Mother's Vey

About once a month we drive three and a half hours to visit my mom. She's never there. It's like going to a museum and finding your favorite galleries roped off. The traveling exhibit has moved on.

Tightly in the grip of Alzheimer's, she still recognizes her family, mostly. The relationships aren't always clear; some days I'm her grandson, her nephew (she has no nephews) maybe her husband (which is weird). Although it's obvious she still enjoys the visits -- she lights up when we arrive -- her ability to express it, or to participate in any meaningful way diminishes steadily. This time, it seems the slope has become suddenly steeper.

I can still make her laugh. Last time, as was frequently the case, I got her laughing so hard and long there were tears streaming down her cheeks. It feels like it must be good for her. This time it's harder. She smiles in that look of not wanting to let on she doesn't get it, stares as if trying to dig something out with her eyes.

My brother lives further away and can't visit as often. When he does, he says it makes him feel good to know he still has a mother. My reaction is mostly the opposite: I feel sad that she's no longer available for the conversations, the stories, the commentary. Like my dad, she was a brilliant person, engaged, interested in many things. A reader, politically involved, opinionated, complicated. That's all gone. As will be our visit, a few moments after we leave; next time we talk on the phone -- if someone will get it for her and make sure she doesn't let it drift away from her ear -- she'll ask when she'll see me, won't remember we were just there, the chili egg-puff my wife made that she gobbled up happily, the visit from her grandson and his wonderful lug of a dog, about which she always used to ask as if he were mine, but no longer ever does.
.

Home

The pictures don't do justice to the sunset as it reflected on the water last night, heading home from watching gray whales feed along the shoreline. Though the photos are from a boat, the view isn't much different from what we see from our house. I feel lucky to live where I do.

Pectoral fins and flukes pointing skyward like a thumbs-up to the chef, two large whales fed in water barely deeper than their bodies, rolling onto their sides, then back up, blowing impressive flumes of spray, the exhalations easily heard over the idling engines. As long as we've lived here -- twenty-seven years so far -- it's the first time we've gone on a whale-watching boat, and this was at the invitation of someone else. (Having lived in San Francisco for seven years, the only time we took the tour to Alcatraz was long after we left, returning with our son who wanted to go. A great tour: highly recommended. Get the headphones and audio-tape!)

Sometimes it's nice just to take a breath and look around.
.

Comment Comment

I feel like a guy who put a pool in his backyard and invited the neighbors. And then found a bunch of turds floating in it.

As I've said before, this blog is more for my own mental health than anything else, as opposed to Surgeonsblog, which was, I'd offer, valuable at least in a small way. The difference in readership tends to confirm that -- numerically, if nothing else. I do enjoy getting comments here: many have been thoughtful, humorous, helpful. When there are actual conversations about issues, I find it tremendously pleasing. I'd even go so far as to say that applies to some of the more negative inhabitants: what goes better at a ball game, after all, than a frank and a beer? Only a still unwilling anonymous or two are consistently unable to produce anything useful at all, or of a higher level than "neener neener."

For some reason, a couple of recent posts elicited a back and forth among a few commenters that eventually devolved into a pissing match of epically unpleasant character (I'd have cut it out earlier, but I was out watching whales). Reading them was like a slap. I cut off comments on those posts only.

I guess there are several options: 1) continue as is, on the theory that eating sh*t is better than starving to death, 2) return to comment moderation, 3) discontinue all comments, and invite direct emails to which I'll respond as the spirit moves me, 4) discontinue comments, and remove my email from my profile page, 5) hang up the whole blog, in recognition that it's become like masturbating with sandpaper (not that I've ever tried).

None is ideal. For now -- and who cares, really? -- I'll do this: nothing. Except to request people consider commenting here like going to dinner at someone else's house: if there are people you disagree with -- especially me! -- feel free to have a discussion, but keep it civil. I don't want to send everyone home or call the cops. I enjoyed sending out the invitations and making the meal. I'll stop serving booze to anyone who gets too rude, and offer coffee.

To those who used to comment and who still drop by but find the party out of control, I apologize and sincerely hope you'll not leave. I enjoy hearing from people.

To those who aren't reading this: I don't blame you.
.

Abandon Hope

If anyone thinks Congressional Republicans (this time it's the senators) are going to become credible any time soon, think again. This ad has to be the most pathetic excuse for a policy position, the most loony attempt to scare people ever foisted on the public. It's ridiculous on its face; the more so because someone evidently thinks it isn't. And is willing to associate with it. Was there any remaining doubt that these guys are irrelevant, even to thoughtful conservatives? Kiss it goodbye; and with it, any hope for reasoned and reasonable debate on.... well, on any topic at all. Whatsoever. Nada. These guys are levers, inclined planes, wedges. Simple tools.

Need it be pointed out that in every state there are prisons, holding really bad guys? There's one a few miles from here. What, exactly, does it matter if it's Charles Manson or Ramsey Yousef? A serial child-killer, or KSM? We're not talking about them shacking up in the cute rambler, 2 BR, 1 1/2 BA, needs work, nice starter home next door.

Scary friggin' music, though.

I'd laugh, but it's too depressing. These are the guys someone sent to Washington, to do our work. To be useful. Time to throw in the towel. We're screwed.
.

N-DOP

I'm remiss. Here it is the National Day of Prayer, and I've made no mention. Apologies.

But I must admit I'm puzzled. What, exactly, is the point? I'd assume people who pray don't need reminding, and would likely be doing it anyway. People who don't pray regularly but put their nickel in today -- what's up with that? For how much do those prayers count? Three-fifths? And, mainly, this: assuming we get some sort of bolus of prayer headed to where-ever it's supposed to be aimed, does it wake someone up? A godly, "Whoa, what was that? I better get to work!!" Is there some sort of quota, a surfeit of supplication, beyond which something will happen that would not have, otherwise? Will the Republicans suddenly become helpful? Will the budget magically balance? If so, I'm there!

Rather than getting all thumpy like his predecessor, President Obama has indicated he'll do his praying privately. Naturally, this is shocking to the religious right, to whom public parading of one's religion is like driving. With a bumper sticker. For what is religion, after all, if not a way of lording (yes, yes) it over everyone? This private stuff -- you know, the idea that one's religion is between one and one's god, humble, personal... biblical, you might say --where's the glory in that? What good is prayer if you can't hit someone over the head with it, or at least do it in a cosmic lookee here? Heck, next some America-hater will be talking about separating church and state.
.

Good Riddance

Just look at the guy. Disgusting, isn't it? The squeaky chirpy voice, the dainty clothes, the fey way he wears the American flag. I'll bet when he was in Iraq, all Arabic-speaking and "helping" our cause, people were recoiling in horror. West Point? North point, more like. Just looking at him makes my skin crawl. Or something:

Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?
Henry E. Adams, Lester W. Wright, Jr., and Bethany A. Lohr
University of Georgia

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

(Thanks to Spiny Norman for linking me to the study.)

We sure are lucky to have moralists out there, keeping our military safe from... from... uh... competent people???
.

Fareed

As David Gregory fails in his attempt to fill the shoes of Tim Russert (who, more often than not, annoyed the hell out of me with his superficial "gotcha" approach and lack of appropriate followup questions while riffing through his list rather than listening), people ought to take a look at Fareed Zakaria. In my area, his "GPS" show on CNN runs at the same time as "MTP" (1 pm Eastern) and is a hell of a lot better. Fareed is thoughtful, self-effacing, humorous, and very knowledgeable. He asks good questions and listens to the answers. Here's the opening exchange with Robert Gates, from last weekend:

ZAKARIA: Secretary Gates, thank you for doing this.

ROBERT GATES, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: My pleasure.

ZAKARIA: President Obama -- you've heard a lot of Republican criticism that he's going around the world apologizing about America. Do you accept that?

GATES: Well, I like to remind people that, when President George W. Bush came into office, he talked about a more humble America. And, you know, you go back to Theodore Roosevelt and his line about speaking softly, but carrying a big stick.

I think that acknowledging that we have made mistakes is not only factually accurate, I think that it is unusual, because so few other governments in the world are willing to admit that, although they make them all the time. And some of them make catastrophic mistakes.

And in speeches myself, I have said that at times we have acted too arrogantly. And I didn't feel that I was being apologetic for America, I just was saying, because the next -- I was just saying that that's the way we are in terms of being willing to recognize our own limitations, and when we make a mistake to correct it.

Because I think the next line that I always use is, no other country in the world is so self-critical, and is so willing to change course when we feel that we've strayed from our values, or when we feel like we've been too arrogant.

So, I think -- I have not seen it as an apology tour at all, but rather a change of tone, a more humble America. But everybody knows we still have the big stick.

Much to say about that: first, I think Robert Gates is an impressive guy: thoughtful, truthful, competent, soft-spoken. Sort of the opposite of his predecessor. Second, his response, in my view, is exactly the correct one to the RWS™ characterization of Obama as "apologizing" for America. They see it as weak. I see it as strong. And we know who thinks straight.

The transcript of the entire interview, which was a very candid and deep, if not un-disturbing, discussion of Pakistan and Afghanistan, is here. (I tried to embed the video, but it didn't seem to be happening. It can be seen, in two parts, here and here.)

Anyhow, it's nice to have at least one venue in which reasoned discussion can be heard. Parenthetically, in relation to my most recent of many comments on the apparent differences in how liberals and conservatives deal with facts, there's a point to be made about who watches what, and how much. I'd say all people like to have their points of view reinforced, and it's nice to be agreed with. On the other hand, the comparative rating of the RWS™ as they appear mostly on Fox, and those of the few lefty talkers, mostly on MSNBC, seem to reinforce my belief (and how nice that is). Fox gets more viewers than MSNBC. In my view, it's because liberals don't need the constant reinforcement of solidified views that (many) conservatives do. It sort of goes along with open-mindedness.

For those conservatives willing to give a try at hearing reasonable opinion and discussion, I'd suggest GPS as a non-threatening and painless way to see what it's like. Sort of a toe in the water. Take it slow. Check with your doctor first.
.

Strings, Pulled

Heh
.

A Friend Indeed

Every time I've gone to New York City I've had a great time. I'd love to live there for a few months. Based on what I've read, I credit Rudy Giuliani with making the city safer for tourists, although he may have done so with a too-heavy hand. I was impressed with his early response to the attacks of 9/11 (which he later parlayed into a multi-million dollar business), prior to which I'd thought his attempts at censorship were the acts of a man so obsessed with power that he willfully ignored the law. When he was booted out of the executive mansion for screwing around on his wife, I liked that he moved in with a gay couple who, it turned out, were long-standing and good friends. He was unabashed and open about it. "Good for him," I thought.

So I'd seen him as an interesting and complex character, an egotistical and untrustworthy power-monger but with some redeeming qualities.

He ran the worst presidential primary campaign in recent memory.

And now, he's shown his truest colors, by being a last-minute no-show at his gay friends' wedding. Didn't even have the decency to call them himself:

"Rudy and Judith were both invited with a beautiful written invitation by mail," Koeppel told the Post. "His secretary called Thursday and said he was not able to come to the wedding and wished us all the best."

Nice. His secretary.

I think it's a semi-big deal. Admittedly I don't know exactly how close their friendship is (was); but he made no attempt to hide or discount it at the time. As mayor of NYC, a liberal bastion, he had no problem letting it be widely known that he had gay friends, and lived with them; a counter, perhaps, to his other transgressions, particularly ones involving the law. But then he ran for President, and you can't be seen as open-minded and expect to get the Republican nomination. And now he's considering running for Governor. Primary colors, once again.

I don't really care about Rudy one way or the other; but it says much not only about him, but about the party whose nomination he'd be seeking: his calculus is that they'd rather see him as a man who'd dump on long-time friends, decent guys by all accounts, than attend a same-sex marriage.

Tough choice, eh? Friendship or fame. Integrity or self-interest. I'd like to think I'm not the sort who'd hurt friends for my own aggrandizement. Or, at least, that I'd make the damn call myself.
.

Backfire Effect

I guess I'm obsessed with it. As in the previous post, about judicial temperament and selecting Supreme Court justices, I keep coming back to what appear to be inherent and unalterable differences between the conservative and the liberal mind. The implications are several, and serious. There is, it would seem, an extent to which the two are simply unable to find common ground. For reasons I don't think anyone knows (genetic wiring?, learned responses?) liberals and conservatives seem to process information differently.

In a near semi partially penultimate post on Surgeonsblog, I parenthetically mentioned this article about a study of what happens when people are presented with information that disproves a certain claim. A key finding:

Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration's prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One group was given a refutation -- the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003. Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration's claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse.

A similar "backfire effect" also influenced conservatives told about Bush administration assertions that tax cuts increase federal revenue. One group was offered a refutation by prominent economists that included current and former Bush administration officials. About 35 percent of conservatives told about the Bush claim believed it; 67 percent of those provided with both assertion and refutation believed that tax cuts increase revenue.

.... Nyhan and Reifler found this "backfire" effect only among conservatives. Refutations had little effect on liberals, but it didn't cause them to actively believe the misleading information even more strongly.

I find it fascinating. Of course, it's not possible to make blanket statements: the numbers suggest that some conservatives were convinced by data, as well as that some liberals weren't. I know some open-minded conservatives, and some close-minded liberals. Still, the implication is clear: resistance to facts -- hardening one's erroneous view, in fact, when shown evidence to the contrary -- is a characteristic of the conservative mind more than it is of the liberal. So not only is it the case that, for many anyway, there's no hope of common purpose; it's also true that liberals are more likely to be right. Facts being what they are: facts.

It seems a fair assumption that people at the extremes are the ones most likely to fall into the refractory category. And, given the way gerrymandering has led to selecting the most partisan representatives of a given party, it's also logical to conclude that Congress is full of the 64/67 percenters; ie, that Congressional Republicans are simply incapable of being persuaded by facts, no matter the issue at hand. It's pretty discouraging; and it sort of puts the lie to the concept of bipartisanship. If the commentariat of this blog is any example, it's plainly impossible to have a meaningful discussion of serious issues with people congenitally (let's assume they can't help it) unable to process new information, especially information that contradicts their preferred beliefs.

Would that it weren't so. I'd like there to be a credible opposition to whatever party is in power. Especially, of course, if it's the party of backfire effect. But even when it's the good guys. Politicians of either party are wont to get carried away with themselves. As it is, the current party of opposition is constituted, in Congress anyway, of people literally incapable of dealing with reality, and studies prove it. It's not a good thing.
.

Here Come...

I'm no judge, but I grew up in the house of one (who looked a little like the above cartoon). On occasions, he decided cases in ways that upset him: the law, he found, required it. More than a few times I heard him say that when laws were wrong, it was up to the legislature to change them; but until then, he had to rule in ways that followed those laws. He was, I might add, a proud liberal. He would have made a fabulous Supreme Court Justice; in fact, he was nominated to the Ninth Circuit by Lyndon Johnson; for a bunch of political reasons,* compounded by a FBI screwup, it didn't happen. I like to think that if it had, at some point he'd have ended up on the Supreme Court, such was the acknowledged brilliance of his legal mind. He settled for a stint on the Oregon Supreme Court, and then as Chief Judge of the Oregon Court of Appeals.

Anyhow, the law has always interested me, and I've paid perhaps more than the average amount of attention to various judicial rulings over the years, and to the extent to which judges -- yes, even "originalists" like Scalia (especially Scalia) -- try to hide their prejudices in legalities. Legislate, in other words, from the bench. In fact, it's been particularly interesting/amusing how predictably most justices fall on one side of a question or the other, which says the law is hardly carved in stone. Judges like my dad, in other words, are rare even on the highest of courts.

I'm glad President Obama will be appointing the replacement for Justice Souter. I'd hate to have another judicial activist like Scalia, or Thomas, or Roberts, or Alito assume the robes. But I must say there were some things in Obama's statement that gave me pause (emphasis mine):

"The process of selecting someone to replace Justice Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as president. So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook, it is also about how are laws affect the daily realities of peoples lives--whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome and their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples' hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes. I will seek someone who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our Constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process, and the appropriate limits of the judicial role...."

In the most abstract of senses, I'm not sure I agree. Of course excellence and integrity, dedication to the rule of law and Constitutional traditions and judicial process are inarguable. But if the role of a judge is to apply the law to the case at hand, dispassionately and free of personal prejudice, then I don't entirely see how empathy and identifying with peoples' hopes and struggles enters into it. The question of how a law affects people is one for legislatures to address.

Or maybe not. That's, I guess, a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. It comes down to whether you think certain rights are explicit or implicit; and when implicit, in what way are they to be inferred. What constitutes "equal protection," or "privacy," for example, and in what areas may they be extrapolated. Since many Constitutional terms are pretty vague, interpretation is inevitable. Required. And so it's not surprising that one's philosophy of law, and of life, would affect one's rulings. It does matter what sort of person is selected. And yet, beyond certain essential qualifications of intelligence and integrity, it seems like it shouldn't.

Though written in educated English on palpable parchment, The Constitution is clearly among those "facts" that are subjected to our human filters, to the differences between the authoritarian (conservative) and thoughtful (liberal) minds. (If this article doesn't demonstrate the extent to which we live in different -- and entirely non-overlapping -- realities then nothing does.) Given our separating polarities and our common human frailties, it's impossible to expect that any two judges would look at a given set of facts and come up with identical conclusions.

So I guess, really, what our President was saying, when all is said and done, is that in addition to a person of unquestioned integrity and fine mind, he'll be looking for a liberal. I have no problem with that.

________________________
* If anyone's interested, it went something like this, as I understand and recall it: the nomination was sponsored by the two Oregon senators, Wayne Morse and Mark Hatfield; the former a Democrat, the latter a Republican, both strongly opposed to the Vietnam War. Dad's nomination went to the US Senate along with a nominee for another federal judgeship, who was approved. Dad's Senate review was delayed because the local FBI had, evidently, made some sort of error in its paperwork, so it was returned to them for correction/clarification/whatever. Meanwhile there arose the Abe Fortas brouhaha, after which Johnson said he wasn't going to nominate any more federal judges, prickly man that he was. Next, Wayne Morse was defeated in his reelection bid, by Bob Packwood, a Republican hawk, whom Mark Hatfield had not supported because of his war stance. When Dad's nomination stalled, Senator Hatfield initially told him he'd restart it with the next president (Nixon, as it turned out). But when Packwood won, Hatfield found himself in trouble with the Oregon Republican Party, and told Dad, apologetically, that he'd have to find a Republican judge. And that was that.
.

The Specter of Specter

I have mixed feelings about Arlen Specter. Prior to giving us Clarence Thomas by virtue of his disgraceful attitude towards Anita Hill, I'd thought him a Republican in the mold of Jacob Javits and other thoughtful East Coast conservatives. Since then he's broken with his party on a few occasions, but not much when it mattered. And it's clear his switch to the Democratic Party is not at all ideological, but pure political calculation regarding his reelection chances. He's no more a Democrat than is Orrin Hatch. The more noble thing for him to have done would have been to become an Independent, like the estimable Jim Jeffords, or the execrable Joe Lieberman.

Nor will it really give the Democrats the so-called filibuster-proof majority when Franken arrives. Along with a few others, like Ben Nelson, Arlen can't be counted on in the areas of greatest concern to Democrats, like health care.

To me, the switch is more or less meaningless, per se. But there are things about it that bother me. Namely, the promises that seem to have been made, and the accomodations. After all, if he didn't switch, he had approximately zero chance of winning the Pennsylvania Republican primary. For him, it was switch or die, politically. So why the ass-kissing?

We're told there were deals. Governor Rendell is said to have agreed to "clear the decks" for the Democratic nomination. Not cool. Not democratic. Personally, I like Joe Sestak a whole lot more. Nor do I think it was right for President Obama to promise -- assuming he did -- to campaign and raise money for him. Shake his hand, welcome him to the party (to the extent that it's meaningful), but leave it up to him to make his own case to the voters of Pennsylvania. I don't begrudge this or any president the right to be political and calculating. I just don't see the need to have gone so far. They had him at hell-no.
.

Test Post

[To anyone who wonders what this post is all about: I've been puzzled by the way Blogger is handling my attempts to do certain kinds of lists. Valued reader Sam Spade sent me some suggestions for changing the HTML code, and I've been playing around with it.]

1. 
   
2. two
3. three

• bullet
• points
• work, too

• new
• bullet
• attempt

• bullet
• again

1. one
2. tw0

• test
• test

1. one

• two
  

Hey, it works!! Sam Spade, you're a genius, and your willingness to help is much appreciated!!!

Well, the bullets are still flowers, but heck, this is a liberal blog.

I'm very impressed.
.

Rhetorical Question

Or maybe I should make it some sort of office-pool equivalent:

When Obama's Supreme Court nomination goes forward, how many of the Republicans who demanded "up or down vote" for Bush's nominees will, this time around, opt for filibuster?

1. Every damn one of them.
2. Three quarters of them.
3. Over half.
4. Less than half.
5. None. They're people of high principle.
   

There was a time, when the Democrats were in the minority in the Senate, when Bush was president, that Republicans screamed bloody murder every time the Ds threatened filibuster. Now that the tables are turned, the Rs have gone to it more often than at any time in history.

So mine is choice #2, but #1 wouldn't surprise me even a little.


.

Winds

When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Until now I'd thought the US had a corner on the self-destructive make-ourselves-stupid market. But darned if our neighbors to the north, whom I've always considered pretty civilized and practical, don't also have their share. In Alberta, anyway, where the weather's said to be good in the fall. Don't like science contradicting your religious beliefs in your public schools? Opt out. No sense having to think, or having your prejudices challenged. Extrapolate that!

Meanwhile, in an interesting temporal juxtaposition, a poll is released correlating attitudes toward torture with religious belief. Among the categories, evangelicals of the regular church-going variety were the most in favor of its use. Posted without comment.
.