« July 2004 | Main | September 2004 »
August 27, 2004
Wanted: two cures
1. A cure for the common cold. Yes, I know, we don't know how to get rid of viruses and blah blah blah. But seriously, I find it nearly impossible to think when I can't breathe, and for all the miracles of modern medicine, we really should be able to find, if not a cure, then something that will reduce the symptoms to nil. Dayquil doesn't cut it—for some reason, pseudoephedrine raises my blood pressure and my heart rate. Not to mention that it's pretty ridiculous for someone to get a cold in the middle of August.
2. A cure for my computer. It's bad enough that it's a Mac, and much harder and more expensive to find software and accessories that will function on that platform. But, when I finally put up the cash and the RAM to install OS X, I find out that, while OS 9 was too old to run most software, OS X (Panther!) is too new to run most of the stuff I want. I like Macs, but at this point, my next computer will be a PC (and a laptop, to boot).
Blogging of substance will recommence when I can think coherently for more than ten minutes.
Posted by Carla at 04:04 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Generosity
Recently, I haven't been inclined to list much on Mondays, but something happened today that inspired me to write up this two-item "list."
1. A couple of weeks ago, I was in line at Starbucks for my Frappuccino fix when I realized that I had left in my car the two other dollars necessary to pay for the drink. There was a line, but I resigned myself to having to wait behind people who would probably be extremely inefficient in their ordering technique.* When I returned from the car, the gentleman who had been behind me in line (and still hadn't ordered) shooed me in front of him, despite my protestations: "Just because you had to run out to your car doesn't mean you should lose your place!" I thanked him, ordered, and happily slurped down my Mocha with a shot of Creme de Menthe well before the party who would have been in front of me managed to decide whether they wanted a tall or a grande.
2. Alex told me he'd be sending some stuff home...I should have realized that when Alex talks about some stuff, he means a lot of stuff. This morning there was a knocking on my door, and a postal truck on the street. I dashed into my robe and down the stairs to my front door (I live on the second floor of a house), and found an extremely sweet mailman. He gave me the delivery confirmation to sign while he went to his truck to haul the huge black footlocker to the front door. "I know where this is from," he said, a smile in his voice. "I just retired from the military." Looking in, he could see the staircase, and the footlocker still in his arms, asked if I'd like him to carry it up. At 5'9'', I was taller than him by three or four inches, but, while I can carry a lot, I knew that this "parcel" would be a struggle for me. I accepted, and while he skipped up my stairs and slid the footlocker on to the hallway floor, he asked, "when is he coming home?" "In a few months." I thanked him, and he was out the door before I could process it all—before I could think about all I would have said, had I been in a better state of mind. Words like, "thank you, sir, for all you've done." All I could do was shut my yellow-ribboned door.
* Yes, when alone, I can be extremely impatient. I'm pretty good at not showing it, though.
Posted by Carla at 09:56 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Too bad
Damn. Well, it looks like CB at Fear and Loathing in Iraq has left the buiding. There has been a lot of frenzy at and about his site in the last few days, since his blog came under review by his command and was featured on NPR. Conspiracy theories will abound, I'm sure, but it seems to me that it probably just got to be too much for someone who also happens to be living in a war zone.
Well, it is too bad, because he was certainly a unique source, but he probably made the best decision for his own sanity. I wish him the best.
Posted by Carla at 09:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 26, 2004
Grilled Shrimp, corn, and black bean salad
I've been meaning to blog this recipe for a long time. I made it a few weeks ago when I was visiting my family.
The recipe can be found here, at Epicurious, of course. Note that they call it a "tostada" salad, but I omitted that descriptor as well as that ingredient. This dish was absolutely delicious. Because there are a variety of picky eaters in my family, I left out the cilantro and cumin in the vinaigrette, and added a minced garlic clove to make up for it. But I didn't really need to, because the jalapeño lent so much flavor (and without any heat). I lined the parts of the dish up, buffet-style, so everyone could personalize their mixture: shrimp, black bean-tomato-corn mixture, red onion-green onion mixture, lettuce, dressing, and chopped cilantro for those of us who do like it. I also cooked the shrimp on a grill pan rather than on a real grill, though I'll bet that would make it even more scrumptious. I really can't imagine other changes that could make this any better. A perfect summer supper.
Posted by Carla at 10:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Sibelius's Karelia Suite
When I was 13 or 14, my mother subscribed to a season's worth of tickets to the county philharmonic. I grew up studying classical modern dance with teachers who often chose classical music for practicing or performing, so I had some basic appreciation of the genre, but not much more than your average Top 40-favoring adolescent. During the second of the season's concerts, I listened with eyes drooping from the soothing sounds of the orchestra, which failed to arouse much of my interest. But, during the last piece, I suddenly found myself focusing intensely on the melody played by a mournful English horn. About seven minutes later, the piece ended in an achingly seeking cello theme, and I realized I had tears in my eyes.
This was my introduction to Jean Sibelius; the piece was his tone-poem "The Swan of Tuonela," from Lemminkäinen Suite. For Christmas, I requested a CD of the piece, and thus became quite familiar with his Symphony No. 1 and Violin Concerto in D minor, Op. 47, and less familiar with his second symphony.
While I would name Sibelius as one of my favorite composers, it was not until a few weeks ago that I decided to explore more of his work. I purchased a double CD of Symphonies 1, 4, 5, and 6, and the Karelia Suite, performed by the Berliner Philharmoniker and conducted by Herbert von Karajan (it's amazing how cheap even imported, quality classical music can be). I specifically bought this CD because a member of the forums at Objectivism Online compared Sibelius's 5th Symphony to Ayn Rand's description of Richard Halley's "Concerto of Deliverance" in Atlas Shrugged.
My preferred method of "getting to know" classical music is to play it in the background as I go about my business, then, once familiarized with it on a basic level, I return to those sections that I have found the most captivating. This is the method I decided to use for listening to Symphony No. 5, so I have been playing the CD pretty much every time I sit down at the computer for the last few weeks. The first three tracks of this volume are actually Sibelius's Karelia Suite, Op. 11, and just a few days ago, I realized that the Ballade, the hauntingly beautiful second movement, had caught my ear. It begins with a quiet, distinctive melody played low in the horn section, then picked up by the strings, and punctuated by woodwinds. Almost-unceasing cellos play a steady undercurrent, granting the movement a steady momentum through the false ending about halfway through the seven-minute section. After a few moments of near silence, middle-range strings (I'm very bad at identifying instruments) pick up the initial theme. I find it very hard to describe the emotions evoked by this transition, so I'll do it in a way that seems trite, but fairly accurate. It sounds like part of a soundtrack directly following a battle scene—when the heroes look around and see that, while many have died, they, the forces of good, have triumphed. It would be appropriate in Band of Brothers.
The piece continues contemplatively, and about five minutes in, the full string section enters, evoking rejuvenating sunshine. Another false ending, and a single woodwind enters: the voice of the hero. The only disappointing part is the ending, which fades out with little recollection of the quiet grandeur of the rest of the movement. There is a final movement in the Suite that is heroic and joyful, but it is the second that really catches my ear with its dramatic push toward victory won, even at a high cost.
Of course, I am no music expert, and in fact my interpretation is quite different from that in the liner notes, which describes the Ballade as "the singing of a medieval Finnish minstrel with a melancholy singing tune for strings." But, Sibelius has not disappointed me yet, and I would recommend his music to anyone inclined toward the Romantic tradition.
Feel free to leave your classical music suggestions in the comments!
Posted by Carla at 08:50 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Cheney opposes Bush's marriage amendment
I was surprised and impressed to read that VP Cheney has made public his oppostion to the marriage amendment endorsed by President Bush. He is quoted as saying, "Freedom means freedom for everyone." In 2000, Cheney had expressed the view that the definition of marriage was best left to the states; this article gives no indication of whether this most recent revelation changes that idea. My hope—a best-case scenario—is that he believes it is an issue for state legislatures, though he thinks that they should not exclude same-sex marriages.
This issue has been argued ably by many others. My favorite is by Larry Elder, who argues that The State Should Get Out of the Marriage Business.
I'm not worried so much about the marriage amendment as such; it won't ever come to a vote, and even if it did, it wouldn't pass. But I am interested, and a bit heartened, that Cheney is taking the correct stand on this issue. He does say that "the president makes basic policy for the administration," but the fact that this is perhaps the first issue about which he has publicly disagreed with Bush makes me hope that the Republican party is beginning to realize that it cannot allow the Religious Right to dominate.
In my dreams, this would be a sign that conservatives are returning to their roots as the defenders of individual rights. Then again, I've got plenty of dreams that are nowhere near becoming reality.
Posted by Carla at 07:57 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
August 17, 2004
For al-Sadr?
Cox and Forkum show (again) how devastating their work can be with a single cartoon:
Click the link above to read their commentary, too.
P.S.
Can anyone help me figure out to make it so that the edge of C&F's cartoon doesn't get cut off like that?
Posted by Carla at 10:47 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Heh.
Kerry Unveils One-Point Plan for a Better America
"My national-defense policy will be guided by one imperative: Don't be George Bush. As will my plans to create a strong economy, protect civil rights, develop a better healthcare system, and improve homeland security."
Heehee.
(It's The Onion, folks.)
Posted by Carla at 10:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Documentarians' code of ethics?
I know I said I was done with Michael Moore, but I do have to return to this question. Is there a code that governs the use of footage of living people in documentaries? In this story, an Army sergeant expresses his anger at being included in Fahrenheit 9/11:
"It ticked me off," Damon said of the 10-second clip in the Bush-bashing documentary that shows him being treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington.
Apparently, the footage of Sgt. Peter Damon was
licensed from an NBC News segment that focused on the treatment of amputees at Walter Reed using a new regimen to block the excruciating "phantom pain" of limb loss, in which the patient still feels the pain of the missing limb.
I'm pretty sure that NBC had to get signed releases from everyone whose face was shown in their segment. Perhaps such releases also specify that the permission granted by the signee extends to whomever the company might license that particular footage. If that is the case, then fair enough, but if it is not, isn't it the responsibility of Moore (or any documentary film-maker) to solicit the permission of the people represented therein?
Perhaps not. Perhaps this is just an example of freedom of the press—and Sgt. Damon, in turn, exercises his freedom of speech. Still, if any of my (dear) readers have the answer to the question of licensing and permission, or can point me in the right direction, please do so. My inquiring mind wants to know.
(Via Rachel Lucas.)
Posted by Carla at 10:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Newsflash
Or...not. Something I've been saying for months: Saddam agents on Syria border helped move banned materials, from the Washington Times.
Two defense sources told The Washington Times that the ISG has interviewed Iraqis who told of Saddam's system of dispatching his trusted Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) to the border, where they would send border inspectors away. The shift was followed by the movement of trucks in and out of Syria suspected of carrying materials banned by U.N. sanctions. Once the shipments were made, the agents would leave and the regular border guards would resume their posts.
Not to mention:
Although Syria and Iraq competed for influence in the region, they shared the same Ba'athist socialist ideology and maintained close ties at certain government levels. The United States accused Syria during the war of harboring some of Saddam's inner circle.
Syria also actively supports terror organizations Hezbollah, the group responsible for the barracks bombing attack that killed 241 U.S. Marines; Islamic Jihad, whose suicide bombings in Israel have killed American citizens, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which in 1970 coordinated the hijacking of four commercial airliners: two from the U.S., one from the U.K., and one from Switzerland.
Syria has repeatedly shown itself to an enemy of the Western World, through its support of terrorist organizations and its alliances with hostile regimes (e.g., Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Iran). At some point, the United States government must understand that this war against Islamic fundamentalism cannot be fought against one regime, within the boundaries of a single state. It is an ideology that does not recognize borders.
Of course, unless the so-called "War on Terror" is radically revamped, it will not be able to accomplish its purported goals. Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy; a war can only be successful if the objective is clearly defined.
Further reading:
Jonathan Eric Lewis on Holding Syria Accountable
Dr. John Lewis's Chronology of Attacks on the West
Posted by Carla at 09:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 15, 2004
Happy Birthday!
A great big one to my love, the roughest, toughest, can't-get-enough-est Marine there is.
Posted by Carla at 09:39 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 12, 2004
How to run a war
Wow. Just...wow.
I'm not sure if I agree with this entirely, but you have to go read this post by Jack Wakeland, at ObjectivismOnline.net's forum.
This is a great forum for Objectivists, and has been a terrific resource for me in my studies of the philosophy. The post I'm to which I refer here, however, is required reading for anyone interested in the War on Terror. It is by no means representative of an "Objectivist position" on the war—for one thing, there is no one Objectivist position, and for another, I've heard other O'ists express very different points. But, Mr. Wakeland's post here presents the most unique perspective I've encountered thus far, and the most thought-provoking.
NB: This is a post on a public internet forum, and not a formally published piece. Regardless, Mr. Wakeland is a clear, assertive writer, and I believe this post could stand alone, even without the rest of the (nevertheless interesting) thread.
Posted by Carla at 06:37 PM | Comments (0)
Interview
CB posts a great Interview with an Iraqi.
QUESTION: Is it less dangerous here in Mosul now than it was in the past? How dangerous is Mosul now?ANSWER: To be honest with you the situation is still dangerous. Because, many people came from Irania, and they enter inside Iraq. They use Islam and they use that banner to fight against the American Forces, and what they call a jihad, and Islam doesn't say that, believe me they are far away from Islam. Islam does not say fight your brother or kill the innocent people. So I think their opinions are not true. Their ideas are not true.
Posted by Carla at 05:11 PM | Comments (0)
A more sensitive war?
Cox and Forkum are dead on in today's cartoon, and in their short written analysis. In the same entry, they link to one of my favorite cartoons of theirs, Give War a Chance.
I'm not sure what Kerry means when he says that he'll fight a "more sensitive" war. Maybe he means that for every time an American punches an insurgent, the insurgent will be allowed to punch back—it's only fair, you know.
If the Iraqi people are angry with Americans for responding in kind to the terrorists who are ruining their chances for prosperous rebuilding, tough luck. Al-Sadr is making a power grab; he is not acting as an Iraqi leader, religious or otherwise. Groups are made up of individuals, and sometimes, a number of those individuals need to disassociate themselves from the rest of the group. Iraqi Shiites need to realize that al-Sadr is only holding back any progress they're making; they need to realize that an attack against al-Sadr (or the mosque he's hiding in) is not an attack against their religion. In turn, the administration needs to realize that Iraqis are capable of making this distinction.
This should have been settled a long time ago. I fear that election year has made President Bush even more afraid to do what is necessary in this war. It needs to be finished, once and for all, so that Iraqis and Americans alike can get on with living their lives.
Posted by Carla at 01:31 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 05, 2004
Harrowing
CB at My War posted a harrowing account of a battle in Mosul.
Posted by Carla at 10:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 04, 2004
Peikoff on politics
Leonard Peikoff, for those of you who may not know, was Ayn Rand's heir, and is commonly considered to be the foremost authority on Rand and her philosophy, Objectivism. Today a good friend sent me a link to his website, where Dr. Peikoff has posted an excerpt from a lecture in which he
presents [his] view of the upcoming Presidential election, explaining why he intends to vote for Kerry, and why he condemns not only Bush, but also those who abstain from voting on the grounds that both candidates are no good.
It's worth listening to, though the sound quality is not the best. Best soundbite:
Bush is to the religious state what FDR was to the welfare state.
And if you know us Objectivists, you know that ain't good.
I have to think on this a little more, but right now, I disagree with Peikoff. I think his assessment of Bush's religious agenda is correct (though I don't think it's quite the extreme that Peikoff suggests--in other words, I think the quote above, while snappy, goes too far). In a pre-September 11th world, I probably would have been swayed by this argument. But, given the climate in which we live, I think the choice must be made based on who will do a better job of protecting this country. Kerry has demonstrated his hostility toward the military; has neglected to define what might "necessitate" military action; has expressed his willingness to allow organizations such as the UN dictate (or heavily influence American foreign policy. Bush, by contrast, has shown that he is willing to take decisive military action to defend this nation, and that he will not allow the UN to (entirely) hinder such action. There are many problems with his policies of the last four years, military and otherwise, but when it comes down to existence (Bush) vs. non-existence (Kerry), existence wins.
As something of an aside, there is another vital difference that makes the case for Bush over Kerry: Bush believes, I think, and has stated that the United States is the greatest country in the world. Kerry's politics are such that he could never say such a thing, much less believe it. I don't want a president who doesn't recognize the United States' standing as the most moral country (in it foundations) in the world.
Posted by Carla at 11:51 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Race and politics
Walter Williams writes about Conservatives, Liberals, and Blacks at CapMag, contending that
the conservative vision shows far greater respect for blacks than the liberal you-can't-make-it-without-us vision.
He suggests that it might be guilt that motivates white liberals, and graciously includes a "Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon Granted to All Persons of European Descent":
I, Walter E. Williams, do declare full and general amnesty and pardon to all persons of European ancestry, for both their own grievances, and those of their forebears, against my people.Therefore, from this day forward Americans of European ancestry can stand straight and proud knowing they are without guilt and thus obliged not to act like damn fools in their relationships with Americans of African ancestry. [Emphasis added]
Hee. Read the whole thing.
Posted by Carla at 01:18 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 03, 2004
Add me to the fan club
Michelle Malkin points out an interview with Thomas Sowell at The American Enterprise. Below, a few gems.
On economics:
TAE: You point out that the inefficiency of political control of an economy has been demonstrated more often in more places in more conditions than almost anything outside the realm of pure science. Yet such control continues to be exercised again and again. Is there any hope of reason winning out in other areas if it cannot make a dent here?Sowell: Reason has made a dent. Ronald Reagan started to privatize. Socialists started to privatize. China--the communists--started to privatize. So if reason doesn't lead us there, experience sometimes will.
On environmentalism:
Sowell:...And here are all these rich heirs, who will never have to work a day in their lives, finding nothing better to do than bankroll the environmental movements making life miserable for many working people.I was talking to one of my favorite clerks down at a photography place in Palo Alto. He mentioned that he'd read a column of mine recently. I said, "Wait a minute, there's no column of mine that appears in any newspaper within 50 miles of here." He says, "I live in Tracy."
"You live in Tracy? That's a long haul from here," I observed.
"Well, I certainly can't afford to live in Palo Alto," he said.
Wealthy elites have nothing better to do than make life miserable for people like this guy, who has to spend a couple of hours each way on the congested freeway. Extreme environmentalists have helped drive people of moderate income out of the Bay Area. They've especially driven out people with children, and they've driven out blacks. All the while espousing these great pieties.
...
TAE: In San Luis Obispo in California people have to worry about some kind of federally endangered snail. If someone wants to build, and finds it in his backyard, it spells all kinds of trouble.Sowell: I don't believe in vigilante action but I'm tempted in my daydreams to organize a group of guys in combat fatigues to go out there at night and pick up those snails so people can get on with their lives. There was some butterfly that was holding up building up in San Bruno. It's a crushing burden. In this area, from San Jose up to San Francisco, the average price of a home is over half a million dollars. We're not talking mansions. We're talking little nothing houses jammed together.
On terrorism:
Sowell:...Before the Iraq war I was quite disturbed by some of the neoconservatives, who were saying things like, "What is the point of being a superpower if you can't do such-and-such, take on these responsibilities?" The point of being a superpower is that people will leave you alone.
...
Everyone knew all along that the United States had the power to wipe out any nation on the face of the earth. I remember my sister saying, "What could they be thinking coming over here and attacking the World Trade Center, knowing what the power situation was?" I said, "They knew all that. They didn't think we had the guts to do anything."
...
The only thing terrorists care about is their power. Depriving them of their power is the only way to change them. When they see the Taliban replaced in Afghanistan, and Saddam Hussein ousted in Iraq, that's a strong message. I don't think it's coincidental that Qaddafi decided that he would try to be a little more reasonable now than he was in the past.
Posted by Carla at 01:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack