Some more thoughts on recent subjects.
Blood: I recently gave blood ... double red, which is a fairly neat deal. You are hooked up to a machine which separates the red cells from the rest, so you give two pints worth of red, but just that -- no plasma etc. You see the blood processed, going in and out of your arm, the plasma (yellowish) splashing in the compartment. Since you give a double portion, you need to wait twice as long (vs. fifty six days for a simple whole blood donation) between sessions. It also doesn't take much longer than whole blood (overall, both take less than an hour overall) and probably is less stressful for most people because less fluids are removed. I find it a fairly easy way to donate a part of myself, literally this time.
Book: The book referenced yesterday concerns a slight thirtysomething mom who always disliked sports, surely boxing, finding to her surprise that it actually is particularly appealing. The theme of the book is suggested by the title, Without Apology, underlining the empowerment value of athletics (particularly for girls, here between ten and sixteen, see Title IX*), including in response to personal demons and drives. Thus, though the author -- reflecting earlier sentiments she herself held -- recognizes the arguments against boxing, her personal experience (Cohen too started sparring) here showed its value as well. I still find watching the sport a bit too much like gladiator battles, but the book shows how it can serve as an outlet as well. If only she laid it a bit less thick while discussing the issue ...
Bush: In a "perfect storm" situation, our national leadership today is bad on various levels. Basically, I oppose what they say and do. The latter is key since often people are not as doctrinaire as I might be. They look at the person, especially in this candidate focused era where political parties often are less important. The NYT has a good magazine piece today on how Dean is trying to fight for a national party once again -- I'm all for that. To connect the dots, this House page cybersex standard ("overfriendly" is the Republican spin ... the NYT cannot quite say what is at stake such as comments like "are you horny" ... I also find the picture of Mark Foley's opponent with Kerry telling -- is that the only pic available?) underlines the point.
[One additional point ... the NYT story etc. underlines consistency at least on the Republican side. Unilateral to the end -- the sole Democrat on the page panel was not told of the concerns. Sort of a problem, isn't it people?]
Not only does it show the difference between rhetoric and reality, but you need to have people there (including a candidate) for the kill.** This, my friends on the other side, is why you cannot trust your friends with too much power. Surely, this includes the President ... the infamous photos suggests this includes matters of a sexual nature. But, some -- as suggested last time -- think we should just trust him. Ironically, they sometimes use presidents they otherwise find distasteful to defend themselves -- suddenly "socialistic" FDR is an ideal to follow. And, again unlike other matters such as congressional power, they ignore the overreaching nature of executive power in the modern era as well as other relevant changes such as the need for human rights in the post-WWII world.
From the NYT today:
They called for a return to the minimum standards of treatment in the Geneva Conventions and for eventually closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The time had come, they said, for suspects in the 9/11 plot to be taken out of their secret prison cells and tried before military tribunals. ...
On one side of the fight were officials, often led by Vice President Dick Cheney, who said the terrorism threat required that the president have wide power to decide who could be held and how they should be treated. On the other side were officials, primarily in the State Department and the Pentagon, who portrayed their disagreement as pragmatic. They said the administration had claimed more authority than it needed, drawing widespread criticism and challenges in the courts. ...
According to officials who attended the meeting, several of those present spoke in favor of the Geneva provision, including the senior Army lawyer, Maj. Gen. Thomas J. Romig. In an unusual move, Mr. England called for a show of hands. All but two of those present endorsed the provision. But those two officials were among the most influential in the room: the department's under secretary for intelligence, Stephen A. Cambone, and its general counsel, William J. Haynes II [Nominated to the Fourth Circuit].
Note the general themes, including State having more sensible policies. Another telling matter was the concern for "pragmatic" choices, those not compelled by the law perhaps (for sake of argument), but so useful to a reasonable policy path. Obviously, it was looked upon with askance. The discussion also shows the concern of the military -- as with the cybersex scandal, we see how little these people truly offer. They are incompetent, harm the interests of the military, and at the end of the day are anti-family values as well. Oh, btw:
The element of the new legislation that raised the sharpest criticism among legal scholars and human rights advocates last week was the scaling back of the habeas corpus right of terrorism suspects to challenge their detention in the federal courts. But in dozens of high-level meetings on detention policy, officials said, that provision was scarcely even discussed.
Additional tidbit, addressed by Sam Seder on Air America earlier:
Congress removed a controversial provision in a military bill on Friday that would have permitted chaplains to offer sectarian prayer at mandatory nondenominational events. At the same time, lawmakers moved to rescind guidelines issued last year by the Air Force and Navy meant to curtail the risk of religious coercion and proselytizing within the ranks. ...
For several weeks, wrangling over the chaplain prayer provision had stalled the National Defense Authorization Act, a bill that sets military spending levels. The provision was championed by some evangelical chaplains and Christian groups, like Focus on the Family. But it was opposed by the Pentagon, the National Association of Evangelicals and a dozen or so ecumenical groups, which maintained that offering sectarian prayer would create division within the military.
Many Democrats are pissed at what their representatives did with the detainee bill. Republicans apparently are better at compartmentalizing. Sometimes, they blatantly simply don't want to see the connection, finding it a bit unsavory. True believers (though some are having problems) can take that route.
The rest of us, including those that might be sympathetic to Republicans overall (in part because they simply don't like Democrats), really should not be allowed off the hook that easily. Not with so much glaring evidence. Too much "QED" here.
---
* As shown by a few movies by now, particularly "masculine" sports like boxing clearly are not just for men any more. As to this website, amusingly, Ron Darling -- the Mets analyst/former pitcher -- referenced Wikipedia during one of the playful back and forth among the SNY crew. OTOH, he did so respecting something more apt for Dictionary.com. Another somewhat ridiculous moment was a discussion of home movie viewing with their kids, Gary Cohen a fan of Mean Girls.
** Kill indeed. It's all about sex ... and you thought Monica (over 21) was a problem. BTW, yeah, Republicans have homosexuals too. They just cannot be as open about it, leading to distasteful consequences.