thinkuming

Excerpt from minnow1212's blog

I remember reading a review of My Big Fat Greek Wedding once, where the author talked about how in a marriage between people from two different cultures, both cultures have traditions to bring to the table. And yet in many fictional representations--I forget whether the author said Greek Wedding did this well or badly; nor have I seen the movie--there's this conception that it's the side perceived as more ethnic that carries all the traditions, that the more mainstream culture is beige and blah, a blank slate to be written over. Which ends up being sort of patronizing to both sides, really, ignoring any richness in the more mainstream culture and making the more ethnic culture seem quaint and cute.

[original article]

internal passports are next

I don't know whether I'm more frightened, or angry, about this latest attack from Big Brother.

Airlines Told to Turn Over Passenger Data

Government Ordering Airlines to Turn Over Passenger Data to Test Terrorist Screening System

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON Sept. 22, 2004 - Information on passengers who took a commercial flight within the United States in June will be turned over to the government so it can test a new system for identifying potential terrorists.

People will have a chance to tell the government what they think about the plan during a 30-day comment period, federal officials said on Tuesday.

A previous plan was met with an overwhelmingly negative response. The proposed system, which cost $103 million, would have assigned a risk level to all airline passengers based on comparisons of their names with commercial databases. That plan was scrapped because of privacy concerns and technological issues.

Now, the Transportation Security Administration hopes to learn from its experience. The agency is pledging to protect passengers' privacy and taking steps to make sure the system is technologically feasible.

Privacy advocates and the airlines are skeptical.

"There are many people who are still going to find themselves in no-fly hell," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the technology and liberty program at the American Civil Liberties Union.

The TSA plans to order air carriers to turn over the information in November. Passenger names will be checked against watch lists maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center, which is administered by the FBI, as part of a new screening system called "Secure Flight."

Those lists include names of people to be selected for additional screening, known or suspected terrorists, and people prohibited from flying because they pose a direct threat to aviation.

Airlines currently check passenger names against watch lists. Because intelligence information is classified, however, airlines don't have access to names of all known or suspected terrorists. The Sept. 11 commission, in its July report, urged the government to take over the task of checking the lists.

Justin Oberman, who heads the TSA office that's developing Secure Flight, said he hopes the program can be implemented by spring.

Air Transport Association spokesman Doug Wills said airlines are reviewing the plan and will comment formally later.

Air carriers, he said, support the Secure Flight concept as a "smarter way to separate the good guys from the bad guys."

They still have the same problems that they had with the previous plan about privacy and mechanics of the plan, said Wills, whose group represents major airlines.

The airlines will have 30 days to comment on the proposed order, which Congress gave the TSA authority to issue in post-Sept. 11, 2001, laws. Air carriers will then have 10 days to turn over data called "passenger name records."

The amount of data in passenger name records varies by airline, but it typically includes name, flight origin, flight destination, flight time, duration of flight, seat location, travel agent and form of payment. It can also include credit card numbers, travel itinerary, address, telephone number and meal requests.

The ACLU's Steinhardt said the system is too intrusive.

"Why is it necessary for the TSA to know that you've ordered a kosher meal, or who you're sleeping with in your hotel room?" he said.

Steinhardt said the system still will allow people to be misidentified as potential terrorists, as some are now.

For example, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., were stopped at airports because people with their names appeared on watch lists. Kennedy said it took him three weeks and several calls to federal officials to clear up the confusion.

The TSA plans to set up procedures by which passengers can correct misinformation and by which civil liberties and personal data can be protected.

Privacy advocate Marcia Hofmann said that's something that should have been done already.

"Many of these privacy measures that the TSA talks about are purely discretionary," said Hofmann, staff counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "The agency can provide them at the agency's will."

The TSA also will conduct a limited test in which they'll compare passenger names with information from commercial databases to see if they can be used to detect fraud or identity theft.

[original article]

Women docs 'weakening' medicine

I don't know which aspect of this angers me more - the concept of women "weakening" a profession, or the snobbish assertion that medicine, as a profession, is entitled to maintain some above-average level of sociopolitical influence.

From the BBC:

A top female doctor has warned the medical profession's influence could be damaged by the number of women choosing to be medics.

Women doctors are expected to outnumber men within a decade.

But Professor Carol Black, president of the Royal College of Physicians, told the Independent that could affect how the medical profession was seen.

She said she believed female-dominated professions such as teaching no longer saw themselves as "powerful".

She added: "We are feminising medicine. It has been a profession dominated by white males. What are we going to have to do to ensure it retains its influence?

"Years ago, teaching was a male-dominated profession - and look what happened to teaching. I don't think they feel they are a powerful profession any more. Look at nursing, too."

Professor Black added: "In Russia, medicine is an almost entirely female profession.

"They are paid less and they are almost ignored by government. They have lost influence as a body that had competency, skills and a professional ethic.

"They have become just another part of the workforce. It is a case of downgrading professionalism."

Professor Black added: "What worries me is who is going to be the professor of cardiology in the future? Where are we going to find the leaders of British medicine in 20 years' time?"

She added women were unlikely to take top jobs, such as the dean of a medical school, because of the difficulties combining them with family life.

Professor Black warned many women avoided more "demanding" areas such as cardiology.

She said medicine had to face up to the problem and find ways of helping women doctors balance work and family.

Professor Black told BBC News Online: "I think it's a good thing that women are choosing the medical profession, but the problem is how to make it possible for them to be really effective.

"At the moment, women aren't going into specialties that are the more demanding. So we need to look at how those specialties are practised."

Professor Black warned that, in order for the medical profession's to retain its status, senior doctors needed to serve on government committees and regulatory bodies.

She said such as late night meetings would simply not be possible for women with children, unless they were given extra support with childcare and flexible hours.

"I think most women, although not all, want the opportunity to have a family.

"That may mean they won't perhaps be able to be as flexible as men who don't in a post."

She said she was pleased she was able to highlight the problem because of her position. "It's something that's very difficult for a man to say."

Dr Maureen Baker, honorary secretary of the Royal College of GPs, said it was "perfectly reasonable" to expect the status of any profession to be upheld by its workforce.

"Furthermore, if a higher ratio of men or women working within a profession is deemed to be reducing its status then there is a problem with the very way society views the abilities of the sexes," she said.

A spokeswoman for the British Medical Association said: "We would not want to see a return to the old quota system of admitting women to medical school - the BMA believes in equality of access and opportunity.

"However we agree with Professor Black that there is an under-representation of women at the most senior levels of medicine and medico-politics and we would like to see this changed."

And John Bangs of the National Union of Teachers said: "I would by no means agree that teaching views itself as a less powerful profession, and I find that a very concerning view."

He added: "If you have an all female profession, whether it be medicine or teaching, it means that the pool from which you're selecting those people is smaller than it should be."

[original article]

Another reason to love firefighters.

You would think that after all these centuries, people living in a First World country would have evolved past the point of superstitious stupidity. But no, there are still idiots in Iowa (and other states, I have no doubt) who think that book burning is righteous act and a moral duty. In all likelihood, these are the same brain-atrophied individuals who rant and rave about religious fanatics and zealots in the MiddleEast, steadfastly refusing to recognize their own faces in the mirror.

I support their right to burn books. I can't believe in the democratic process, free speech, and general tolerance if I don't. But that won't change the fact that they're small-minded religious bigots, nor that I find it enormously funny that the fire codes, of all things, have proven such a stumbling block (see original article, attached to continuation of this entry).

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (AP) -- A church's plan for an old-fashioned book-burning has been thwarted by city and county fire codes.

Preachers and congregations throughout American history have built bonfires and tossed in books and other materials they believed offended God.

The Rev. Scott Breedlove, pastor of The Jesus Church, wanted to rekindle that tradition in a July 28 ceremony where books, CDs, videos and clothing would have been thrown into the flames.

Not so fast, city officials said.

"We don't want a situation where people are burning rubbish as a recreational fire," said Brad Brenneman, the fire department's district chief.

Linn County won't go for a fire outside city limits, either.

Officials said the county's air quality division prohibits the transporting of materials from the city to the county for burning.

Breedlove said a city fire inspector suggested shredding the offending material, but Breedlove said that wouldn't seem biblical.

"I joked with the guy that St. Paul never had to worry about fire codes," Breedlove said.

The new plan calls for members of the church to throw materials into garbage cans and then light candles to symbolically "burn" the material.

Go 'way

Attn: Free Staters: thanks, but no thanks. Supporting freedom means not imposing your views, ethics, or politics on the existing population. We like our towns, and our state, just fine the way they are. Kindly go away. I'm sure they'd love you in Wyoming; there's plenty of room out there for you to move in and set up shop without pissing off the locals.

[The inciting article is here, or click the "Continue reading" link below for the article's text.]

Free State Porcupine Festival draws mixed crowd to Lancaster

BEVERLEY WANG
Associated Press

LANCASTER, N.H. - They mill around the campsite dressed in shorts, T-shirts, socks and sandals, talking about freedom, how much they love New Hampshire and when they plan to move here.

"New Hampshire if you'd have me, I'd love to call you home, You have everything I need to rest my mind and bones," sings John Connell as he strums his guitar at a campfire.

Connell, 46, is visiting New Hampshire's mountainous north country for the Porcupine Freedom Festival, which is expected to be the largest-ever gathering of Free State Project members. Campground owner Crosby Peck said Free Staters booked 40 campsites and 26 motel rooms. Many other Free Staters came as day visiters.

"I'm probably the luckiest Free Stater because I'm close to the job," said Connell, who moved from Salem, Mass., to Salem, N.H., in March. The move was so short, he was able to keep his job at a chemical factory. "I'm not an anarchist. I do believe there are functions of government."

Wyoming was the runner-up in the free-state voting.

Between talks on gun laws and the future of the their movement, Free Staters bond over hikes and campfires. A dance is planned for Saturday night.

Cynthia Grossen, 28, drove from Lansing, Mich., to attend the Porcupine Festival. "I consider myself pretty normal" said Grossen, a computer programmer. She said she may move to New Hampshire if the Free State Project reaches its membership target. "All I have to offer is I'm a young person, hard working. I want to have a good life."

Are these the gun-toting, marijuana-smoking, prostitution-loving libertarians planning to take over New Hampshire?

Attracted to New Hampshire's low crime, low taxes and "Live Free or Die" slogan, Free State Project members last year chose New Hampshire as the best place to create a society with fewer laws and smaller government. They have been welcomed by Craig Benson, the state's Republican governor. Benson was the keynote speaker at a New Hampshire Liberty Alliance banquet Friday, which many Free Staters attended.

But others have not greeted them so warmly.

Critics of the Free State Project have highlighted what they believe are inappropriately close ties between Benson and libertarians. Two libertarians hold advisory positions in state government.

They also are alarmed by some of the project's goals, such as the decriminalization of marijuana and other "victimless crimes," as well statements about slashing government and social programs.

"One of the goals they have set forth is to cut state government by two-thirds," said Paul Johnson, a member of the citizens group, Democracy for N.H. "They have an incredibly narrow perspective of government that rules out anything that has to do with the greater good."

But Free State founder Jason Sorens, a Yale University political scientist, said the movement has nothing to do with control.

The Free State Project "invites us to imagine what could happen if people worked together to translate their hopes and dreams into reality," Sorens said in a speech Saturday. Allowing people "the freedom to pursue their projects means more freedom to me."

"This isn't the kind of thing where everybody gets marching orders," he said.

Free State Project members say they are simply a society of loners, united by twin desires to protect their Constitutional rights and to keep government out of their lives.

"We see here in New Hampshire a lot of things that we like," said Bill Walker, 34, a research chemist from Richmond, Va. "We want to come here because we want to be left alone," said Walker, who keeps a military pistol strapped to his belt.

"Enthusiastic people can be scary sometimes," said Wil Aygarn, 44, of Norfolk, Va. "What attracts us to the state is the fact that it does have a freedom oriented culture."

Aygarn was giving out free videos with titles like "Total Enslavement," "Matrix of Evil" and "The Master of Terror."

The Free State Project recently grabbed headlines when a member of a splinter group, the Free Town Project, published an "enemies list" that named several Grafton town officials. The member has since been expelled, but Free Staters have learned their lesson. They are urging members to tread lightly when they move to New Hampshire.

"When we move into New Hampshire, we're the new kids on the block," said Tim Condon, a Free State leader. "The people that I've met in New Hampshire do not want to be told how to live their lives."

At a meeting Friday, several Free Staters stood up to say why they joined the movement.

"I have a tremendous dislike of Socialism," said Patrick Houlmiere, 51.

"I'm here because this can work. I've never seen an idea this good," said Nixi Chesnavich.

"I'm tired of living in fear because the government will take my children away because they don't like what I'm doing," said Anne Keckler, 38.

Free Staters pledged to move to New Hampshire once their membership reaches 20,000. So far, 6,000 have signed up and only a handful have moved. Sorens told Free Staters to emphasize New Hampshire's high quality of life and relative economic freedom in its recruitment drive.

Even if they meet their membership goal, Free Staters will not be able to change the state the way their critics fear, one pollster said.

"If you look at the number of people who move into New Hampshire every year, 20,000 ... is a small percentage of people who will move in over the next several years," said Andrew Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire survey center. "I don't think they could influence any statewide elections with that number."

Asked if he thought the project would succeed, even Sorens expressed doubt. "It's not guaranteed by any means. We still have to emphasize recruitment."

What the freaking hell is wrong with people?

So, the Beeb is reporting that Rummy and his sharks think the Shrub should be free to torture, maim, murder, and oppress anyone he thinks stands in the way of the country's security.

He's sounding more and more like Stalin every day.

I cannot possibly articulate my fury, frustration, and disgust at the current state of the American government and the Shrub's administration thereof.

(since articles online are ephemeral, here's the actual text for posterity)

-----------------------------------

US 'not bound by torture laws'

A Pentagon report last year argued that President George W Bush was not bound by laws banning the use of torture, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The document also argued that torturers acting under presidential orders could not be prosecuted, the paper said.

The report was written by military and civilian lawyers for US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

It came after staff at Guantanamo Bay complained normal interrogation tactics were not eliciting enough information.

The document outlined why restrictions on torture under US laws and international treaties might be overcome by considerations for national security or legal technicalities, the newspaper reported.

Vital intelligence

The draft argued that because nothing was more important than "obtaining intelligence vital to the protection of untold thousands of American citizens" normal strictures on torture might not apply, according to the Journal.

The report contended that the president, as commander-in-chief, has the authority to approve almost any physical or psychological actions during interrogation, including torture, the newspaper reported.

It said it had reviewed a draft dated 6 March, 2003, and had not seen the full final report.

But people familiar with the final text said there were few substantial changes from the draft version, the Wall Street Journal added.

It is not known whether President George W Bush has ever seen the report.

The Bush administration has said it supports the Geneva Conventions and humane treatment for detainees.

The Misunderestimated Man

How Bush chose stupidity.
By Jacob Weisberg

[This article pretty much speaks for itself. I take issue with a few points here and there, where I think bias is twisting meanings, but by and large, this sums up my opinion of the Shrub. -- Th.]

The question I am most frequently asked about Bushisms is, "Do you really think the president of the United States is dumb?"

The short answer is yes.

The long answer is yes and no.

Quotations collected over the years in Slate may leave the impression that George W. Bush is a dimwit. Let's face it: A man who cannot talk about education without making a humiliating grammatical mistake ("The illiteracy level of our children are appalling"); who cannot keep straight the three branches of government ("It's the executive branch's job to interpret law"); who coins ridiculous words ("Hispanos," "arbolist," "subliminable," "resignate," "transformationed"); who habitually says the opposite of what he intends ("the death tax is good for people from all walks of life!") sounds like a grade-A imbecile.

And if you don't care to pursue the matter any further, that view will suffice. George W. Bush has governed, for the most part, the way any airhead might, undermining the fiscal condition of the nation, squandering the goodwill of the world after Sept. 11, and allowing huge problems (global warming, entitlement spending, AIDS) to metastasize toward catastrophe through a combination of ideology, incomprehension, and indifference. If Bush isn't exactly the moron he sounds, his synaptic misfirings offer a plausible proxy for the idiocy of his presidency.

In reality, however, there's more to it. Bush's assorted malapropisms, solecisms, gaffes, spoonerisms, and truisms tend to imply that his lack of fluency in English is tantamount to an absence of intelligence. But as we all know, the inarticulate can be shrewd, the fluent fatuous. In Bush's case, the symptoms point to a specific malady -- some kind of linguistic deficit akin to dyslexia -- that does not indicate a lack of mental capacity per se.

Bush also compensates with his non-verbal acumen. As he notes, "Smart comes in all kinds of different ways." The president's way is an aptitude for connecting to people through banter and physicality. He has a powerful memory for names, details, and figures that truly matter to him, such as batting averages from the 1950s. Bush also has a keen political sense, sharpened under the tutelage of Karl Rove.

What's more, calling the president a cretin absolves him of responsibility. Like Reagan, Bush avoids blame for all manner of contradictions, implausible assertions, and outright lies by appearing an amiable dunce. If he knows not what he does, blame goes to the three puppeteers, Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld. It also breeds sympathy. We wouldn't laugh at FDR because he couldn't walk. Is it less cruel to laugh at GWB because he can't talk? The soft bigotry of low expectations means Bush is seen to outperform by merely getting by. Finally, elitist condescension, however merited, helps cement Bush's bond to the masses.
But if "numskull" is an imprecise description of the president, it is not altogether inaccurate. Bush may not have been born stupid, but he has achieved stupidity, and now he wears it as a badge of honor. What makes mocking this president fair as well as funny is that Bush is, or at least once was, capable of learning, reading, and thinking. We know he has discipline and can work hard (at least when the goal is reducing his time for a three-mile run). Instead he chose to coast, for most of his life, on name, charm, good looks, and the easy access to capital afforded by family connections.

The most obvious expression of Bush's choice of ignorance is that, at the age of 57, he knows nothing about policy or history. After years of working as his dad's spear-chucker in Washington, he didn't understand the difference between Medicare and Medicaid, the second- and third-largest federal programs. Well into his plans for invading Iraq, Bush still couldn't get down the distinction between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, the key religious divide in a country he was about to occupy. Though he sometimes carries books for show, he either does not read them or doesn't absorb anything from them. Bush's ignorance is so transparent that many of his intimates do not bother to dispute it even in public. Consider the testimony of several who know him well.

Richard Perle, foreign policy adviser: "The first time I met Bush 43 ? two things became clear. One, he didn't know very much. The other was that he had the confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn't know very much."

David Frum, former speechwriter: "Bush had a poor memory for facts and figures. ? Fire a question at him about the specifics of his administration's policies, and he often appeared uncertain. Nobody would ever enroll him in a quiz show."

Laura Bush, spouse: "George is not an overly introspective person. He has good instincts, and he goes with them. He doesn't need to evaluate and reevaluate a decision. He doesn't try to overthink. He likes action."

Paul O'Neill, former treasury secretary: "The only way I can describe it is that, well, the President is like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection."

A second, more damning aspect of Bush's mind-set is that he doesn't want to know anything in detail, however important. Since college, he has spilled with contempt for knowledge, equating learning with snobbery and making a joke of his own anti-intellectualism. ("[William F. Buckley] wrote a book at Yale; I read one," he quipped at a black-tie event.) By O'Neill's account, Bush could sit through an hourlong presentation about the state of the economy without asking a single question. ("I was bored as hell," the president shot back, ostensibly in jest.)

Closely related to this aggressive ignorance is a third feature of Bush's mentality: laziness. Again, this is a lifelong trait. Bush's college grades were mostly Cs (including a 73 in Introduction to the American Political System). At the start of one term, the star of the Yale football team spotted him in the back row during the shopping period for courses. "Hey! George Bush is in this class!" Calvin Hill shouted to his teammates. "This is the one for us!" As governor of Texas, Bush would take a long break in the middle of his short workday for a run followed by a stretch of video golf or computer solitaire.

A fourth and final quality of Bush's mind is that it does not think. The president can't tolerate debate about issues. Offered an option, he makes up his mind quickly and never reconsiders. At an elementary school, a child once asked him whether it was hard to make decisions as president. "Most of the decisions come pretty easily for me, to be frank with you." By leaping to conclusions based on what he "believes," Bush avoids contemplating even the most obvious basic contradictions: between his policy of tax cuts and reducing the deficit; between his call for a humble foreign policy based on alliances and his unilateral assertion of American power; between his support for in-vitro fertilization (which destroys embryos) and his opposition to fetal stem-cell research (because it destroys embryos).

Why would someone capable of being smart choose to be stupid? To understand, you have to look at W.'s relationship with father. This filial bond involves more tension than meets the eye. Dad was away for much of his oldest son's childhood. Little George grew up closer to his acid-tongued mother and acted out against the absent parent -- through adolescent misbehavior, academic failure, dissipation, and basically not accomplishing anything at all until well into his 40s.

Dubya's youthful screw-ups and smart-aleck attitude reflect some combination of protest, plea for attention, and flailing attempt to compete. Until a decade ago, his résumé read like a send-up of his dad's. Bush senior was a star student at Andover and Phi Beta Kappa at Yale, where he was also captain of the baseball team; Junior struggled through with gentleman's C's and, though he loved baseball, couldn't make the college lineup. Père was a bomber pilot in the Pacific; fils sat out 'Nam in the Texas Air National Guard, where he lost flying privileges by not showing up. Dad drove to Texas in 1947 to get rich in the oil business and actually did; Son tried the same in 1975 and drilled dry holes for a decade. Bush the elder got elected to Congress in 1966; Shrub ran in 1978, didn't know what he was talking about, and got clobbered.

Through all this incompetent emulation runs an undercurrent of hostility. In an oft-told anecdote circa 1973, GWB -- after getting wasted at a party and driving over a neighbor's trash can in Houston -- challenged his dad. "I hear you're lookin' for me," W. told the chairman of the Republican National Committee. "You want to go mano a mano right here?" Some years later at a state dinner, he told the Queen of England he was being seated far away because he was the black sheep of the family.

After half a lifetime of this kind of frustration, Bush decided to straighten up. Nursing a hangover at a 40th-birthday weekend, he gave up Wild Turkey, cold turkey. With the help of Billy Graham, he put himself in the hands of a higher power and began going to church. He became obsessed with punctuality and developed a rigid routine. Thus did Prince Hal molt into an evangelical King Henry. And it worked! Putting together a deal to buy the Texas Rangers, the ne'er-do-well finally tasted success. With success, he grew closer to his father, taking on the role of family avenger. This culminated in his 1994 challenge to Texas Gov. Ann Richards, who had twitted dad at the 1988 Democratic convention.

[Paraphrase: "Poor George. He can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth." - Th.]

Curiously, this late arrival at adulthood did not involve Bush becoming in any way thoughtful. Having chosen stupidity as rebellion, he stuck with it out of conformity. The promise-keeper, reformed-alkie path he chose not only drastically curtailed personal choices he no longer wanted, it also supplied an all-encompassing order, offered guidance on policy, and prevented the need for much actual information. Bush's old answer to hard questions was, "I don't know and, who cares." His new answer was, "Wait a second while I check with Jesus."

A remaining bit of poignancy was his unresolved struggle with his father. "All I ask," he implored a reporter while running for governor in 1994, "is that for once you guys stop seeing me as the son of George Bush." In his campaigns, W. has kept his dad offstage. (In an exceptional appearance on the eve of the 2000 New Hampshire primary, 41 came onstage and called his son "this boy.") While some describe the second Bush presidency as a restoration, it is in at least equal measure a repudiation. The son's harder-edged conservatism explicitly rejects the old man's approach to such issues as abortion, taxes, and relations with Israel.

This Oedipally induced ignorance expresses itself most dangerously in Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. Dubya polished off his old man's greatest enemy, Saddam, but only by lampooning 41's accomplishment of coalition-building in the first Gulf War. Bush led the country to war on false pretenses and neglected to plan the occupation that would inevitably follow. A more knowledgeable and engaged president might have questioned the quality of the evidence about Iraq's supposed weapons programs. One who preferred to be intelligent might have asked about the possibility of an unfriendly reception. Instead, Bush rolled the dice. His budget-busting tax cuts exemplify a similar phenomenon, driven by an alternate set of ideologues.

As the president says, we misunderestimate him. He was not born stupid. He chose stupidity. Bush may look like a well-meaning dolt. On consideration, he's something far more dangerous: a dedicated fool.

some days I hate being American

CSPAN, even as I type, is broadcasting (live) the annual White House Correspondents Dinner. The President has already made his few remarks, and Jay Leno is now performing the keynote. (Traditionally, the keynote is delivered by a well-known comedian or other performer, as entertainment.)

As is the usual for this event, everyone, and everything, is fair game for ridicule. There have been some humdingers, aimed at both sides of the aisle. But what is getting me bent out of shape are the fake Iraq film clips - things like Jay Leno checking Saddam's prostate, and photo booth images of Saddam and the cleric-de-jour making friendly.

If these had been targeted at any Westerner, I wouldn't have batted an eyelash. I would probably have laughed. But to so publically degrade Saddam and an apparently devout Muslim in a manner akin to the recent prison abuses (by US soldiers) in Iraq, and especially offensive to members of that culture, is humiliating - not merely to the subjects of the "joke", but to me as an American, trying to hold my head up under the world's gaze.

We don't need to kick someone who's already down. The only ones injured in such an assault are ourselves.

Marriage Lite

The brouhaha over gay marriage isn't limited to the U.S.; France is now wrestling with a prime example of the Law of Unintended Consequences: Straight Couples Use French Civil Unions Law Created For Homosexuals

There is at least some measure of equality in the situation. What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. But it sounds so science-fictiony, practical in many respects, yet empty in so many others. And what about children? They will be your children forever, civil contract or no. What effect will it have on them? Are there any protections for them, in the new law?

I suppose marriage as a concept means different things to different people. My own family is tightly knit, with many examples of long, successful marriages - the lesson taught to me since childhood is when things get tough, you work harder, and you get through it. It's not something to be cleanly set aside when you stop having fun.

And yet, one of my siblings is now in the process of ending a marriage. The news came as a tremendous shockwave, leaving everyone stunned. Despite twenty years, two kids, and extended counseling, the relationship is ending. We seem to flutter about, helplessly, like trapped moths - there's nothing in our experience that has prepared us for this. All we can do is keep loving her, one another, and everyone involved. It's horrible. But I can't imagine them exchanging the past twenty years of marriage for a simple civil union contract.

-------

The full text:

Straight Couples Use French Civil Unions Law Created For Homosexuals

France resolved its debate over same-sex marriage several years ago by creating civil unions. But the law has had unexpected effects.

What began as a way to provide some legal protection for people in homosexual relationships has become a real alternative for heterosexual couples in France, thousands of whom come to municipal offices to sign "civil pacts of solidarity," or PACS, rather than get married.

Now We Have Rights

The ceremony itself takes just a few minutes. The couple goes to a court and assures the clerk they are not married to anyone else. After a few more basic questions, the papers are signed and the PACS is official.

"Now we have rights," a woman in a same-sex union says, "which we didn't have a few hours ago."

Under the civil pact, each partner is eligible for the other's work benefits. And after three years, they can get the same tax breaks as married couples. Ending the PACS can be as quick and easy as signing one.

"It is not necessary to divorce," says Daniel Borrillo, a legal specialist. "It is only necessary to inform the authorities that you decided to terminate the contract."

If there's a dispute, one party gives notice, and three months later, it's over.

The PACS law was hugely controversial when it was going through the French parliament in the late 1990s. Opponents of the law clashed with its supporters.

The law passed, but only after it was expanded to make heterosexuals eligible for civil unions as well. Otherwise, some argued, the law would be discriminatory.

It turned out to be a big change.

Marriage Attitudes

Some straight couples opting for the civil pact are older and have married before, but most are young couples.

In a country with a divorce rate of 38 percent, where some 40 percent of children are born out of wedlock, many consider marriage an obsolete institution.

"My parents got divorced," one woman says. "I don't regard marriage as sacred."

So, a law initially written for gay couples has evolved into a sort of marriage light for straight couples.

"It was the need of the gay community," says Pascal De Bodard of the Gay and Lesbian Center of Paris. "But at the end of the day, it was to the benefit of the whole French population."

Big Brother Bouncer

The "cataloging" of individuals seems to be increasing. I can understand the need on the part of the businesses in this article (Pubs, Clubs Use High-Tech ID System to Track Troublemakers), but I strongly object to their retaining personal identity information such as birthdays. If the system works by identifying the face, then all it needs is the face. If the bar is going to go as far as requiring personal information, they might as well issue membership cards of their own in order for patrons to gain admission.

I assume they collect the birthdate in order to validate that the customer is of legal drinking age. But really, they don't need to retain that information. An underage patron can be flagged as underaged, with no mention of the actual birthday. When they reach legal age, they simply tell the doorman that they've had a birthday and show identification proving it; the system gets updated, and wha-la, they're granted entry to all businesses using it.

-------

The full text to which I'm objecting:

Pubs, Clubs Use High-Tech ID System to Track Troublemakers

Soon you may be asked for more than your identification when you go into a bar or nightclub. In Vancouver, Canada, you could also be asked to smile for a camera.

The Vigilance ID check system was developed by Vancouver's TreoScope Technologies. It works by taking your picture as your ID is swiped through a card reader. Your name, birth date, and diver's license number are transferred from the magnetic strip on the back of your card to a computer database where that info, along with your photo, are stored.

"The idea behind it was to create a system that would protect patrons and establishments from people out to make the nightlife unsafe," TreoScope co-owner Owen Cameron says. "It's a 24-hour doorman that never forgets a name or a face."

If you cause trouble, not only can you get kicked out of the club, but bar owners can go through the photos, find you, and red flag you for future visits.

Cameron says those running the system in their establishments can also attach reports to your name and face ? a regular rap sheet for whatever you may have done wrong, from fighting and excessive drinking to drink-tampering.

Rowdy Bar-Hopper Stopper

But if you draw a red flag, don't think you can just go down the street to the next bar or even across town. Every bar that's hooked into the electronic system can find out if you've caused trouble someplace else.

Genesis Security (www.GenesisSecurity.com) is responsible for running the system day-to-day.

"You could have a troublemaker at one bar, send [his information] off to all bars on the system, and the bar would be aware of his history," Genesis' Dave Sukic says.

It's then up to each bar to decide whether to let the patron inside.

Tristan Vanin is the general manager of Vancouver hot spot the Plaza Club. Vanin says the club felt it needed to tighten security in the wake of increasing violence in the area.

"It all starts with the front door and who you are letting in," he says. "It only takes one gunshot or one act of violence, and it'll ruin your club night."

Another Slap in the Face of Privacy?

The Vigilance system, which can also identify fake IDs, was designed to keep patrons out of harm's way, according to the company. But the security network is raising eyebrows among privacy advocates.

Lee Tien, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, is concerned the information could be used for other purposes.

"Whenever you're collecting information and tying it to their identity, then you have all sorts of problems ... as in, what are the people who get that information going to do with it?" Tien asks.

Genesis Security insists the information will not be used for marketing or any other purposes. It says the information will be kept discrete.

"It's not being released to anybody," Dave Sukic insists. "That information is sent to us directly and will only be released for court purposes."

The information, he says, could be kept for up to two years for legal reasons.

Shock, horror: sex doesn't sell

It is the news that a particular kind of movie mogul has been dreading: sex no longer sells. Films containing explicit sex or nudity are earning less on average than more wholesome movies.

The article goes on to point out a number of aspects to the statistics that indicate the study has significant control flaws. Still, it's an interesting -- and encouraging -- theory.

Americans were more likely to enjoy films with a religious or moral content because Christian belief remained much more entrenched in the US than in countries such as Australia and Britain.

While the US is generally less accepting of non-Christian religions, I'm not sure that's the same thing as saying that Christian belief is more entrenched, particularly given the drop-off in church attendance in the more traditional denominations. Certainly, the South and the various Baptist branches are enthusiastic bible-thumpers, but representative of the country as a whole? I'm unconvinced.

"We've certainly seen that with the box office success of The Passion of the Christ in America, which is unlikely to be repeated [in Britain]," [film critic and columnist Will Self] said. "We are a secular country, thank God."

Now THAT is a truly interesting statement, coming from a citizen of Britain -- where the Queen is still the head of the state-sanctioned church. I'd love to discuss it with the columnist in more detail...

The rise in popularity of films that are moral in tone looks set to continue after the success of The Passion. Even though the dialogue is in Latin and Aramaic, it has grossed almost $US400 million since its release last month.

Which is mind-boggling, given the American public's normal reaction to non-English language films. Releasing a film with subtitles is normally the kiss of death, resulting in instant relegation solely to art house screens.

Broadcaster and critic Sheridan Morley believes audiences have been tiring of action thrillers. "I am surprised by these findings because they go against all the wisdom of recent Hollywood," he said. "It just shows, once again, how out of touch Hollywood is with what the audience wants.

"Films have been totally mechandised in recent years and are no longer about people. Now we've got so high-tech that we've lost the sense of real human relationships. Cinema needs to get back to people."

Amen, brother.

Zanzibar is very far...

Zanzibar's parliament late Tuesday unanimously passed a bill outlawing homosexuality, with prison terms of up to 25 years for gay relationships. [...] If the bill becomes law, a person found guilty of sodomizing a minor will receive an automatic life sentence. The penalty for a homosexual relationship between men will be a 25-year sentence, and the punishment for a lesbian relationship will be a seven-year sentence.

Completely aside from the basic premise of the law, which is so patently asinine as to defy comment, this schedule of punishments makes no sense. While I support penalties of some sort for inappropriate contact (homo- OR heterosexual) with a minor, I don't get the gender disparity in the cases between consenting adults. Is it simply that, culturally, women in Zanzibar (and their actions) are of little or no consequence in comparison to men? Or is there something even more insidious at work?

Searching

"She left behind her horse, her dental retainer and other prized possessions."

It would be a wonderful opening line for a novel...if I weren't quoting it from the Doe Network.

I came across the Doe site during my normal lunchtime browsing. Its concept intrigued me. Actually, it always has; my interest in shows like CSI and Without A Trace stems from the same source, as does my interest in genealogy. Life is a mystery - who we are, where we come from, where we go during our lives, and what clues we leave behind on our journey, for others to later find and puzzle over.

There's obviously a much darker side to the mystery in cases like Rachael's. The horrible sinking feeling in the pit of the stomach, lasting every day, every month, every year since the event itself. The not knowing.

People can't just disappear off the face of the planet. And yet, they do. Even in small states, small towns, like mine. And when it's in a small community, it becomes all the more horrific - because the community is vividly personal. It's not a formless mass of humanity, from which all types of crimes slink out into the world. It's faces and names that you know, neighbors with names and families and shared histories. It's friends and their siblings, and the cousins of colleagues.

Someone, somewhere, knows the answer. That knowledge is almost as frightening as the event itself.

Oink

I'm strongly in favor of educational projects and research, almost to a fault. But even I have to question why Iowa is an appropriate location for a rainforest...particularly on the national nickel.

It's not like there's no value to these endeavors. It's just that my tax dollars have more important things to do than to spend -

• $50,000,000 for an indoor rainforest project in Coralville, Iowa added by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). The crown jewel of this year's Pig Book, the rainforest was the brainchild of Ted Townsend (heir to Townsend meat-packing fortune), who came up with the idea when contemplating his legacy on a treadmill. Former Gov. Bob Ray believes this tropical boondoggle will solve the state's "demographic problems" by drawing more people to move to Iowa.
• $3,000,000 for the First Tee Program, an initiative of the World Golf Foundation. "The focus is to give young people of all backgrounds an opportunity to develop, through golf and character education, life-enhancing values such as honesty, integrity, and sportsmanship."
• $1,000,000 for the Institute of International Sport to prevent crime by promoting "ethical behavior and good sportsmanship on an international basis."

What happened to "one thousand points of light"? Aren't these the sort of projects that the Bush boys deemed the responsibility of local communities and charities, rather than the federal government? Why are we spending federal moneys on an international sports organization, when we can't even pay for my grandmother's medical care? Why are we teaching kids to play golf, when we're struggling for funds to teach them to read? Why are we paying for an artificial rainforest that was dreamed up by some rich guy who wants to leave a legacy? If it's his legacy, shouldn't he be paying for it? And why on the face of God's green Earth do we even need an artificial rainforest, when the real ones are in such greater need of our support?

I'm afraid to read the full report. My shingles nerve will implode from the stress.

More than the bank was robbed.

This story fills me with sadness.

It's meant, of course, to be amusing to its audience, as evidenced by its posting in CNN's "Offbeat News" section. And you have to admire the subject's plucky, go for it attitude, despite how badly it's misplaced. But what I really take away from this story is an appreciation of what sharing a loving life should be.

Mr. Rountree attributes his change in behavior to the death of his wife. The impression given is that robbing banks was a way for him to lend significance to his life, to *feel* alive again, in the wake of that loss. I can't feel anything but sorrow, that someone's life could be so completely reduced to nothingness. But it's not a sympathetic sorrow, because to be utterly devalued by the loss of a partner is to dishonor that partner's memory.

Mr. Rountree obviously loved his wife a great deal. But in allowing himself to go "kind of crazy" without her daily influence, he makes a powerful statement, that his wife loved a man without any intrinsic worth as a person.

My grandfather predeceased my gran by well over a decade, and it was a devastating loss. She was his sweetheart, from the first moment he had met her, over fifty years before. After she passed, he struggled with depression, and the aches and pains of his years...but he honored her memory for every minute of his life. Her soul was present in his life every day. And, when he passed, just short of his 99th birthday, almost the first thing those of us who loved him said to one another in comfort, was "He's with his sweetheart now."

So, I'm saddened by this article. Not at what "Red" has done, but for what he failed to do...and what he missed out on as a result.

Voice from the Past

Written almost 60 years ago...but still full of wisdom.

Ethics != Religion = Politics

Ironic, but not surprising -- that's how I'd sum up recent events relating to the the President's Council on Bioethics. The rate of religious doctrine's intrusion into the realm of scientific truths has steadily worsened since Bush's questionable election in 2000, and doesn't appear likely to improve during the remainder of his term.

I generally spend my lunchhour perusing my favorite news sites, foreign and domestic; straight news, quirky news, science and technology news, they're all fascinating. It's not unusual for one news story to lead me through a dozen different sites as my curiosity is kicked into gear. Foraging off the beaten trail is a lot more interesting than eating pablum. So, when I start from different sites, on different continents, and via completely different stories and routes, wind up at sources with a common theme, I generally figure that the Universe is trying to make a point.

The two sources I came across today are titled:

1. Bioethics of--and in--the Brain
2. George W. Bush Is Getting Brain-jacked

They're not redundant, but complementary, touching on some core themes from different angles.

The first article describes a concept called 'the wisdom of repugnance':

"In other words, the feeling you get in your bones that something is wrong is a reliable guide to what really is wrong. The Council on Bioethics [has] declared that happiness exists to let us recognize what is good in life, while real anger and sadness reveal to us what is evil and unjust. "Emotional flourishing of human beings in this world requires that feelings jibe with the truth of things, both as effect and as cause," they write. By extension, repugnance is a good guide for making decisions about bioethics. If cloning gives you the creeps, it?s wrong.

But what exactly produces those creeps? In recent years neuroscientists and psychologists have made huge strides in understanding both emotions and moral judgments. They've scanned people's brains as they decide whether things are right or wrong; they've looked at the brain's neurochemistry, and they've gotten insights from the brains of animals and the fossils of ancient hominids as well. And their conclusions seriously undermine the philosophy of the council.

[...] one of the leaders in this new field of "neuro-morality," [is] a philospher-neuroscientist named Joshua Greene at Princeton University. Greene argues that feeling that something is right or wrong isn't the same as recognizing that two and two make four, or that the sky is blue. It feels the same only because our brains respond to certain situations with emotional reactions that happen so fast we aren't aware of them. We are wired to get angry at deception and cruelty; even the thought of harming another person can trigger intense emotional reactions. These "moral intuitions" are ancient evolutionary adaptations, which exist in simpler versions in our primate relatives.

When our ancestors stood upright and got big brains, Greene argues, these moral intuitions became more elaborate. They probably helped hominids survive, by preventing violence and deception from destroying small bands of hunter-gatherers who depended on each other to find food and raise children. But evolution is not a reliable guide for figuring out how to lead our lives today. Just because moral intuitions may be the product of natural selection doesn't mean they are right or wrong, any more than feathers or tails are right or wrong."

The latter article has a broader scope, but is nonetheless a biting indictment of the current administration's pathetic performance in the science and bioethics arenas. In particular, it contains a pointed quote from John Kerry, who in addition to being the opposing candidate in the current presidential race, is a member of the US Senate's Science Policy Committe:

"there have always been the few with a distaste for progress and a fundamental distrust of the American people to have the morality and strength to handle the consequences. Unfortunately, today some of that deep distrust of new discoveries and of the American people has found a home in George Bush's White House. George Bush has proved a ready ally for those who seek to impose their private moral vision on the American people. Over and over again, this President has put partisan politics above scientific and medical advancement. Whether it is global warming or stem cell research, President Bush has appeased his party's right wing by ignoring scientific fact and slowing medical progress..."

I'm sure the President is a legitimate man of faith. I only wish he were also someone who valued truth above doctrine. We need, and require, a moral compass for the country, a leadership that governs by ethics rather than politics. What we're getting instead is an executive who thinks that ethics and religion are the same thing. And there is no surer path to Hell than that fallacy.

Political Humor

Why is it, that liberals have no problem laughing at themselves, while conservatives take offense at the silliest jibes?

Last week, I assisted Curious George in writing a letter to my youngest nephew, who was having a challenging time coping with some of life's recent twists. To give the letter a little cheerful accent, I went looking for illustrations of the literary monkey online.

To my delight, and much subsequent hilarity, I came across these items:

• George 1
  
• George 2
  

Fred and I printed them out, and took them down to share with his (liberal) mom -- who was immediately consumed with laughter. Then we passed them down the table to his (conservative) sister -- who looked at them, put them down, and said she didn't see anything funny about them.

She did, however, mention that she had seen this picture, which she found highly amusing:

• Gomer
  

Personally, I think it's damn funny, too. My only question is, how on earth can you consider the Kerry/Gomer to be hilarious, but not the the Bush/Monkey?

I've noticed this trend before - I'll send a funny poke at a conservative, to a conservative family member, and in response I almost always get a serious article expounding the merits of their favorite conservative and the deficiencies of the opposing liberal.

Lighten up, people. If you can't laugh at yourself once in a while, your perspective is seriously out of whack.

What Exactly *IS* Marriage?

Three cheers for Oregon's Benton County, for taking such a logical action in the melee over gay marriage. Finally, FINALLY, someplace that is willing to take a meaningful stand on the issue.

I continue to wonder, why a government constitutionally separated from religion has any interest whatsoever in defining the concept of "marriage".

The formal life commitment of two individuals to one another has two major aspects: religious and socio-economic. In the United States, we have historically used a single term to describe both, "marriage", but it would be more accurate to refer to them as "marriage" (religious) and "civil union" (socio-economic). Why? Because the state really has no defensible interest in requiring the registration of religious status or affiliations.

What goes on inside a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship, is absolutely none of the state's business. A prime example of this is the continued exclusion of women from the Catholic priesthood -- something which blatantly violates the concept of Equal Opportunity, but which, as a religious practice, is solely the pervue of the Catholic church. Similarly, marriage in the context of faith is defined by religious texts and tenets, and ONLY in this context can references to passages from the Bible and spiritual sanctity have any bearing, or in fact, meaning.

Meanwhile, the state, via municipal and county marriage licensing processes, controls the socio-economic aspects of the married condition: the management of property, the assessment of taxes, the custody of progeny, and the general protections of law. In this context, it does not make an iota of difference what has transpired in history, in the Bible, or in Congress. (Not that I would equate any two of those venues with one another.) Clinging to historical precedent on this issue is no better than expounding the benefits of slavery, or decrying the victories of suffragettes. What matters here is only, ONLY, the non-religious aspect of the married state, in this particular day, age, and location. And the plain unvarnished truth is that there is absolutely no objective difference between a gay couple and hetero couple in this context.

A government operates via forms, whether they be paper or electronic. A form doesn't care about the sex (or sexual orientation) of the person completing it. Oh, there may be a space for their sex to be indicated, but that's just a tally -- the form itself really Just Doesn't Care. Bits is bits, data is data, and the computer will take whatever information is fed into it, without judgement or discrimination. There is no rational argument that can be made for denying a gay couple the rights of marriage in this context. No new processes need be developed. No new tax tables need be compiled.

There is immeasurable hand-wringing over the "weakening" of marriage by legalizing the institution for gays, but there has yet to be given any concrete example of how this accusation can be quantified. Does it lessen a hetero couple's legal rights? Nope. Does it change their taxes, property, or custody arrangements? Nope. Does it violate their faith? In many cases, sure. But that's their problem. Not society's, not the government's, and sure as heck not gay couples'.

Three cheers for Benton County, for pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

homogenization of America

Where do we draw the line, between traditions that have outlived their usefulness, and traditions that define who we are, distinct from other people, places, and cultures?

Yesterday was Town Meeting Day in New Hampshire, the traditional day when communities across the state hold their annual gathering of citizens, to discuss and vote upon proposed budgets and municipal activities for the coming year.

In my home town (the town where I grew up, rather than the one I live in now), the last vestiges of this form of government have finally been eliminated.

I was present at the Meeting in 1988, when the town voted to try running matters via a Town Council (elected) and a Town Administrator (hired by said Council). I voted against the change then, and I'm just as firmly opposed to it today. The argument in favor of the change, was that the town had grown too large to effectively manage its duties with only a single day per year to conduct the year's business. And, in many respects, that argument is not without validity. But leaving communal goverment behind in favor of representative government nonetheless weakens a community at its most basic level.

When you govern by Town Meeting, there is no separation between the concepts of "Town" and "citizens". They are one and the same, and governmental activities are woven into the fabric of normal, everyday community life. To choose instead a representative form of government, is to separate the one from the other. Instead of the Town being a "we", it becomes an "it". What kind of impact does this have on individual investment in the community? When you are no longer part of the core structure of a town, maintaining a high level of social discourse among an informed electorate is made monumentally more difficult.

Our Town Moderator for many, many years, Joe Michaels, was the epitome of the classic New England Town Moderator - with good humor and a wry intelligence, he kept Meeting rolling right along, giving fair opportunity for folks to speak for and against each measure, while holding us to a focused progress through the agenda. On the evening the final Town Meeting vote was passed, he commented, that only time would tell if the change would prove to be a golden goose...or a rotten egg.

No points for guessing which outcome I think was achieved...

Accounting for Effort

One of the biggest issues contributing to those negative experiences I encountered twenty years ago, was that we weren't reporting to a paid boss. We were doing our best to function as an effective, coordinated team, without outside administrative oversight or direction. While that gave us a certain degree of freedom, and a lot of scope for creative problem-solving, it also led to confusion and some amount of mission creep, because it was easy to forget who our constituents were: not each other, but rather the public we served.

We weren't administratively accountable to those constituents: they didn't elect us, supervise us, or have any input on how the organization was structured. We spent their money (indirectly, through the medical supplies, vehicle maintenance, and liability coverage provided by the campus), and I think we spent it responsibly and effectively, but it was without any reporting requirement to show them the benefits of their investment, resulting in ongoing public relations problems.

As events unfolded earlier this month, I found myself harking back to that earlier situation, as I tried to sort out who was now coordinating which activities, administering which fund, and providing direction to the overall mission. I went looking for the answers on the respective websites and forums, to try and sort it all out. I found lots of information — but very little of it specific enough to really address my confusion.

I have nothing but respect for those who have given 110% over the past year and a half, to spearhead and staff the campaign. So please take the following in the spirit intended: not as a challenge or any kind of aspersion, but merely a sincere request to eliminate any possible confusion about the current state of affairs. These open questions are addressed not to a single specific site, but to any site or group working on campaign activities:

1. In bullet or outline form, 200 words or less, what is the current general mission of your organization/association? To promote the Farscape television show, cast, or crew? To expand/unite the Farscape fan community? To promote charitable efforts in the show's name? If you have multiple missions, how are you avoiding a loss of focus in your activities?

2. In bullet or outline form, 200 words or less, what are the current specific goals of your organization/association? Season Five? A particular rating on the miniseries when it airs? A specialized product or service? How are you targeting your efforts to a reasonable spectrum of goals, to avoid splitting your resources too much to effectively achieve those goals?

3. Who are your constituents? Other scapers? The general public? Specific communities? Specific interest groups? How do you measure and demonstrate your accountability to those constituents, for activities conducted in their name?

4. What are the requirements for membership? Is your membership tiered (such as voting & non-voting, etc.), and if so, how and why?

5. What is your governance structure? Are issues decided by the full membership, or an executive committee? If the latter, what posts/offices have been established? How are they filled? Do you have formal terms, with set lengths of service? How are officers replaced or reappointed?

6. How formal is your organization? Are you a casual association, a formal organization, or legally incorporated?

7. If any part of your group's activities involves the collection/distribution of funds,

   1. What processes are in place for the collection of monies? Are funds collected into a personal PayPal account designated for the project, a PayPal account established in the name of the group, or a formally incorporated organization bank account?

   2. What processes are in place for the disbursement of funds? Are there controls to ensure that funds are only disbursed in accordance with the wishes, and under the authority, of the group's members/governing committee?

   3. What reporting mechanisms are in place to provide timely, accurate, detailed, and auditable accounting of all flows of funds in and out of group accounts? How often are these reports updated? Are they posted in a regular, prominent location, so that constituents can easily locate them?

The more specifics, the more data that's put out there, the less confusion and conflict we'll have to deal with, going forward. And surely that's a good thing. ;-)

Reflections on Conflict

The temptation itself is divided. The devil on my treblin side is tugging at my earlobe, urging the immediate knocking together of heads. The angel on my hamman side, patting me on the shoulder, murmers that there is no honor in potentially prolonging a conflict merely for the opportunity to express my own opinion.

"But, you might talk some sense into everyone," entices Treblin.

Hamman grimaces at the arrogance of that thought. "Remember all those times your parents chided you for having Last Word Syndrome? Hmmm? What's your real motive for sticking your oar in now, anyway?"

Good question. Why am I feeling compelled to wade in, just as the waters are starting to settle?

• Am I acting out of selfish self-interests?
• Am I acting out of a sense of community?
• Am I being influenced by petty frustrations or hurt feelings?
• Do I have something constructive to contribute?
• Is baggage from past experience skewing my viewpoint?

There's really no getting around it — the answer to all of the above has to be, "yes". Even the most valid of motives cannot possibly be free from an individual's own personal shortcomings and limitations. So, let's put that on the table right upfront. But, looking at that list of questions, it's the last one that I really want to address. How could my viewpoint not be affected by almost four decades of experiences, good and bad? It's obvious to me that those experiences are framing my perspective now, and one in particular has been especially on my mind this month.

For the bulk of my college years, I was active in the campus's emergency services team. By the end of my tenure, I was a senior EMT, an assistant EMT instructor, a CPR instructor, and had served on the executive staff as both Secretary and Public Relations officer. I had put my creative talents to use designing and sewing the team's banner for events. I had sweet-talked the campus administration into providing us with dedicated office space at no charge. I had helped outfit a new emergency response vehicle, right down to the reflective EMS decals on the doors. My significant other was on the team. My roommate was on the team. My social circle was composed almost entirely of team members. By the time I graduated, I was on duty and carrying a pager 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

In short, it was a total immersion experience, which completely consumed my life. And I loved it. I loved being part of a close-knit community. I loved the friends I made. I loved making a significant difference in people's lives, when they were ill or injured. I loved growing as a person as a result of those experiences.

I also hated it. I hated the external politics, squabbling with a liability-wary university, but even more, I hated the internal politics of the clique-plagued team itself. I hated the in-fighting, the schemes to get someone on or off the executive committee, the petty arguments over things like whether or not we should be in full formal uniforms when we were on duty.

Looking back with a saner perspective, twenty years down the line, I see the organizational dynamic more clearly. We were young, and idealistic, and dedicated, and most of all, passionate about what we were doing. There weren't any good guys or bad guys, there were just a whole lot of people with boundless energy, tons of ideas, and an intense desire to be involved, to contribute, to have a voice. It was natural that some of our ideas would be in conflict. It was natural that passionate people sometimes let ego get in the way of professionalism, sometimes let personal relationships interfere with their focus on a task. Sometimes I stood above the fray; other times I was the guiltiest party in the room.

I can't help but see parallels to recent developments in scaperdom. There have been arguments, some petty, some deeply philosophical. There have been personality clashes that distracted from the spirit of the effort. And there's been a whole lot of confusion on the part of those of us not directly privy to whatever the frell is going on behind the scenes.

And you know what? There still aren't any good guys or bad guys. There are just a whole lot of people with boundless energy, tons of ideas, and an intense desire to be involved, to contribute, to have a voice. It's natural that some of our ideas will be in conflict. It's natural that as passionate people, we sometimes let ego get in the way of professionalism, sometimes let personal relationships interfere with our focus on a task. Sometimes we stand above the fray; other times we're each the guiltiest party in the room.

Conflict is okay. Not desirable, but okay. Like the annual flooding of the Nile, it makes a mess of things for a while, but when it recedes, it leaves behind renewed soil, ready to be reseeded for fresh growth. I'm not worried about the long-term health of the scaper community. This too shall pass, and we may find ourselves healthier for it in the long run, as long as we face the issues raised, head-on.