We need more Walt Whitman’s

~ March 14th, 2010 6:53 pm

This makes so much sense!

From Andrew Sullivan comes this

From his article on the subject:

It’s difficult to take oneself with sufficient seriousness to begin any sentence with the words “Thou shalt not.” But who cannot summon the confidence to say: Do not condemn people on the basis of their ethnicity or color. Do not ever use people as private property. Despise those who use violence or the threat of it in sexual relations. Hide your face and weep if you dare to harm a child. Do not condemn people for their inborn nature—why would God create so many homosexuals only in order to torture and destroy them?

Be aware that you too are an animal and dependent on the web of nature, and think and act accordingly. Do not imagine that you can escape judgment if you rob people with a false prospectus rather than with a knife. Turn off that fucking cell phone—you have no idea how unimportant your call is to us. Denounce all jihadists and crusaders for what they are: psychopathic criminals with ugly delusions. Be willing to renounce any god or any religion if any holy commandments should contradict any of the above. In short: Do not swallow your moral code in tablet form.

More on The Help

~ March 3rd, 2010 4:48 pm

One of my favorite novels of all time…


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Support the CFPA!

~ March 3rd, 2010 10:34 am

Funny or Die’s Presidential Reunion from Will Ferrell

[Lenten] Practice

~ February 17th, 2010 4:27 pm

Internet Addict

My daughter is using reduced time on the internet as a Lenten practice. While I don’t really participate in the season of Lent, it seems like a good idea anyway. As my son said on FB, “Lent is like a New Year’s Resolution do over. So one starts out the year with a resolution to eat healthier, but then is eating Krispy Kreme’s by the end of January. But then Lent rolls around and eating healthier for 6 weeks sounds so much more doable than for a full year. And hey, you get to binge on peeps at the end of it.”

So, I’m going to try it. As I responded on my daughter’s FB entry, “Yeah, think I will join you. I’m going to do it in honor of my father too. He used to read the Dallas Morning News in the morning and watch Walter Cronkite at suppertime and he was pretty well informed. So, for me, once in the morning, once in the evening after work and that’s it! Can I do it? Yes. I. Can.”

The Storm before the Calm

~ February 12th, 2010 4:52 pm

2010 Snomgasm
Sally Quinn reflects on the the peace the blizzard brings Washington

The other day, after our first big storm, when we were snowbound, several people called to find out about all the snow parties in town. What were the so-called Washington socialites doing? I had to confess I had no idea. We certainly hadn’t been invited to any and weren’t giving any, either.

As I sit here at my desk at home writing today, the blizzard is so strong that the city is paralyzed. Nobody is even venturing outside. The wind is howling, the branches are covered with snow and ice, and the flurries are blowing relentlessly.

I have lived here on and off most of my life. I have never seen Washington like this before. First all of, it is beautiful. Secondly, it is peaceful — a pervading sense of calm. It’s as if I, for one, have been liberated from my daily struggles. I have simply given in to what is happening around me and accepted it. This is unusual for me, to say the least.

Somehow this doesn’t seem like party time to me. It’s calamitous for some people. For those who haven’t been hurt by the blizzard, this has been more like a time to reflect, to meditate and to embrace the silence.

Saturday I did just that. In the midst of the first storm, as the snow was in full flurry, I took a two-hour walk through Georgetown. There was hardly a person on the streets, barely a car in sight. I was overcome. For the first time in a long time I actually saw the city I call home. I walked down to the Potomac River, along the path to the Kennedy Center, and out onto the balcony and over to the corner, where there were no human tracks. I stood there for what seemed forever, just absorbing everything around me with all of my senses. My face was cold, the smell was fresh, I touched the snow and put it to my mouth and tasted it. I could hear no sounds.

I looked to the left toward the city and saw the Washington Monument through a shroud of white, the Capitol not far behind. (I once worked at the Capitol as an intern when I first came here at age 16.) The sky was gray tinged with pinks and blues. Closer in was the Lincoln Memorial, and then Memorial Bridge leading to Arlington National Cemetery, where both my parents are buried. Suddenly, out of the silence, the bells of the Netherlands Carrillon across the river began to chime.

I looked to my right toward Georgetown. I could see my house, and the towers of Georgetown University where three of my husband’s grandchildren are enrolled. Farther up, higher even than the Capitol, were the spires of Washington National Cathedral, the scene of so many important events in my life. When my father lay dying at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, I could see the spires from his room. When my mother lay dying at a nursing home in Arlington, I could see them from her room. My father was buried from the cathedral, as were many friends, including Washington Post publisher Katharine Graham, and in April my son, Quinn, will be married there.

I turned back to the river and watched the ice floes slowly drifting south. It was a transcendent moment — one might even call it prayerful — as if I were watching chunks of my life floating by in front of me. I haven’t often felt like that in Washington. I couldn’t help thinking that this blizzard was, for me at least, not an accident. On some level it was a deliberate moment for all of us to stop and contemplate what our lives are about, what is important, who we want to be. The toxicity, rancor and division we have seen building up recently here were gone, dissipated, purified. The government was shut down, the Congress, too. The religious might say God was calling for a timeout. We needed this.

I felt joyful as I trudged home. I was going to a warm house, with big fires and plenty of food and a family I loved. And yes, to a party. The best kind. What we did have was a house full of people. Our close friend was in the ICU at Georgetown Hospital, having just had a liver transplant. His family of four stayed with us because they needed to be near the hospital and couldn’t drive. Two of my husband’s granddaughters were staying with us, locked in as well. My son and his fiancee, who live next door, were also snowed in, with her friend from Sweden and a roommate.

Several friends on the block have come over for dinner since the snow began. We’ve had huge pots of stew, spaghetti and soups. We’ve had big fires and lots of candles. We’ve had many bottles of wine. We’ve had an abundance of love. We have been so fortunate. I found myself wishing Washington could always be like this. Just put things on hold and be around people you love instead of worrying about who’s getting invited where and whether this person and that are speaking to or vilifying each other.

We’ve had such a magical time. The only thing that has been difficult is knowing that so many others are not so lucky, out of jobs, without enough food, no housing, lonely, sick. And the storm has caused so much hardship for so many. Part of what has made this a special time is to realize, no matter what happens, how grateful we are and should be for what we have.

So what are all the Washington socialites doing during the snowstorm? I have no idea. All I know is that one thing has changed: my definition of the word party.

Words to [Live] by

~ February 12th, 2010 1:00 pm

Words to Live By
Before I Die . . . ‘As in the case of love, no man has lived until he has felt sorrow.’ by Edmund N. Carpenter, II

The following essay was written by Edmund N. Carpenter, age 17, in June 1938 while he was a student in Lawrenceville, N.J. Carpenter would go on to win the Bronze Star for his service in World War II and to a civilian career as an attorney. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he became president of Richards, Layton & Finger, a law firm. He died on Dec. 19, 2008 at age 87 and is survived by six children and 15 grandchildren:

It may seem very strange to the reader that one of my tender age should already be thinking about that inevitable end to which even the paths of glory lead. However, this essay is not really concerned with death, but rather with life, my future life. I have set down here the things which I, at this age, believe essential to happiness and complete enjoyment of life. Some of them will doubtless seem very odd to the reader; others will perhaps be completely in accord with his own wishes. At any rate, they compose a synopsis of the things which I sincerely desire to have done before I leave this world and pass on to the life hereafter or to oblivion.

Before I die I want to know that I have done something truly great, that I have accomplished some glorious achievement the credit for which belongs solely to me. I do not aspire to become as famous as a Napoleon and conquer many nations; but I do want, almost above all else, to feel that I have been an addition to this world of ours. I should like the world, or at least my native land, to be proud of me and to sit up and take notice when my name is pronounced and say, “There is a man who has done a great thing.” I do not want to have passed through life as just another speck of humanity, just another cog in a tremendous machine. I want to be something greater, far greater than that. My desire is not so much for immortality as for distinction while I am alive. When I leave this world, I want to know that my life has not been in vain, but that I have, in the course of my existence, done something of which I am rightfully very proud.

Before I die I want to know that during my life I have brought great happiness to others. Friendship, we all agree, is one of the best things in the world, and I want to have many friends. But I could never die fully contented unless I knew that those with whom I had been intimate had gained real happiness from their friendship with me. Moreover, I feel there is a really sincere pleasure to be found in pleasing others, a kind of pleasure that can not be gained from anything else. We all want much happiness in our lives, and giving it to others is one of the surest ways to achieve it for ourselves.

Before I die I want to have visited a large portion of the globe and to have actually lived with several foreign races in their own environment. By traveling in countries other than my own I hope to broaden and improve my outlook on life so that I can get a deeper, and more complete satisfaction from living. By mixing the weighty philosophy of China with the hard practicalism of America, I hope to make my life fuller. By blending the rigid discipline of Germany with the great liberty in our own nation I hope to more completely enjoy my years on this earth. These are but two examples of the many things which I expect to achieve by traveling and thus have a greater appreciation of life.

Before I die there is another great desire I must fulfill, and that is to have felt a truly great love. At my young age I know that love, other than some filial affection, is probably far beyond my ken. Yet, young as I may be, I believe I have had enough inkling of the subject to know that he who has not loved has not really lived. Nor will I feel my life is complete until I have actually experienced that burning flame and know that I am at last in love, truly in love. I want to feel that my whole heart and soul are set on one girl whom I wish to be a perfect angel in my eyes. I want to feel a love that will far surpass any other emotion that I have ever felt. I know that when I am at last really in love then I will start living a different, better life, filled with new pleasures that I never knew existed.

Before I die I want to feel a great sorrow. This, perhaps, of all my wishes will seem the strangest to the reader. Yet, is it unusual that I should wish to have had a complete life? I want to have lived fully, and certainly sorrow is a part of life. It is my belief that, as in the case of love, no man has lived until he has felt sorrow. It molds us and teaches us that there is a far deeper significance to life than might be supposed if one passed through this world forever happy and carefree. Moreover, once the pangs of sorrow have slackened, for I do not believe it to be a permanent emotion, its dregs often leave us a better knowledge of this world of ours and a better understanding of humanity. Yes, strange as it may seem, I really want to feel a great sorrow.

With this last wish I complete the synopsis of the things I want to do before I die. Irrational as they may seem to the reader, nevertheless they comprise a sincere summary of what I truthfully now believe to be the things most essential to a fully satisfactory and happy life. As I stand here on the threshold of my future, these are the things which to me seem the most valuable. Perhaps in fifty years I will think that they are extremely silly. Perhaps I will wonder, for instance, why I did not include a wish for continued happiness. Yet, right now, I do not desire my life to be a bed of roses. I want it to be something much more than that. I want it to be a truly great adventure, never dull, always exciting and engrossing; not sickly sweet, yet not unhappy. And I believe it will be all I wish if I do these things before I die.

As for death itself, I do not believe that it will be such a disagreeable thing providing my life has been successful. I have always considered life and death as two cups of wine. Of the first cup, containing the wine of life, we can learn a little from literature and from those who have drunk it, but only a little. In order to get the full flavor we must drink deeply of it for ourselves. I believe that after I have quaffed the cup containing the wine of life, emptied it to its last dregs, then I will not fear to turn to that other cup, the one whose contents can be designated only by X, an unknown, and a thing about which we can gain no knowledge at all until we drink for ourselves. Will it be sweet, or sour, or tasteless? Who can tell? Surely none of us like to think of death as the end of everything. Yet is it? That is a question that for all of us will one day be answered when we, having witnessed the drama of life, come to the final curtain. Probably we will all regret to leave this world, yet I believe that after I have drained the first cup, and have possibly grown a bit weary of its flavor, I will then turn not unwillingly to the second cup and to the new and thrilling experience of exploring the unknown.

Just Say No

~ February 1st, 2010 3:02 pm

Just Say No

James Fallows writes Why bipartisanship can’t work: the expert view

I got this note from someone with many decades’ experience in national politics, about a discussion between two Congressmen over details of the stimulus bill:

“GOP member: ‘I’d like this in the bill.’

“Dem member response: ‘If we put it in, will you vote for the bill?’

“GOP member: ‘You know I can’t vote for the bill.’

“Dem member: ‘Then why should we put it in the bill?’

“I witnessed this myself.”

I wrote back saying, “Great story!” and got the response I quote below and after the jump. It is worth reading because its argument has the valuable quality of being obvious — once it is pointed out. The emphasis is mine rather than in the original; it is to highlight a basic structural reality that has escaped most recent analysis of the “bipartisanship” challenge.

“BTW, that exchange I quoted is not really a great story. It is a basic story, fundamental to legislation — a sort of ‘duh!’ moment — and to the US Congressional system, and to the key difference between our system and a parliamentary system when it comes to bipartisanship. I’m astonished every pundit doesn’t already get it, but many either don’t or seem willfully to ignore it.

“In our system, if the minority party can create and enforce party discipline (which has never really been done before, but which the GOP has now accomplished), then OF COURSE there can be no ‘bipartisanship’ on major legislative matters, in the sense of (1) the minority adding provisions to legislation as the majority compromises with them, and (2) at least some minority party members then voting with the majority.
“In a parliamentary system, the minority party is not involved in helping write or voting for major legislation either. If you think about it, and as that exchange I quoted shows, that sort of ‘bipartisanship’ really can’t happen in a parliamentary system on issues where the minority party has the power to tell its members to boycott the majority’s major bills on final passage.

“Bipartisanship in the American sense means compromising on legislation so that a sufficient number of members of Congress from BOTH parties will support it, even if (as is typically the case) a few majority party members defect and most minority party members don’t join. Bipartisanship consists of getting ENOUGH members of the minority party to join the (incomplete) majority in voting for major legislation. It can’t happen if the minority party members vote as a block against major legislation. And that can happen only if the minority party has the ability to discipline its ranks so that none join the majority, which is the unprecedented situation we’ve got in Congress today.

“The way parliamentary parties maintain their discipline is straightforward. No candidate can run for office using the party label unless the party bestows that label upon him or her. And usually, the party itself and not the candidate raises and controls all the campaign funds. As every political scientist knows, the fact that in the U.S. any candidate can pick his or her own party label without needing anyone else’s approval, and can also raise his or her own campaign funds, is why there cannot be and never really has been any sustained party discipline before — even though it is a feature of parliamentary systems.

“The GOP now maintains party discipline by the equivalent of a parliamentary party’s tools: The GOP can effectively deny a candidate the party label (by running a more conservative GOP candidate against him or her), and the GOP can also provide the needed funds to the candidate of the party’s choice. And every GOP member of Congress knows it. (Snowe and Collins may be immune, but that’s about it.)

“I’ve missed almost all the punditry this past week… but what I’ve seen seems almost like a lot of misleading fluff designed to fill the void that should follow an understanding of the foregoing, at least on the subject of ‘why no bipartisanship?’ There’s really nothing more to be said about “why no bipartisanship,” once one recognizes the GOP party discipline. On this issue, it’s absolutely astounding to blame Obama or even the Congressional leadership (although Pelosi and Reid leave much to be desired otherwise). It’s doubly astounding that the GOP did it once before, less perfectly, but with a very large reward for bad behavior in the form of the 1994 mid-term elections. Yet no one calls them on it effectively, and bad behavior seems about to be rewarded again…

“Ironically, the one thing that might lubricate some bipartisanship — earmarks, or their functional equivalent in specific amendments of general policy — is becoming unavailable just when needed, and when it might help. After the exchange I quoted (and observed), a Dem could run against that GOP incumbent by pointing out that the GOP opponent lost X or Y or Z project or policy benefit for his or her district or state by insisting on voting down the line with the GOP. ‘Put his party above his constituents,’ might be the charge, or ‘Put Michael Steele above you and me.’ But so far, the Dems don’t seem to have cottoned onto this. They could go into the 2010 elections not just challenging the obstructionists in the GOP, but showing the electorate what the price of obstruction has been for real people back home.”

As I have pointed out a time or two or a thousand, the structural failures of American government are the country’s main problem right now. In this installment, we see that the US now has the drawbacks of a parliamentary system — absolute party-line voting by the opposition, for instance — without any of the advantages, from comparable solidarity among the governing party to the principle of “majority rules.” If Democrats could find a way to talk about structural issues — if everyone can find a way to talk about them — that would be at least a step. And the Dems could talk about the simple impossibility of governing when the opposition is committed to “No” as a bloc.