Here's a nomination for Misleader-1st-Class: Doug Forrester who is papering the airwaves with his ads for the Republican nominee for NJ Governor. You can find him at doug.com.

One note I've picked up from his TV ads, not readily available on his web site, but he notes he build a "family business on cutting drug costs". You'd think this would qualify him for one of the problems of the day -- controlling drug costs. Think again. A business, presumably for profit, that survived by cutting drug costs. Does that mean Doug will be committed to cutting drug costs from the public, not-for-profit sector. I think not. (Imagine Descartes vanishing in a puff of smoke:-) What this does tell us is that while a profit may be made by fighting drug costs, from a New Jersey citizen, no less, someone, somewhere in government is not doing their job.

If Doug were running on a record of cutting future drug costs, I'd still be listening (for other prevarications), but, as it is, this one is disingenuous enough for me to toss him on the too-fat, too-white pile that defines the modern Republican.

Iran's Nukeular Capability

Contrary to selected acting president bush's assertions, Iran will never have a nukeular weapons capability. To be blunt no one will ever have a nukeular weapons capability. There is no such thing as a nukeular anything.

So long as our illiterate s.a.p. bush insists on trying to describe nuclear power as a nukeular capability, I'll take every opportunity to point out the difficulty I have in following an illiterate. I have this thesis: listen to those who are proponents of the simplistic "west-good, east-evil" view of international politics, and pay particular attention to their attempt at pronouncing nuclear. The word sylabificates: nu - clee -ahr. Those who are most likely in favor of a western control of all aspects of nuclear energy, particularly its use in weapons, have the nauseating habbit of calling it nukeular, sylabificated: nuke - you - lahr. Illiteracy at best.

Carly, Where Are You?

OK, Carly (Carleton, since her dad was expecting a son!?) is out at HP. Shame, Shame. Someone, somewhere had better connect the names of Rich McGinn and Carly Fiorina. In my short life at AT&T Bell Labs, both these icons of the New Economy were close at hand for many peers. Sadly, it took the higest levels of corporate America to realize the hollow shells these mere suits have been.

In the News Hour piece tonight (2/10/05), they exposed Carly as a marketeer, not an inventor. Hewlett Packard just prides itself as an inventor. Your editor has seen the demise of American intellect at the hands of American marketing from firsthand.

Carly and Rich grew up (corporatley) in an environment that valued the quarterly bottom line. Rich got his a few years ago by promising inflated growth in the face of saturated network technology.l Carly got hers yesterday by promising insight to the face of computing. The News' Dark Time tracked the HPCQ index. History records the value of the stock is less than 50% when she took over. Innovation is a commitment, not a commodity.

Compare the arc of Greek philosophers to their cultural history; contrast that with the history of American invention. We've passed the hump on the curve. The saddle point. It's an opinion. Is it an insight?

How to Retire Rich.

Yesterday's post anticipated by one day, the New York Times editorial page weighing in on the subject of Social Security reform.

Their conclusion:

Preserving Social Security while increasing savings outside Social Security is a better way to achieve a prosperous retirement.

News to me is the Administration has two proposals on the table to increase investment incentives. The first is a no-cost, no-legislation-required proposal: the IRS can implement a two-account deposit for your tax return, one of which presumably is your savings account. The other was passed in 2001 is an incentive which "offers a matching tax credit for retirement savings by low- and middle-income taxpayers." They peg the total cost at a "relatively modest" $7B. It's yet to be implemented. The cost is of course, less than 10% the amount the Bush administration was willing to shovel to it's biggest contributors.

Read the Editorial.

It's time to call the Bush proposal to "privatize" Social Security what it is: The Emperor's New Clothes.

The myth of fine garments has been bought by most of the major media, since there is little evaluation of the personal and collective merits or flaws of the plans.

Imagine a future world in such a plan. You are splitting your contribution, say 50-50 between the public and private sectors. Your feelings about the value and necessity of your public contribution are likely the same as they are under the current arrangement. Let's inspect your attitude towards the private sector contribution.

You look at a private-sector Social (??) Security contribution as another form of IRA. But is it the same? Hardly. I may add $3500 to my IRA at my choice. I'm likely to, since at tax time, I can see the value to my bottom line, and importantly, it's my choice. But, now imagine I'm compelled, at federal regulation to "invest" a like amount of money. Do I have a choice. Not likely. Do I have a choice about the public sector contribution? No. Is it possible the private sector choice is optional? If so, I think I'd rather invest the money in an IRA. What is the value added of the federal government in compelled investing? Nothing. Other than to increase contempt for the federal government. That's the real purpose behind this scheme.

This administration has no sense of the "full faith and credit of the federal government". Their object is to diminish, if not eliminate the concept from the public forum.

If the government is really concerned about the less than lustrous savings record of the American Investor, and wanted to do something about it, our leaders would be talking about incentives to increase the average American's average investment.

When the public sees the current proposals are little more than government shoveling money to Sleazy Alley (the one off Wall Street), the awareness will stir the till-now somnambulent voters to action.

Some of the few discussions of the proposals are coming from the opinion pages: Here's a Paul Krugman editorial, The British Evasion in the Times about the failures of the British 20-year experiment with private retirement accounts. He answers one of my questions: some of the value-added will be restrictions on where the investments may be placed. And he adds a reason to why the public confidence in the government management will be further reduced.

Krugman references an illuminating article on the British experience by Norma Cohen in the American Prospect. Apologists for privatization will be left only with the theological argument after reading this article.

Not to overlook the American PAC, here's MoveOn.Org's take on privatization, where they ask, "What's the Rush, the Need, the Prospects for guaranteed benefits, and a few other pertinent points.

Where's the news, especially the fashion reporters who should be inspecting the Bush administration's social security garment?

This evening, the News Hour is reviewing the Artest-Jackson-Wallace fracas in Detroit last Friday night. Jack McCallum (SI), Greg Anthony (ESPN), and Ray (NHr) are going over the causes and effects of the fight which broke out at the Pacers-Pistons basketball game.

Greg Anthony, former (NY) Knick presciently observed that if you were at work and someone threw racial epithets and beer at you, they would likely be subject to civil, if not criminal action. He certainly was not defending Ron Artest and his teammate Jackson, who both went into the stands to take on fans, but, is pointing out the justice needs to be handed out across the out-of-bounds line. It's quite interesting; "Ed" and "Mrs Ed" were out buying sneakers of a confidential size on Saturday A.M. at the local "ya gotta go ta ...'s" store. There, as she tried on her third pair was a previoiusly taped story from two of the local AM sports-talk racket in a slick journal touting the local snearker company's ware. They were on to the violence on the sports scene, of which the latest episode will take on pre-eminent postion. The debate, pro-or-con, was cages for fans. I'm on the con side of this one. Though, in terms of where the blame lies, I'm on the "pro-fan" side. Though before you think I'd cave for the money, it seems inconceivable someone who's making 10,000 times my imaginary limit would have any need to cross the out-of-bounds line to take on someone who's biggest decision in life is betweeen Bud and Miller lite. (We assume he's already duped into the Bush choice). So, my only conclusion is that money can't buy your restraint, given sufficient provocation. Which further underscores the depth of the pent up hatred over, say racial issues. No amount of dinero could, I guess, keep me from flattening the nose of a racist pig who threw the N-word and the remains of a pint in my face.

This is not about justification; it's about responsibilty. Every time a person hurls a racial epithet over the railing, I'm hurt. (I say this as one who did at the '64 MO-MN football game when an MN halfback fumbled a kickoff on our 5 yard line).

This is not a message of hope. Some recent reading of Spong tells me to be patient. Or more likely, allow for a worsening of the human condition as respect for God evaporates in the face of evidence a good deal of our former faith was misplaced. Searching for it in the storm will be challenging.

I was horrified this morning on waking to the rarely-watched TV news, reflecting on my post of yesterday, it could easily be construed to support the recent Democratic Leadership Council style of 'middle-of-the-road' . Such is not my wish.

Also, last night on "Bill Moyer's NOW", Christopher Edley, Dean of the UC Berkeley Law school was cautioning against just such a reaction. As we go back over the pass to reconnect with the wagon train, let's not camp safely within the circle. We have to move them over the mountain. Sharing with them the dangers of crossing, but also the hope of the fertile valleys on the other side. While we're at it, we have to allow that some will be perfectly happy to camp where they are now. It shouldn't be an affront to us who see the need to move on.

Edley was prepared to allow the moral issues to come in to the agenda of the left. On this one, our view should be "we are standing among you, let's go in this direction", rather than "come on, over here". Today's Newark Star Ledger offers a cartoon. The Bush caricature standing on the bank of a chasm, with hundreds of flanking supporters holds out a hand and says "I'm reaching out to you ... JUMP!". This is directed at an equally large crowd on the other side, a few with donkey ears. The bottom is not in sight; the width appears beyond any broad jump record!

To my LiberalsLikeChrist, I offer this assessment of the election this week: if we liberals (like Christ) want to prevail in future elections, we have to do that most Christ-like thing, and surrender our issue for the other person's issue. There should be little detectable self-interest in our advocacy. While we're at it, we can rightly ask what the other person is surrendering of their self-interest.

I've just started reading "Imperial Hubris" by Anonymous (who has 20+ years in the security of the USofA). He chastens our leaders for being blind on the motives of our south Asian adversaries. We liberals are as misunderstanding of the needs of our own country, as our leaders are misunderstanding of the needs of Afghanistan and Iraq.

This may be controversial, but it's now time to "turn our back" on some of those social issues which tend to divide, and pray we can work our agenda when we regain the popular platform.
Otherwise, to the rest of the nation, we're just another cadre of "Nader's Raiders". It's time to lead the wagons from the same side of the mountain, not as we have been doing, by being over the next pass, if not continental divide. We _can_ wait for the wagon train to catch up, or admit we've shirked our duty and have crossed "the pass too far" for the rest of the wagon train. Unless we return to the train, we'll find out they've selected a new wagonmaster, whose scouts are out in the prarie grass surrounding the wagon train.

This metaphor is purposeful.

The News' Dark Time

The 100th issue of The News' Dark Time is now
on the news stands:
http://www.newsdarktime.com

While much is happening to disgust us on the
news we are receiving, this issue concludes
the review of Prof Kenneth Miller of Brown U
tolk on Evolution at Unino County College in
April.

"Culture Wars?" says who??

A new issue, # 99 !!! is on the stands at:

http://www.newsdarktime.com

Part II (of what looks like III) of a review of Prof Kenneth R Miller, of Brown University, talking "Time to Abandon Darwin?: Evolution vs Intelligent Design.

A telling talk for those of us who are proponents of science education.

The current issue of the News' Dark Time reports on a talk given last night (Thu, 4/8) by Dr Kenneth Miller, of Brown Univ. His subject: "Time for Darwin? Evolution vs Intelligent Design". Your editor is at once, as Dr Miller, a practicing Roman Catholic, _and_ a supporter of the teaching of evolution. Miller pointed out you can't each biology without teaching evolution. It's the centerpice of any theory of the diversity of species on the planet.

Read the review, over two issues, numbers 98 and 99 (the latter pending at this post).

Yesterday, Patty and I, along with son Chip, and friends Bill and Susan attended the new Tim Robbins play, Embedded. As the title suggests, it portrays the activities of the journalists "embedded" with the US forces in the Iraq war. Since I'm not a theater critic, let this be a report of what we saw.

The play will not win any souls to the anti-war cause, but may alert some to how news is managed. It is preaching to the converted.

Embedded features an ensemble cast, with each cast member playing two or three roles. The scenes are set on a stage without curtains, with changes managed by lighting. There are four types of scene. The most memorable are six figures sitting in a triangle, with the Cheny figure sitting highest, with the corresponding Wolfowitz and Pearle below, and with (apparently?) Powell, Rice and Rumsfeld (Rum-Rum) seated in the lowest level. They never look at one another, just have
this dialogue with themselves and the audience on how they are going to manage public perceptions. A compelling
feature of this scene is the masks the players wear to both hide their identity, yet give emphasis to the expressions
made with their eyes and mouths.

This scene is interspersed with three other types of scenes reflecting the home front and/or split scenes with soldiers and loved ones reading each other's mail, scenes of the "front", and the journalists. The play traces events from just before the war (how do we justify it), it's early uncertainty on the road to Bagdahd, to just after victory was declared. (The playbill says Oct '02 - June '03). It includes vignettes with a soldier shooting and killing a whole family, the Jessica Lynch episode (ala Saving Private Ryan), and forcefully, the thrall that journalists were held in to "report" the news, "Never call them
US troops -- it's ``coalition forces''" A few reporters take the chance of questioning their work. One knows well how to work the system, and most sway to the rhythm of the military briefers.

The play is set against a backdrop with flashing stills and movie clips from WWII, ... where the presidential advisers are paying homage to Leo Strauss, (1899-1973) who the program identifies as "the celebrated philosopher-king of the neoconservatives, {who} was a classicist and philosophy professor at the University of Chicago where he taught the works of Plato, Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and Hobbes."

From the Playbill notes on Strauss:

"Strauss believed that democracy, however flawed, was best defended by an ignorant public pumped up on nationalism and religion. Only a militantly nationalistic state could deter human aggression, and since most people were naturally self-absorbed and hedonistic, Strauss blieved that the only way to transform them was to make them love their nation enough to die for it. Such nationalism requires an external threat -- and if one cannot be found, it must be manufactured.

-- Kitty Clark"

Embedded is playing at The Public Theatre, 425 Lafayette
St, Manhattan.

The News' Dark Time turns Two Years Old tomorrow, 3/12/04.

One year ago, the times were getting darker as the Bush illlegitimacy was taking us closer to their destiny with Iraq. We're waiting for John Kerry to tell us how he (if not duped) thought his vote in favor of "action" wasn't giving the Carte Blanche to the most corrupt group to occupy the White House since Nixon.

(If you're going to vote on something, make sure it's a declaration of war, or not)

Your editor, on this anniversary is now tending to the children of Newark, Hillside, and Elizabeth, New Jersey, as a Mathematics Teacher at the Benedictine Academy (in Elizabeth). Our (just short of 200) students are all young ladies. It is generous to use the term "lady", since many of them are still struggling with an adolescence which barely takes them out of their youth, if not infancy. The tragedy we see at BA is the absence of leadership in the home, stemming directly from a lack of leadership in the community at large. The two most obvisous being the church and the state.

We adults have produced a stable of so-called leaders who equivocate at every turn. "I didn't {inhale, lie, ...}" Pick your president. Business schools are starting to offer courses in ethics, after the cows are out of the barn. Money is in charge. My church, the Catholic church, has bishops who don't know their flocks, some of whom are beginning to understand the violence they have done to the message of peace and love. It's a sad day when the voices of hope are the few secular institutions which aren't afraid of the liberal label, and struggle to maintain a diverse dialogue.

In the classroom, I'm not without the charges of racism: "you only call out the black girls", when discipline is needed. Possibly. Many hypotheses are possible. While I'm mindful of the charge, and instructed by it, I'm aware of its other causes: a very few young ladies may be from family situations so wounded by encounters with white authority there is nothing one can do in the moment but pay the bill. adam's sin, as it were. to the extent our civil and religious leaders are working for their constituents, and not the larger constituency, we are ill served. i don't fault the adolescent; i don't even fault their adults. i don't even fault "the system". but...

I do find fault with those who inhabit the most visible roles in this system who use _every_ moment to curry their supporters, as opposed to challenge those same supporters. I fault all of us who inhabit any leadership position, however small, who fail to challenge our own commitment to the neediest among our charges. In each of my six classes, there is at least one student who knows where my hot buttons are. A friend at St Helen's, Bob H, has me praying for my students. It's working. While I can't see any visible change in specific students, nor measure it in myself, I can perceive a change in my need to react to any individual student's irritation of the moment.

Your editor has a few high principles:

+ never give advice,
...
+ never trust a friend who won't sacrifice a principle for you, ..

"Let me prove how completely trustworthy I am by sacrificing a high principle and give you some advice".