Local governments have long had the right of eminent domain. Thus my puzzlement over the huge fuss resulting from last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The Court ruled 5-4 in Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. that New London (Connecticut) may rely on eminent domain to confiscate private homes so that ready-and-waiting private developers can develop the land for private projects. Eminent domain had been thought to be limited to public projects so apparently what creeped some people out about this decision was the expansion of the concept to include sports stadiums, hotels and offices. A neighborhood described as "middle class residential" by some will be razed for a business center (i.e. hotels, offices, etc.) and up-market residences. Here is how the NYPost fanned the flames: "[i]n essence, the court expanded the requirement of "public use" — the longtime limit on eminent domain — to anything that supposedly enhances economic activity. No more need for a truly public need — such as highways, parks and bridges."

But even if this is an excessive extension of eminent domain, it isn't imminent, because even the smallest of these kinds of projects takes lots of time to conceive and plan. There's lots of time to change and/or modify eminent domain laws via the legislature, where the decisions should be made anyway. And, hey, look at the bright side - if GWB gets to appoint even one Supreme Court justice, he or she will most likely be more conservative than liberal, i.e. a champion of privacy and personal ownership rights and therefore someone who'd flip votes like this to 4-5 the other way.

Labels: huh?, reflections, writing

Richard Durbin may just have wanted to draw listeners' attention to behavior that seemed bizarre, even dreadful. He could have said "we Americans believe devoutly in human dignity so it stunned me to read a report suggesting that an American might have treated someone in an insulting way . . . so we need to find out what happened". Instead, he made ridiculous comparisons and then persisted in saying he didn't understand the furor his remarks raised. Eventually even people on his side of the political divide began to voice dismay - aloud - and he issued a (grudging) apology. The remarks were offensive, that's all there is to it, because of their excess and lack of awareness. (See my previous comments here and here.) Well, maybe now we can find out what really happened and how bad (or, hopefully!, not) it was.

Here's the point. If you actually want people to listen to you, not just to mouth off, then no matter how deeply impassioned you feel about what you're saying, you ought not be inflammatory, wrong or stupid. It seems obvious, doesn't it? And if you need to yell and scream, it would be best to do so where no one hears you. If you're a member of the government, what you say in public is going to be heard and taken seriously - so you have to be even more careful not to be - what was that? - oh yes, not to be inflammatory, wrong or stupid. Duh.

We can defend and protect ourselves and behave well and think clearly. Can't we?

Labels: politics, writing

We mustn't lose sight of what's really important. It's understandably difficult when huge concepts like dignity, life and death comprise the discussion. But we must keep in mind that totalitarian systems really do use torture and death as part of their vocabulary and we do not. Pol Pot and Saddam had death chamber rooms for tens of thousands of children as well as adults; Stalin starved prisoners; some threaten beheading; the possibilities are varied and endless. But this is simply not what's happening at Guantanamo and it's really awful that hatred for America and GWB is driving so much of what I call reverse hatred. I'm beginning to wonder if many of us are suffering from something like Stockholm Syndrome because nothing else makes sense to me.

Reader Curtis Gale Weeks is uncomfortable with the "air of secrecy" and says it "adds to the paranoia and to the likelihood of more accusations of mistreatment" which is probably true. He suggests that "Senators on intelligence committees (Republican and Democrat) could be given guided tours and allowed to witness interrogations." While this might be a good public relations move, I wonder whether it would be of any substantive value. If it assured that some basic dignities were retained for the prisoners, maybe that's enough. By the way, have any representatives offered to go and been turned down?

Failing to make appropriate distinctions makes us react too intensely or too mildly. Which leaves us exhausted or empty. Too little or too much. Should we ground our child a year for saying "damn"? Should we ignore it if our child spits on someone? When and how much to react? There are so many gradations but it's vitally important to see them. There's a phrase in philosophy ("in kind") that describes a substantive difference. Downstate differs in kind from Dachau; butter from margarine; burglars from serial killers; Coke from Sobe Green Tea. As Moze points out: "[w]hatever abuses of civil rights might be happening at Guantanimo Bay, it is not the Holocaust." And she adds that "I know my father would have preferred Gitmo to what he went through in the camps, and I'm certain my grandfather, aunt, and uncles would have rather been mistreated at Gitmo than killed in Auschwitz, Terezenstat, and other concentration camps."

We shouldn't minimize bad behavior to support or bolster political or national interests but we also should be aware of what constitutes truly abhorrent behavior. If we don't make that distinction, as Moze says, it "both cheapens the past and desensitizes the world, leaving the door open to another (real) Holocaust." Sometimes it isn't easy but it's so important to be aware and thoughtful.

Labels: politics, writing

I discovered this method of joining yarn - whether different colors or kinds - while poking around among different yarn sites. It works with "good" wool yarn really well and not too shabbily with cotton too. It's a terrific idea. Thanks, Happy Ghan!

Labels: knitting

I don't get why some people can't make a point without being absurd or so hateful that they lose any chance of informing or persuading people.

A prime example is Richard Durbin's comparison (here) of Guantanamo Bay to Nazi concentration camps and Stalin's gulags. I am totally there when it comes to loathing inhumane treatment for anyone at all, even 'bad guys', even if they deserve to be punished or removed from society. Doesn't Durbin study history? Nazi 'camps' 'succeeded' in killing tens of thousands each day within a system designed to exterminate entire peoples (almost 10 million). Stalin's horrific hell holes (a/k/a gulags) existed within a similar system but he also got his 'jollies' by torturing prisoners (almost 15 million). Guantanamo Bay is a prison but not a death or torture chamber; it may treat prisoners less than ideally but it is not killing anyone, systematically or even accidentally or even accidentally on purpose. Furthermore, its accommodations are sparse but clean (see picture here). It's simply absurd and insane and stupid to draw any comparison at all and it completely eliminates any chance of convincing anyone to listen, let alone change their mind.

And it may seem beside the point, but Guantanamo prisoners are suspected of being (at least ideological) participants in a violent conflict which so far has killed over three thousand civilian Americans. Nazi and Stalin prisoners were imprisoned and killed because of who they were not what they did. There's a chasm of difference there.

Labels: gwb, huh?, politics

As the brilliant Mr Porter (hmm, which one??!) wrote in 1934 and which seems eighty gazillion percent true today (think celebrity, crime, celebrity-and-crime, reality tv, etc.):

In olden days a glimpse of stocking,
Was looked on as something shocking,
Now heaven knows,
Anything goes.

The world has gone mad today,
And good's bad today,
And black's white today [remind you of anyone??],
And day's night today,
And most guys today,
That women prize today,
Are just silly gigalos.

Anything goes, anything goes.

Labels: silliness, writing

Is Tom Cruise so out there recently because he's fake or because he's real? Is Scientology controlling his mind? Is he besotted with Katie Holmes? Is the crazy guy a robot and the real guy in hiding somewhere else? I must admit that the photos of his near death grips on girls' arms are a little unnerving and the videos of him jumping up and down on talk show couches like a mad orangutan are either funny as heck or downright wacky (see them here). (And did Oprah looked unnerved when her beloved Tom scampered all over and jumping into her lap, or what.) And now he's demanding Scientology displays on his sets? And his sister is his publicity director? Who the heck knows. Anyway, check out "Free Katie" for a laugh (or not).

Labels: huh?

If a ghastly outcome were the inevitable result of bad judgment and stupid behavior, no one would make it to adulthood. It's hard not to feel uneasy about a senior class trip to a Caribbean Island simply because 18-year-olds are allowed to drink alcohol publicly there, or to say "tsk-tsk" upon hearing that Natalee Holloway went to party hardy on a beach with local boys . . . or whatever happened . . . but even granting that irresponsibility can have unpleasant consequences, it's ridiculous to have to worry about being maimed or killed because of it. Preserve us from repression and restraint in order to prevent what shouldn't happen.

There's buzz in the blogsphere and conversation everywhere about Natalee, the missing girl in Aruba. It's talk about whether coverage would be so thorough (a/k/a excessive) if she were black or non-white. Talk about whether a missing young man would garner so much attention. Talk about whether a very poor girl would get such coverage. Talk about whether an ugly and not blond girl would get so much screen time. All of which are valid questions but I think mostly it depends on what else is going on as far as ubiquitousnewscoverage. (And you thought only German could concoct long words by combining shorter ones.)

I suspect that what happened was an accident - maybe while fooling around with the son-of-the-almost-judge in the lighthouse on the beach - and the pampered hapless youths thought they could blow the whole thing off by pointing to two Arubans who kept trying to nose in on their fun. It almost worked except that the Arubans' relatives went ballistic, so much so that it apparently re-drew attention to the original three. (By the way, Natalee's father's nickname ("Jug") is something else, don't you think? Even if it doesn't mean that he guzzles whiskey in huge quantities, or even if it does, I can't help wondering why they didn't just not use it during all this. I guess geographical cliches weren't their primary consideration, but an adviser or someone else should have beeing paying better attention.)

Everything else aside, I'm sure we all feel great sympathy for the family. And for her, of course. There's no way to imagine what it must feel like to have a child go off on a trip and never come home. The guilt, the awful sense of "if only I'd forbidden the trip", the zillions of other what-ifs. Bad things would almost be okay if there were only one or two a year but not the way it is now.

Labels: children, huh?

The Paris zoo, known as 'Zoo de Vincennes' is in the 12th arrondisement near the Bois de Vincennes. Whatever else may be true of the French, an amazing two hundred and twelve years ago they opened the first public zoo and I, for one, am eternally grateful. In the last few years I have visited zoos in Edinburgh, London, Hong Kong, Tokyo Ueno, Paris, New York, Washington DC, Buffalo, Boston and San Francisco (in no particular order). These are all wonderful places to share time and space with spectactular creatures. In Paris, they have 1200 animals (600 birds of 82 species and 535 mammals of 85 species, including a giant panda). The other zoos I've visited have equally impressive numbers. Some are known for special moments like San Francisco's penguins and big cat feedings, and the National (Washington DC)'s pandas. Some are known for research or saving a particular species or developing techniques around one or another species. They are all beautiful and fun.

P.S. I've linked to each zoo's website on the city names above. Check them all out since the websites are absolutely delightful. And if you have time only to visit one, you must go to the Edinburgh Zoo front page to see the walking elephant!

Labels: about me, children, france, places, things to do

Yesterday's release of Kerry's undergraduate grades from Yale shows his grades to have been nearly identical to Bush's (read about it here), both overall averages (77 Bush, 76 Kerry) and individual courses grades (Bush's ranged from 69 to 88, Kerry's from 61 to 89). Kerry received five D's, Bush received one. (The Kerry literature talks about how his senior year oratory showed how well he pulled out of his freshman slump. Maybe it's related to that odd prodigal son conclusion that if you start off worse then becoming average is more impressive than if you start off average and become glorious. A dubious morale, I've always thought.) Anyway, I draw one or all of the following conclusions: (1) we were bound to have an intellectual weakling as president OR (2) college grades predict neither intelligence nor ability OR (3) the two men are equally brilliant/stupid OR (4) this is all utterly irrelevant.

Labels: gwb, huh?, politics

Today is the 98th anniversary of the official introduction of the automatic clothes washer and dryer. That was only one of the many changes the last century wrought and which utterly altered everyone's lives. Electricity powered many of the changes but ingenuity forged them too. Automobiles, typewriters, deodorant, kleenex, telephones, computers, synthetic fabrics, additives for food and plants, etc., etc. Some advances need to be taken carefully or even restrained, but it's an amazing world. And it's a good idea to stop and smell/appreciate it all, now and then.

Labels: anniversaries, modern culture

Sometimes I feel as if I don't do enough that's worthwhile. I spend three hours a day on a train, riding to and from work, reading newspapers and books, talking with friends and knitting. On weekends and evenings when no activity is scheduled, I can spend the whole time knitting or crochetting on a current project while watching a movie or tv show. I feel I should be gardening or writing short stories or learning a new computer application. Granted that the projects provide warmth and gifts but it seems like a meaningless way to pass so many evenings. Schoolgirl guilt or valid concern? Who knows. I wonder how others feel about how they spend their time?

Labels: about me, whining

I made a shell using Colinette's new Giotto ribbon yarn. It felt a bit stiff, even harsh, unwound and unknitted, but worked up really beautifully. Here's the result. Soft, pliable and pretty.

The bottom wanted to curl, stockinette-like. I combatted the curl first by using a knit/purl cast-on and also by adding slip stitch crochet rows on both the right and wrong sides. The resulting edge looks nice.

Labels: knitting