Ciceronian

noreply@blogger.com (Sarah) — Thu, 14 Nov 2002 04:12:00 +0000

But I AM NOT a Republican. I voted Republican, but I am a "liberal" in the TRUE SENSE of the word. I crave personal liberty above all else.

That's why I hope the Republican majority doesn't get its head all stuck up its butt and do stupid things, believing that they have a "mandate" for them. Here's my advice for the new majority:

Yeah, what he says. Most interesting is the parallel drawn between the "War on Drugs" and attempts to criminalize* abortion.

*I say "criminalize" rather than "ban," because the latter suggests that abortion will stop because of a few laws, which it won't. It will just make pregnant desparate women into criminals.

(link via Stephan Green)

noreply@blogger.com (Sarah) — Thu, 07 Nov 2002 01:18:00 +0000

But, But, I'm a Federalist!

As much as I really don't like quizzes, this one just charmed me.

Which Founding Father Are You?

And, yes, I'm a Federalist, but that bank wasn't such a bad idea after all. Go me!

noreply@blogger.com (Sarah) — Thu, 07 Nov 2002 01:04:00 +0000

But Will They Learn? Sources Say No

John Ellis thinks that a Democratic purge is "coming". I agree with his logic, that the Democratic party can't ideologically withstand the ratification of Bush's victory in 2000. However, I don't think there's automatically going to be a purge of the Dem leadership.

First off, no politician, especially not ones as hyped up on the fumes of power as modern day Democrats, is going to resign, a move equivalent to admitting defeat at the hands of the boy king. Ellis argues that the Dems are going to have to "think much more imaginately about the most important issues." Well, yeah, but only to win. There's no law saying that the Dems have to rebound from this immediately.

Who is going to do this thinking, pray tell? Gephardt is a sick old donkey; Daschle is a model for ineffective leadership; Terry M. is as useful as a rat in the pantry...so who? That's why Hillary is the only Democratic to gain from last night. She has a low enough profile that she wasn't visibly damaged by the defeat, and she has enough name recognition that she can, with a few smarts, waltz into power.

However, does Ellis really think that Hillary is the visionary leader that the Democrats need now? I sure hope not. The best we could hope for would be return to Bill-type policy, which, as has been shown over and over again, was not as great as we all thought it was.

I predict that there will be some internal reorganization, with individual Senators and Congressmen striving for recognition (voting against Bush, organizing bipartisan initiatives, the usual), but that it'll take until 2006 for the Democrats to fully regain power (2004 won't be successful because they haven't got anyone decent to run for President, which will hurt their party's entire campaign organization).

noreply@blogger.com (Sarah) — Wed, 06 Nov 2002 02:19:00 +0000

Deja Vu All Over Again

Well, Fox News is reporting that the VNS service has crashed. VNS, for the uninitiated, is a joint project between a lot of the major news sources to report on exit polls and statistics. Basically, it's the backbone for the networks' statisticians when it comes time to call the elections. It's way cool (I was able to visit one of the stations using it, as I know one of the statisticians, so I've used it a bit, and trust me, if it works, it's awesome).

Problem is, it's not working. There isn't quite enough bandwidth on the system to have allowed all the networks to sign on, and even with that, there were a lot of worries that it would crash. Which it did. Two reasons why this isn't bad (it's actually a really, really good thing, provided it's not your job to call elections).

1) It'll cut down on speculation based on exit polls. Because of the portions of VNS that went down, the statisicians are left with raw information (plugged into a variety of models) as well as the results from past elections (divided up geographically as well as along party lines). As such, they're going to be really, really careful calling elections (not that they weren't already paranoid, the people I've spoken to refer to Florida like evangelicals refer to the Anunciation -- the beginning of a new era).

2) Television is going to be less frenetic tonight. Because they are going to have to work more, the stations hopefully won't harp upon the data, which is, to me, the least pleasent aspect of election night.

And, because the station knew I was a journalist, the condition on which I was allowed to visit was that I wouldn't report on how panicky everyone was that the system would crash. But since Fox News has broken it, I think they've scooped me.

noreply@blogger.com (Sarah) — Sat, 02 Nov 2002 06:52:00 +0000

Yes, Grandpa Mondale

Intersting article in the NY Times today. It's talking about the growing "gerontocracy," supposedly the growing trend in seniors taking roles of leadership.

Two things I think the article misses:
1) It's not that people are working closer to the time when they pass on, it's that, with modern healthcare, people are living longer. What once were debilitating diseases related to aging are not so serious; people now regularly live into the 80s and 90s. The CIA Factbook lists US male life expectancy as 74.5 years. And nearly 13% of the population is over 65. Why is it so surprising that that a few (and the article only lists a few) of these people are sprightly enough to work?

2) When talking about elections, as this article beings by, age is good. Especially when one is an established politician beginning a campaign on short notice. Mondale. Lautenburg. Everyone knows their names; they would not need to campaign as much as a younger politician would. It's not experience or wisdom that's a factor here, it's the name recognition.

And please, no one mention Thurmond. He's (thankfully) a hapless aberration the likes of which we (if the heavens smile upon us) will never see again.

noreply@blogger.com (Sarah) — Tue, 22 Oct 2002 03:49:00 +0000

Dearly Beloved, We Are Gathered Here Today...

As much as this depresses me, I think Becky and I are going to not update the blog as often as we used to. The blog is tons of fun, but real life just has this way of sneaking up on people, you know? School work is picking up (remember Junior year? Lovely, wasn't it) and both of us have this fervent desire to attend college. It's not that we haven't anything to say (quite the opposite), it's just that high school is hell and our school's attitude towards work is that it's "character building stuff" and the more the better (I was at school until 10 tonight, and the thought of updating the blog nightly frightens me).

We'll update as frequently as we humanly can, but, unfortunately, that won't be happened daily.

noreply@blogger.com (Becky) — Wed, 16 Oct 2002 01:39:00 +0000

Oh yea. Forty-one minutes and two seconds of uncut, uncensored Goldberg. Click on the link through No Left Turns. (You need Real Player) It's amazing. I loved every second of it.

noreply@blogger.com (Sarah) — Sun, 13 Oct 2002 15:50:00 +0000

Lucky Find

CNN is reporting that a tem of archaeologists in London have found the first plaque inscribed with London's Roman name, Londiniensium.

Quite cool.

noreply@blogger.com (Sarah) — Sun, 13 Oct 2002 01:40:00 +0000

Hey! Who You Calling Curvy?

The Times reports that more and more teen fashion companies realize that the average girl isn't a size 2.

Teen magazines are also catering to their larger readers. They are putting more pictures of real teenagers on their pages. "One third of our format is showing real girls in real sizes," said Barbara O'Dail, managing editor of Teen People. "The average 16-year-old girl is 5-foot-4 and 135 pounds and is a size 10 to 14."
Next month, Seventeen is launching "Curvy Girl," a new section for larger girls. " `Curvy Girl' gets rid of all the old constraining rules," said Gigi Solis Schanen, a fashion editor for Seventeen. "No one is limited, especially now. All fashions — Bohemian, punk or sporty — are accessible for every body."

I laud their efforts, but there's a huge problem. "Fat," "curvy," or whatever, aren't compliments. They're just new labels. This issue isn't going to be solved until the world's cocoa beans shrivle up in a drought, or fashion execs -- the ones controlling the runways in Milan and Paris -- start parading their designs on normal women. "Curvy girl" doesn't get rid of any rules, just recasts them in a light that absolves fashion editors of their deserved guilt.

noreply@blogger.com (Sarah) — Sun, 13 Oct 2002 01:30:00 +0000

I Hate My State

While Derbyshire has the most intellectually stimulating takedown of Amiri Baraka, I still think that he misses a critical point:

It doesn't matter how good a poet Baraka is.

Baraka could, for all I think it's relevant, be the next Walt Whitman. He could have the emotion of Catullus, the polish of Vergil, the imagination of Moore, and the subtle brilliance of Auden. But the minute he uses taxpayer money for the purpose of insulting any taxpayer, he should lose his position -- and be forced to return all of his government stipend.

Ignore the argument over whether the government should fund arts (which, as a libertarian, I think it shouldn't...but that's for another time). An article in the Weekkly Standard quotes Baraka as saying:

"We'll fight this," Baraka recently told the Star-Ledger. "We'll go to the Supreme Court. The only thing they'll do is put me in a position to defend the rights of poets and the First Amendment." Regarding the charges of anti-Semitism, Baraka is quick to point out other stanzas in "Somebody Blew Up America" that ask, "Who put the Jews in ovens" and later, "Who killed Rosa Luxembourg, Liebneckt" and "Who murdered the Rosenbergs."

If the government were trying to shut down Baraka for his hateful poetry merely becaues it was hateful, then Baraka should most definitly bring his case before the Supreme Court. But the government isn't doing that; rather, it is arguing that it has no obligation to pay money to someone spreading hateful verses. (Asking who murdered the Rosenbergs make him unbiased? Spare me.)

The Standard also says:

[Fomer Laureate Gerald] Stern says the effort to remove Baraka "smacks of state control."

Exactly my point. The state has the right -- indeed, the obligation -- to control where its funds are spent. Stern, a National Book Award Winner, spent the money holding poetry readings around the state. Baraka spent his reciting loathsome lies. The state took issue with the way he was spending his money (not to mention his abuse of his official endorsement).

The issue isn't any more complicated than that.

At least, until you take a step up the argument tree and examine the issue of government-sponsored poet laureates.

noreply@blogger.com (Becky) — Sat, 12 Oct 2002 15:50:00 +0000

	You are Fozzie! Wokka Wokka! You love to make lame jokes. Your sense of humor might be a bit off, but you're a great friend and can always be counted on..
*Take the What Muppet Are You?* Quiz!**

I don't want to talk about it...

noreply@blogger.com (Becky) — Sat, 12 Oct 2002 03:31:00 +0000

RE: SCOOP

You've also forgotten just how cool we are.

noreply@blogger.com (Sarah) — Fri, 11 Oct 2002 03:54:00 +0000

We Got the Scoop!

Apparently, only now did Reynolds find out about Seventeen Magazine's college rankings. We found out about it, oh, a while ago.

Then again, he probably doesn't have a little sister who subscribes.

noreply@blogger.com (Becky) — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 21:14:00 +0000

Go USHR! Go USHR! You go you go you go. I am so glad they passed. Ever since I read the Economist's views on the war, I've been increasingly hawkish. Who knows? It may even be good for the market.

noreply@blogger.com (Sarah) — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 02:59:00 +0000

Fr. Potter of Hogsmeade Parish

Dimpler Towers says that evangelical Christians are planning on co-opting Harry Potter to "spread the Christian message."

Shudder.

I disagree with the esteemed Mr. Dimpler on one point, where he recommends using the Narnia stories rather than the Potter quartet to "bring the kids in." While he is correct with regards to CS Lewis' rather overt Christian imagery, Potter is more overt with regards to morals. Voldemort: bad. Dumbledore: good. Hurting your friends: bad. Sticking up and being loyal: good. If the Church wants to reinforce their moral message as opposed to their evangelical one, Potter is the way to go. Plus, everyone knows Harry.

Dimpler concludes by saying: "There's nothing wrong with young Harry, but it is just fun fantasy. Nothing more."

Does this mean I won't be getting the Nimbus 2002 broomstick I wanted for my birthday? Dammit.

noreply@blogger.com (Sarah) — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 02:44:00 +0000

Educational Highlights -- Or Not

Reynolds links to this blog post on buying pre-highlighted books. According to a study conducted by two researchers, buying these books hurts a student's grades if those highlights were put in by someone with a low IQ.

Agreed, somewhat. The point of highlighting a book is a) to focus on the importance passages but also b) to force yourself to read through the entire thing. Lazy people deserve to get bad grades if they can't be bothered to actually read the material. (That being said, I've been guilty of leafing through used books to find ones with the most annotations, especially for Shakespeare things)

noreply@blogger.com (Sarah) — Thu, 10 Oct 2002 01:04:00 +0000

Revisionist Etymology

That infamous conference on Racism that just evicted all non-Africans (in the name of eliminating race-based bias, of course), has, on their website, a list of rather interesting documents. Examples, if I don't say so myself, of the amazingly high level of scholarship that has gripped our society.

This essay, on Africianism in America, is a prime example of twisting knowledge as a tool for the perverted goals of the conference. (One of which is making France pay for the Haitian revolution. I'm not Francophile, but there are limits). According to this essay, the word "bad," as used with a positive connotationis is found in the African language Mandingo. Also in this language, is "wicked" with a positive connotation (and here I thought that was a peculiarity of my strange Upstate NY friends). "Bogus" is also of African origin, from the Hausa word "boko-boko," meaning deceit.

Now, if I may, I'll draw your attention to the stalwart of the English language, the inimitable OED. According to the OED online, "bad" with a positive connotation is common, but indeed appeared first around the Jazz Age, which might confirm this paper, although the OED mentions that this was more of a "perversion" (perhaps to subvert the white authorities) and less of a derivative of any one language. Same for "wicked"; the OED finds the earliest positive usage of the word from Fitzgerald in "This Side of Paradise" (pub. 1920). Again, the word is traced from the society of the Jazz Age, where it is doubtful that the twisted connotations of the word was a direct effort to imitate a specific language.

Likewise, "bogus" is traced to 1827 in Ohio, where it was used to describe an apparatus for coining false money. The OED speculates that the etymology of the word is a Vermont slang term, tantrabogus, which itself is of Devonshire etylomology.

Great scholarship, don't you think?

noreply@blogger.com (Becky) — Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:35:00 +0000

Happy birthday to Sarah. Happy birthday to Sarah. Happy birthday to Sar-ah. Happy birthday to Sarah.
On an unrelated note, I heard about this rich guy who's taking up a collection for a reward for anyone who finds the sniper. Good luck I say.

noreply@blogger.com (Becky) — Sun, 06 Oct 2002 21:38:00 +0000

Wimps
Over on a "respectable" blog, Andrew Stuttaford says that the new James Bond movie won't have martinis. Are they kidding? He already can't smoke because the producer, Barbra Broccoli (Al's daughter) is an anti-tobacco advocate. Now, not only can he not ask for a light, he now can't even have his martini, even though Aaron Sorkin (through his minion-- President Bartlet): :Shaken not stirred would get you cold water with a dash of gin and dry vermouth. The reason you stir it with a special spoon is so as not to chip the ice. James is ordering a weak martini and being snooty about it."

noreply@blogger.com (Sarah) — Sun, 06 Oct 2002 17:11:00 +0000

For the Record

1) Over on WBW, some fools apparently believe that the opinions provided herein can be immediately dismissed because I link to MEMRI. For the argument as to why MEMRI is a great boon to society, click here. And does it bother anyone that something as small as that would render this blog's opinions worthless? If they thought the opinions were badly written, or inconclusively argued, fine. That's why I discredit their sites. But because I linked to someone? Puh-lease.

2) Birthday's next Wednesday. In my name, my mother donanted to the Give Jonah a Raise fund. Now they mail me a magazine every week. Weird. Wonderful.

3) Why do pundits always refer to the leader of Iraq as Saddam? News story, as far as I can tell, follow standard procedure and call him Hussein. So what's with the pundits? Three theories: first, they want to avoid confusing with the royal family of Jordan, and two, calling him by his first name makes him seem less official and legitimate, and three, to the Western ear, Saddam sounds like it could be a last name, and using it is unconcious. Any thoughts?

4) Sorry for the posting drought last week. Real life became busy. This week we'll be more active. Swear.

noreply@blogger.com (Becky) — Sun, 06 Oct 2002 00:13:00 +0000

So even though the Yankees losing will be "good for baseball," as it will allow other teams to get to the series, and I'd love it if Minnesota went all the way, to show Bud Selig that he doesn't know anything, I can still be said if my Yanks lose, right?

noreply@blogger.com (Sarah) — Wed, 02 Oct 2002 23:45:00 +0000

David Perlmutter has an intriguinglook at the role Jewish leaders play in the Jewish community. He says:

So why have Jewish leaders not been at the vanguard--as some evangelical Christian leaders have--of exposing the Islamic fascist Fifth Column in America and the dominance of ideas of Islamic global conquest in many Muslim countries?...Why aren't we connecting the dots between Saudi intelligence services and 9/11 or between the origins of the Palestinian movement and the Third Reich? Why aren't we publishing and brandishing the names of the many foreign policy "experts" and "Arab-American leaders" who are, in fact, on the payroll of the House of Saud? Why are we so afraid to attack instead of defending and conciliating?

Why not? Because the Jewish community isn't sure where it stands at the moment. Traditionally, Jews are liberals, but the recent actions of the Democratic Party has been driving them right. Traditionally, Jews ally themselves with blacks (remember who marched next to King in Selma? A rabbi), but the self-proclaimed black leaders, Jackson, Sharpton, et al., have been allying themselves vehemently with the Palestinians. The government is somewhat our ally, but the Israeli-Palestinian issue is so volatile that no one knows where the Government stands day by day, not nearly enough time to build up a coalition.

We can't "attack," as Perlmutter suggests, because it's really hard to attack someone while standing on a see-saw. Essentially, the political ground beneath the feet of Jewish leaders is altogether too wobbly -- they are hesitant to go on the offensive when they aren't sure who is going to back them up.

Traditional supporters -- Democrats -- are lagging. The mythical Jewish lobby is a favorite target these days; McKinney and her supporters (essentially, most of the left) blamed it for her defeat. How can Jewish leaders mount an attack without supporters? The reason that AIPAC is a big political player -- and it is, but it doesn't "control" the government anymore than any other lobby -- is that it has a lot of supporters in the government, which it wouldn't if it followed the suggestions of Perlmutter.

Attack the Islamists -- regardless of their affinity for terrorism -- is risky at best. We've seen how hesitantly Senators criticize investments in Saudi Arabia. Heck, we can't even get Pat Roush her daughters back! If AIPAC were to start actively mounting an offensive against Arabs that went beyond the scope of Israel or terrorism against America, AIPAC would come under heavy fire from most of the left, thereby harming its primary mission.

Additionally, the government would have a hard time jumping wholeheartedly on an AIPAC-led bandwagon. How could it without appearing to cater to "Israeli influences"? What comment could be made by Jewish leaders that wouldn't immediately be discredited by the segment of the population that need to hear it the most? It's important that AIPAC and mainstream Jewish leaders stay out of the wider debate on the Fertile Crescent.

noreply@blogger.com (Becky) — Mon, 30 Sep 2002 23:55:00 +0000

I just hate the thought that in once red-state New Jersey, we may lose slimy Robert Toricelli for Slick Willy. That's right, he has a week to move if he wants to run. EW! Imagine the two of them in the Senate-- together? I know it's just conjecture, which makes me feel good. Plus, I was walking with a friend in New Rochelle and we saw the house that Will and Hill had looked at, which is now entirely Secret Service friendly, since a house must be so before an ex-President is allowed to even consider moving there. I don't know of too many houses in the Garden State with a command post next to the laundry room. Thank God.

noreply@blogger.com (Sarah) — Mon, 30 Sep 2002 22:05:00 +0000

Going...Going...Gone

So, Torricelli just quit. His resignation speech was just broadcast over the radio (and what a maudlin, over-wrought speech it was!).

I'm glad he's gone. I support Bush -- hey, no one's accused me of being liberal -- but I don't think we should have a Republican Senate. The politics at the moment are too precarious to allow the President free rein over both the White House and the Senate. And I realize that the Dem's hold is tenuous at the moment, but it is something of a counter-weight to Dubya. Hopefully, the mid-term elections will spur Daschle and Co. on to greater efforts (maybe garnering some more blue seats). Maybe if the Democrats were more secure in their footing, they wouldn't be so reactionary, as they are now.

We need two strong parties right now, and Torricelli was a blemish on the Democrats. His standing was falling greatly (one poll had him behind by 13 points), and his chances of winning were minimal.

Now...who to replace him?

noreply@blogger.com (Becky) — Sun, 29 Sep 2002 18:35:00 +0000

Cool morning in NYC
So this morning, I walked in the Juvenile Diabeties Research Foundation Walk to Cure Diabeties. It was really cool-- it started in Battery Park, went around lower Manhattan, across the Brooklyn Bridge and back. Plus, I got to go to Ground Zero, where I'd never been.
It was also a good day for illegal street vendors profiting off of September 11-related merchandise, as I bought a NYPD hat (I forgot my sunglasses) and others in my group bought I Love New York stuff. I wonder if that's really as illegal and wrong as they say it is.