with the declaration, “And let the record show that the left has no monopoly on hypocrisy.” The Dog has so entered that statement into the record.
The reader began noting considerately that the posting had allowed him the opportunity to, in his words, “hold a mirror up to myself and to explore how I could feel such thorough respect for someone with whom I often disagreed strongly”, referring to Pope John Paul II. We appreciate that sentiment, as we think the same way. But too often, positions on issues seem to be based on reasons other than what right or wrong. It is difficult to respect people who clearly do not take their stands on issues based on their view of right and wrong.
For example, John Kerry last week voted to continue funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. So now he can say he voted for it, before he voted against it, before he voted for it. If John Kerry really was against the war during the campaign, as he said he was, then he should have remained consistent and voted against it again. If he was not against the war, then he was simply posturing during the campaign to energize his left wing base. The evidence suggests that unlike John Paul II, Kerry takes positions on life-and-death matters based on tactical political considerations, rather than on his core beliefs.
Just the other day, Kerry was in the newspapers condemning the proposal to close the Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod, saying, “Otis is the number one base for homeland defense on the entire East Coast. . . . It simply makes no sense to close Otis in the post 9/11 world."
Otis (not to be confused with Otis the Frog Boy) is an F-15 base, and John Kerry recommended canceling the F-15 program in 1984. If John Kerry had his way, there wouldn’t even be an Otis Air Force base to close. John Kerry is not an example of the kind of man I can respect in a political disagreement. I do respect someone like Harry Truman (sorry to have to go that far back) because he actually believed that expanding the New Deal and forming the United Nations were the right things to do. I oppose both of these policies in general, but I respect Truman as a man. (This is an ironic example, because Truman couldn’t have been elected to the Senate if today’s standards were in place in the late 1930s, due to his ties to the Pendergast machine in Kansas City.)
Is there anyone else I can respect? Well, yes. On a personal level I have certain friends, including the reader, whose opinions I respect because they are thoughtful and come from a good place. I am always open to someone showing me how I might be wrong. But the political views promulgated by contemporary politicians seem to come less and less from a view toward what is best for the country and humanity at large. Too often, policy positions are based on what is good for the party, special interests, or worse, blind hatred toward people who hail from a different segment of society. The Democrat Party, as much as I can’t stand its current incarnation, is not unique in this regard. The Republicans can end sugar quotas tomorrow if they wanted to, but they won’t. The Central American Free Trade Agreement should be fast tracked as soon as possible, but it won’t be. I do, however, believe that the leftists in this country exhibit far more hatred toward conservatives than the other way around.
Hillary Clinton, oddly enough, is attempting to position herself as a reasonable person who actually bases her opinions on right and wrong. I can’t believe that I am writing this, but compared with Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, and John Dean, she actually looks like a grown-up. If she can avoid outbursts in front of her extreme constituents, she may actually have a chance in 2008. Our money is on George Allen, though.
The reader also asks, “Is simply not caring what your detractors have to say always the best way to go?” No. I might have put that too starkly. Any good leader should consider all reasonable points of view. But I chose the word “detractor”, instead of “adversary” for a reason. A detractor is someone who attacks the person in question ad hominem. An adversary is someone who attacks the ideas put forth by the other person. A good leader listens to arguments against his ideas, but ignores the personal attacks. Harry Reid called George Bush a “loser” last week. Al Gore says he "betrayed" the American people. Kerry said Bush "F'ed up" Iraq (he used the original vernacular in Rolling Stone). When was the last time you heard George Bush refer to an opposing political leader with such language?
Policies should be based on certain bedrock principles. Those values should rarely change. If they do, they should evolve slowly and deliberately. Some of my core beliefs are: free markets are the best way of allocating resources and should be regulated with a light hand; rule of law – not of men - is the foundation of a successful society. People should be rewarded for working hard and taking risks, and not be given incentives to not work. Evil in the world exists all around us, and can only be defeated through strength and the credible threat of violence – whether from a policeman's or homeowner’s handgun, or from a B-52. (Some of the Dog’s core beliefs are: all squirrels are bad and should be chased; all dogs should be taken for a walk at least once a day; and the sofa is always more comfy than the dog bed. )
Our reader stated that my thinking was “inconsistent was when you were castigating American Catholics for criticizing (John Paul II) for not changing his views while at the same time criticizing America for imposing its views on the world. You called this hypocrisy. I don't see that. I see that as consistent, criticism of the Pope and criticism of America for unyielding positions and actions in world affairs. Again, maybe I didn't follow your thinking, but I took issue with that.”
My argument here may need restating. I was pointing out a double standard that I doubt many left wing American critics of the Catholic Church have considered. American leftists criticize America for imposing its views on the world. I understand that position, and it is a good basis for a debate. But at the same time, the same people criticize the Catholic Church for not reforming to align with the values of modern, American Catholics.
Catholics in most of the rest of the world, particularly in Latin America, Africa, and Southern Europe, are far more conservative in their religious beliefs and follow Catholic dogma to a much greater extent than the average American Catholic does. So who are we to impose our values on the rest of the world? I don’t argue that the American Catholic’s viewpoints are wrong, per se, I just find it to be a double standard if at the same time they criticize us for promulgating freedom in the world. That is why part of my thesis is that if an American Catholic doesn’t like the core values and teaching of the Church, he or she might want to consider whether they are in the right church. If it is hubris to tell the rest of the world that they should adopt US-style democracy, isn’t it also hubris to tell the rest of the world to adopt US-style religious standards? I argue that the average person in Central America would be more upset with the US if Americans forced the Catholic Church to permit abortion on demand than they are about our opposition to the Kyoto Treaty.
The reader closed with the declaration, “And let the record show that the left has no monopoly on hypocrisy.” The Dog has so entered that statement into the record.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Harpers Ferry Hike and Shaq
Took advantage of the nice weather Saturday, May 7 (partly cloudy, windy, high in the 70s) to hike up Maryland Heights opposite Harpers Ferry. Brother EB and friend JK came along, and the Dog as well. I assigned her the task of carrying her own provisions, which seemed to make her happy as she likes to feel like she is contributing. We started near ATC HQ, about a mile above the railroad bridge over the Potomac. After walking down the hill through town, past Hilltop House, crossing the bridge and going about a quarter mile up the C&O towpath, we reached the trailhead. The trail is a five mile loop hike, with a fairly steep uphill grade for the first half (and, of course, an equally steep grade downhill for the second half), gaining 1,100 feet in 2.5 miles. On the way up, we passed old civil war gun emplacements and powder magazines. On the top are the ruins of the Union fort, including a 100-pound battery (a very large cannon for its day), that commanded the confluence of the Shenandoah and Potomac Rivers for much of the Civil War. On the way back down is a spur trail - about a half mile round trip from the main trail – that leads to the cliffs overlooking Harper’s Ferry, with a spectacular view up and down the Potomac, and up the Shenandoah. This is one of the more scenic vistas available within a few hours of DC and well worth the trip. For those who want to do this hike, I recommend paying the park service fee and parking your car near the railroad bridge in Harpers Ferry, unless you want to cap off your day hike with a one-mile uphill hike, like we did. It would have been worse if any of the taverns in Harpers Ferry allowed dogs, which they don’t. Doing that last uphill leg with cool muscles and a belly full of beer would not have been much fun. As it stood, we waited until we got back to Ashburn, only 35 minutes away, to quaff a few cold ones. Next time, I may leave a six-pack in a cooler in the trunk.
No observations on the world today, although a minor rejoinder on the Kwame Brown posting is in order. Sports divas, as I've said, are the bane of professional sports. Shaquille O’Neal has proved that point in the past several days. He is “boycotting” the media for several days because he wasn’t voted MVP this year. I just can’t root for a player who behaves like that, regardless of how talented he is. Michael Wilbon wrote a relatively balanced piece in today’s Post on the subject. Wilbon could have gone further in refuting any insinuations of racism, and his criticism of Shaq was more circumspect than it needed to be, but at least he set the facts out on the table. Steve Nash earned the award fair and square, and that’s the way it goes. Shaq had a strong case, but he came up short in the voting. He has every reason to be disappointed. However, Mr. O’Neal would be doing himself and the rest of us a favor if he would react with a little grace and dignity, and check his attitude at the door.
No observations on the world today, although a minor rejoinder on the Kwame Brown posting is in order. Sports divas, as I've said, are the bane of professional sports. Shaquille O’Neal has proved that point in the past several days. He is “boycotting” the media for several days because he wasn’t voted MVP this year. I just can’t root for a player who behaves like that, regardless of how talented he is. Michael Wilbon wrote a relatively balanced piece in today’s Post on the subject. Wilbon could have gone further in refuting any insinuations of racism, and his criticism of Shaq was more circumspect than it needed to be, but at least he set the facts out on the table. Steve Nash earned the award fair and square, and that’s the way it goes. Shaq had a strong case, but he came up short in the voting. He has every reason to be disappointed. However, Mr. O’Neal would be doing himself and the rest of us a favor if he would react with a little grace and dignity, and check his attitude at the door.
Friday, May 06, 2005
The bathroom mirror and shelf pictures explained
Some of our regular readers may have been puzzled by the pictures posted last week showing a bathroom mirror and a shelf over our kitchen door. Not to worry. This blog is not being transformed into a vehicle for publicizing obscure decorative details of our house. It just so happens that the dog's Mom has not emptied her email inbox recently and can't receive emailed pictures. Because she is in the hospital taking care of our little buddy, I thought I'd post some pics of recent projects I've worked on around the house. This way, I could demonstrate to her that I've done more useful things than conversing with our dog, eating M&Ms and watching the History Channel. She was the only intended audience for those pictures. If I ever get the steel shelves done in the basement, I may post pictures of them as well. So don't panic if you see them sometime next week.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Philosophical Differences
So the Wizards dumped Kwame Brown over "philosophical differences". The Dog and I bristle when such threadbare, cynical nonsense is proffered by sports management to explain a situation that is already well known to the general public. It is insulting to the fans, and makes the parties involved in the decision look like they have something to hide.
Philosophical differences? I am imagining a heated debate between Eddie Jordan, the Existentialist, and Kwame Brown, a disciple of Nihilism, as reported in the Washington Post:
Anyone watching the Wizards lately knows that they are playing as a team. They look almost old school. There is no room for a Kwame Brown on a team like that. Now, I am not naive. Kwame's play has been terrible, and he has fallen far short of expectations. If he were averaging 30 points and 10 rebounds a game, the Wizards would be loath to let him go for any reason, "philisophical" or otherwise. But the pooch and I hope that this little episode sends a message, if to nobody else than the kids who are watching and modeling themselves after these players.
So we are hopping on the Wizards bandwagon. In the meantime Kwame, don't let the door hit you on your way out.
Philosophical differences? I am imagining a heated debate between Eddie Jordan, the Existentialist, and Kwame Brown, a disciple of Nihilism, as reported in the Washington Post:
Coach Eddie Jordan, in a closed door meeting with Brown today held firm to his position that existence holds precedence over essence, and man is totally free and responsible for his acts.I am the first to admit that I am a fair weather professional basketball fan. When the Wizards are in the playoffs, I'm interested. When they are not, I'm not. Hence, I have not followed the sport for many years. A big part of my indifference is the attitude of players like Kwame Brown. I won't go into this anymore than necessary, but professional sports is almost ruined by spoiled "sports divas" who get paid millions before they have paid any dues or proved themselves whatsoever. Basketball, probably more than any other sport, has been debased by this phenomenon (setting aside professional football wide-receivers for a moment).
"This responsibility is the source of the dread and anquish that encompasses mankind", Jordan stressed to the 23-year old former prodogy.
Brown would not have any of it, maintaining, in his words, that "All values are baseless and nothing can be known or communicated".
"I guess we have a philospohical difference then", sighed Jordan.
"I guess we do, Coach", mumbled Brown as he got up and strutted toward the door and out of the organization.
Anyone watching the Wizards lately knows that they are playing as a team. They look almost old school. There is no room for a Kwame Brown on a team like that. Now, I am not naive. Kwame's play has been terrible, and he has fallen far short of expectations. If he were averaging 30 points and 10 rebounds a game, the Wizards would be loath to let him go for any reason, "philisophical" or otherwise. But the pooch and I hope that this little episode sends a message, if to nobody else than the kids who are watching and modeling themselves after these players.
So we are hopping on the Wizards bandwagon. In the meantime Kwame, don't let the door hit you on your way out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
