I went to Moveon.org's site today to answer their question, "What's you position on the US military presence in Iraq? They had these choices:
Immediate withdrawal
Setting a date for withdrawal
Staying the course,
I don't know--it's a mess.
I chose the last option and then added this comment.
This is not a question for which multiple choice answers work very well. Bush's adventure has destabilize Iraq and injected into it a measure of chaos that we now, unfortunately, have the obligation to correct. So immediate withdrawal is irresponsible. Staying the course, since it is a rudderless one, is inconceivable. Perhaps, what would be best is if the newly sovereign government in Iraq repudiates the Bush administration itself and demands the withdrawal of all coalition troops and their replacement with a UN-sponsored security force that is a true international coalition. Perhaps then, the new Iraqi government can forge an independent tone and those currently fighting "occupation" would have no enemy.
Then, maybe, Iraqi police and military will not abandon their jobs or collaborate with those fighting the occupation. Bush has ruined our image in the region and I think we will have to step out of the lead in rebuilding Iraq to rehabilitate that image. At the same time, we must ensure that any UN replacement is up to the job, has teeth, and is not mere window dressing.
So, that was the position I took. Almost half of the membership supports the date setting option, which I think just gives those fighting the occupation a time-table for their evil deeds. Will the sovereign Iraqi government help us out by kicking us out? Probably not. That would take boldness and I doubt those installed by brainy (the UN diplomat who will choose the interim government) will be anything more than cautious and plodding.
By the way, I got an email today about resurrecting an anti-Nazi occupation idea from Norway and Denmark to wear certain colored clothing to signify opposition. According to the email, Norwegian women knit red caps for their household to wear in public to demonstrate, quietly, their opposition to the fascist Germans. Danes wore red-white-blue caps. The email asks those opposed to the Bush Admin. To wear red every Friday.
Though this is not outright stupidity like the email I received urging me to not buy gas on a particular day to protest gas prices (if we all bought gas every day, this might make sense, sort of, but since I buy gas every 2 weeks or so, and probably wouldn't buy gas on that day anyway, how is this going to hurt big oil?), it still kinda makes me smile. My alternative is, forget the red cap, get someone, anyone, convinced not to vote for Bush in November and do THAT every Friday and maybe we would get somewhere. Plus, red is associated with communism and that nonsense could be thrown in your face. How about blue? Or red white and blue? We need to rescue the flag from the right wing nuts anyway....
Last bit is outrage 65002. John Ashcroft is trying to brand Greenpeace a criminal organization in Federal Court in Florida. Greenpeace has for sometime boarded boats bearing illegal Amazon rainforest mahogany to bring this smuggling to the attention of US authorities and demand the authorities take action against the shippers. The volunteers are usually arrested for trespassers and given fines for their civil disobedience. But John decided to use an obscure maritime law from 1872 to indict Greenpeace as an organization. (That old law was to prevent organized gangs of whores and gamblers to come on board ships just in harbor for the purposes of bilking the sailors of their pay.) The idea is to get a conviction and then use that to strip Greenpeace of it's tax exempt status and effectively shut it up. Don't believe this is the Bush Strategy? A few months ago, the Greenpeace ship Esperanza was not permitted to enter Miami harbor on a PR and education tour because of "homeland security issues."
A corollary to that dumb republican trick is Mitt Romney, Gov' of Mass. Using a bigoted law that was put in place to prevent miscegenation (mixed marriages) in Mass. Without having to actually state that's what they were doing. The law prohibits the issuance of marriage certificates to out-of-staters if their union violated the law in their home state. Here he is using that bigotry in a new and creative way. Think that irony was lost on Mitt?
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Friday, May 07, 2004
As you may or may not know, the Chronicle published a blurb about Nudge fest in yesterday's issue and mentioned In Flagrante, erroneously accusing Scott Von Doviak of making it. (see link for more info on Mr. Von Doviak)
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/author-1251/
This is what I wrote to the Chronicle:
Correction to the Nudge Micro Digital Film
Festival story on page 60 of the May 7, 2004 Chronicle.
Courtney Fitzgerald accuses Scott Von Doviak of making the feature In Flagrante in Steve Mims' 1998 class. I write to clear his name and take full responsibility for writing and directing said movie.
I don't know how this rumor got started as Steve's press release and flyer clearly name me as the culprit and he swears up and down that when called and questioned about the Von Doviak attribution, he set the caller straight and gave them my full name.
Thanks. I hope this clears things up.
I thought you folks might enjoy this.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/author-1251/
This is what I wrote to the Chronicle:
Correction to the Nudge Micro Digital Film
Festival story on page 60 of the May 7, 2004 Chronicle.
Courtney Fitzgerald accuses Scott Von Doviak of making the feature In Flagrante in Steve Mims' 1998 class. I write to clear his name and take full responsibility for writing and directing said movie.
I don't know how this rumor got started as Steve's press release and flyer clearly name me as the culprit and he swears up and down that when called and questioned about the Von Doviak attribution, he set the caller straight and gave them my full name.
Thanks. I hope this clears things up.
I thought you folks might enjoy this.
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
I have been stewing over the John Kerry-isn't-a-good-Catholic-because-he-is-pro-choice flap and now I think I'll serve up the result.
I was raised in this church and took it very seriously at one point in my life, so I've thought about this charge a lot. It is specious and here's why.
Being pro-choice simply acknowledges that in a multi-faith society abortion decisions are best left to the individual facing them. Some, whose faith tells them it is a sin will choose not to have one. Those whose faith tells them it is not a sin are free to have one.
In the legal realm, that is the secular convention, fetus' have never been conferred rights (that is why the right-wing is trying hard to do so now by passing state and federal murder laws when a fetus dies as the result of a crime to the mother. This is unprecedented in common law. You had to be born to have rights under the law. When parents lost a fetus due to the criminal act against the mother, English law provide only civil recourse to the parents. They could sue for damages since they lost a field hand or house keeper. The implication was that the parents had rights, while the unborn had non.)
The Supreme Court recognized this in 1973 with the Roe decision. The states could not impose religious morality upon those who did not hold those religious views. It was a decision that only a individual could make. Not a state. I think they were right on the money.
Curiously, the religious right, who think abortion is wrong think they have a right to impose this belief upon those who do not hold it. Kerry's position is that while he, in the exercise of his faith, believes it is wrong and therefore presumably would not be party to an abortion, he as a good American realizes that not others do not share his faith and must be allowed to follow theirs without interference, in accordance with freedom to practice religion as spelled out in the 1st amendment, the law of the land.
So as a Catholic, he is anti-abortion in personal life. As a Public servant, he upholds the Constitution, as he swore to. What's the problem? There is none. As a Catholic, you are not required by catechism to use your position in secular government to impose Catholic doctrine on the people. And as an American legislator, you are sworn not to. So as long as he doesn't have an abortion, how can he possibly sin in that regard? Simple. He can't. Further, you can be a good Catholic and vote pro-choice all you want and never sin. Allowing that you do not have the right to impose your beliefs is not a sin.
For some strange reason some believers think Jesus requires you to impose belief in him through secular law. He doesn't. In fact, he is quite clear that all a follower can do is spread the good news. It is up to the hearer to accept it or not. He is very specific in this. People must come to him voluntarily. Plus, it is a very Old Testament notion that someone elses sin is visited upon you so you must get your neighbors to repent. It was the scribes and Pharisees not Jesus who went around condemning people for violations of the letter of Mosaic law. Jesus not only did not condemn, he saved them from the condemners and then broke bread with the sinners. How can one can one self a Christian when one acts more like the Pharisees that had him killed than Jesus himself? Makes no sense.
I was raised in this church and took it very seriously at one point in my life, so I've thought about this charge a lot. It is specious and here's why.
Being pro-choice simply acknowledges that in a multi-faith society abortion decisions are best left to the individual facing them. Some, whose faith tells them it is a sin will choose not to have one. Those whose faith tells them it is not a sin are free to have one.
In the legal realm, that is the secular convention, fetus' have never been conferred rights (that is why the right-wing is trying hard to do so now by passing state and federal murder laws when a fetus dies as the result of a crime to the mother. This is unprecedented in common law. You had to be born to have rights under the law. When parents lost a fetus due to the criminal act against the mother, English law provide only civil recourse to the parents. They could sue for damages since they lost a field hand or house keeper. The implication was that the parents had rights, while the unborn had non.)
The Supreme Court recognized this in 1973 with the Roe decision. The states could not impose religious morality upon those who did not hold those religious views. It was a decision that only a individual could make. Not a state. I think they were right on the money.
Curiously, the religious right, who think abortion is wrong think they have a right to impose this belief upon those who do not hold it. Kerry's position is that while he, in the exercise of his faith, believes it is wrong and therefore presumably would not be party to an abortion, he as a good American realizes that not others do not share his faith and must be allowed to follow theirs without interference, in accordance with freedom to practice religion as spelled out in the 1st amendment, the law of the land.
So as a Catholic, he is anti-abortion in personal life. As a Public servant, he upholds the Constitution, as he swore to. What's the problem? There is none. As a Catholic, you are not required by catechism to use your position in secular government to impose Catholic doctrine on the people. And as an American legislator, you are sworn not to. So as long as he doesn't have an abortion, how can he possibly sin in that regard? Simple. He can't. Further, you can be a good Catholic and vote pro-choice all you want and never sin. Allowing that you do not have the right to impose your beliefs is not a sin.
For some strange reason some believers think Jesus requires you to impose belief in him through secular law. He doesn't. In fact, he is quite clear that all a follower can do is spread the good news. It is up to the hearer to accept it or not. He is very specific in this. People must come to him voluntarily. Plus, it is a very Old Testament notion that someone elses sin is visited upon you so you must get your neighbors to repent. It was the scribes and Pharisees not Jesus who went around condemning people for violations of the letter of Mosaic law. Jesus not only did not condemn, he saved them from the condemners and then broke bread with the sinners. How can one can one self a Christian when one acts more like the Pharisees that had him killed than Jesus himself? Makes no sense.
Monday, May 03, 2004
Well, turns out three-ear is not only a female, but a mommy as well. Saw her engorged dinners while she was munching sunflower seeds the other day. Monkey-time Randy informs me that the third ear is a surveillance implant of the Homeland Security Dept. That explains why she's eyeballing me all the time.
Typing of animals, (I'm not speaking so I can't write that can I?) I'm listening to the commentary from a Brit named Cowie on the Alain Resnais film Hiroshima Mon Amour (which is worth seeing now, I'd say), Saturday around noon, when I see a black form flash by on my peripheral vision. I turn to look out the window to see Elvis, my big black Lab, wandering through the front yard, sniffing and such. I immediate pause the film and pop out onto the front porch to catch Elv in the side yard by the juniper trees. "Elvis, Come inside," says I, to which the good ol' boy dutifully lifts his head, wags and then runs over and up the steps and into the house, where Peachy greets him.
Exasperated, I stay outside and head around the north side of the house expecting to find the gate wide open. However, it's closed. Now, I'm stumped, cuz I can't figure out how he got out. I go through the gate and start walking the perimeter of the fence expecting to find it disturbed where he climbed it. Mind you, I have waged a 4- or 5-year campaign to keep first Peachy and now Elv in the yard--First filling in holes and building stone and wood barricades, then trying an invisible fence and finally resorting to electrification, which for the most part has worked well.
Still, it hasn't been 100 percent successful, and the breaches are harder and harder to anticipate, so I was searching with some annoyance for the way out when I heard dog commotion behind me. I turned and saw Peachy's and not one, but two black labs. I said something out loud, like "huh?" or "What the..." And that brought the pack of them to me. Upon further review, it became clear that the 2nd lab wasn't Elvis, aside from the fact that Elvis was standing next to him. Elvis has a grey muzzle and this pup's was coal black. So I called the boy over to me and took off his collar, which was exceedingly similar to Elvis'. It had two tags on it just like Elvis but the name tag was a chrome bone where Elvis' is a blue bone. Turns out he lives in the 5100 block of Ave. G and his name was Coal P. Smith. As I went into the house to call his human, the similarities in the dogs struck me as amazing. Coal was about 90 percent the size of Elv, but he walked and held his head almost the exact same way. I called Coal in and made my dogs wait outside.
This was the exchange with Coal's human:
Hello
Hello there!
You have my dog don't you?
I sure do.
Where are you?
(I give the address).
I'll be there in a minute. Thanks.
That was it. ;-)
So I'm waiting with him as he sniffs out the entire place occasionally brushing by me. When I put my hand down, he comes to it, in an eerily similar manner to that of my big boy. Again. I am in a bit of awe of the weirdness of the sitch.
The wind blows the front door slightly open and Coal takes the opportunity to nose it fully open and push out through the screen door. I follow him and when he gets 20 feet away ask him to come, which, amazingly, he does. He waits on the porch with me for a minute until he recognizes the engine of his human and bolts down to the curb.
A lady pulls up in an Explorer and Coal circles it. She gets out and greets the boy and then thanks me. I tell her the story, as it strikes me as a good one. She enjoys it or convincingly pretend to and then opens the back door for Coal to climb into. He climbs up but hesitates with the hind legs. She explains that for some reason his hip dysplasia makes it hard for him to get into the car but that he jumps the fence no problem. I tell me my boy has atrophied hind legs too but after all he's 11 years old. She says, "So is Coal!
Weird man.
Typing of animals, (I'm not speaking so I can't write that can I?) I'm listening to the commentary from a Brit named Cowie on the Alain Resnais film Hiroshima Mon Amour (which is worth seeing now, I'd say), Saturday around noon, when I see a black form flash by on my peripheral vision. I turn to look out the window to see Elvis, my big black Lab, wandering through the front yard, sniffing and such. I immediate pause the film and pop out onto the front porch to catch Elv in the side yard by the juniper trees. "Elvis, Come inside," says I, to which the good ol' boy dutifully lifts his head, wags and then runs over and up the steps and into the house, where Peachy greets him.
Exasperated, I stay outside and head around the north side of the house expecting to find the gate wide open. However, it's closed. Now, I'm stumped, cuz I can't figure out how he got out. I go through the gate and start walking the perimeter of the fence expecting to find it disturbed where he climbed it. Mind you, I have waged a 4- or 5-year campaign to keep first Peachy and now Elv in the yard--First filling in holes and building stone and wood barricades, then trying an invisible fence and finally resorting to electrification, which for the most part has worked well.
Still, it hasn't been 100 percent successful, and the breaches are harder and harder to anticipate, so I was searching with some annoyance for the way out when I heard dog commotion behind me. I turned and saw Peachy's and not one, but two black labs. I said something out loud, like "huh?" or "What the..." And that brought the pack of them to me. Upon further review, it became clear that the 2nd lab wasn't Elvis, aside from the fact that Elvis was standing next to him. Elvis has a grey muzzle and this pup's was coal black. So I called the boy over to me and took off his collar, which was exceedingly similar to Elvis'. It had two tags on it just like Elvis but the name tag was a chrome bone where Elvis' is a blue bone. Turns out he lives in the 5100 block of Ave. G and his name was Coal P. Smith. As I went into the house to call his human, the similarities in the dogs struck me as amazing. Coal was about 90 percent the size of Elv, but he walked and held his head almost the exact same way. I called Coal in and made my dogs wait outside.
This was the exchange with Coal's human:
Hello
Hello there!
You have my dog don't you?
I sure do.
Where are you?
(I give the address).
I'll be there in a minute. Thanks.
That was it. ;-)
So I'm waiting with him as he sniffs out the entire place occasionally brushing by me. When I put my hand down, he comes to it, in an eerily similar manner to that of my big boy. Again. I am in a bit of awe of the weirdness of the sitch.
The wind blows the front door slightly open and Coal takes the opportunity to nose it fully open and push out through the screen door. I follow him and when he gets 20 feet away ask him to come, which, amazingly, he does. He waits on the porch with me for a minute until he recognizes the engine of his human and bolts down to the curb.
A lady pulls up in an Explorer and Coal circles it. She gets out and greets the boy and then thanks me. I tell her the story, as it strikes me as a good one. She enjoys it or convincingly pretend to and then opens the back door for Coal to climb into. He climbs up but hesitates with the hind legs. She explains that for some reason his hip dysplasia makes it hard for him to get into the car but that he jumps the fence no problem. I tell me my boy has atrophied hind legs too but after all he's 11 years old. She says, "So is Coal!
Weird man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)