Nicholsclan.com : a dimension of mind...

Anatomy of a Sandwich

So last night was kind of a rush job with trying to get the kids to swim practice. When that happens, I'm prone to fast food as it at least gives me a little time to talk with the kids. Lately they've been into Subway which seems a way better choice than Mickey D's. And they like it better than the local sub shops because they can get black olives on their sandwiches.

Okay, that's the set up. Now I'm not a frequent Subway customer, but they've now opened up a shop here in town, so we've been a few times. I've thought in the past that the sandwiches were a little lean. Last night I paid attention to the construction. I ordered a 12" turkey and cheese. On the roll, the girl carefully places exactly four carefully folded slices of turkey. On the opposite side she places three half slices of cheese.

Let's do the math on that. The roll's about 3" wide. That's 36 sq. inches of sandwich potential. The turkey roll was about 4". That makes a half slice (1 slice folded) about 6.3 sq. inches. Four of those yield 25.1 square inches of coverage on my 36 inch roll. The cheese was worse. Only about 19 sq. inches of coverage.

Now I know I'm a bit picky about my sandwiches, but you don't have to be a sandwich scientist to know that the meat and cheese should at least provide complete coverage on the roll. We can quibble about the depth, but it is just wrong when some bites are only bread. I'm not that much of a humanitarian. I want to know that some turkeys were injured in the production of my sandwich.

I'm beginning to understand why Jared is so damn thin. I wrote to Subway about this. I'll let you know how they respond.

Condi-scending

It's no surprise that Condi Rice was asked to replace Colin Powell. But please tell me I'm not the only one who's scared. Ashcroft was no loss, but both cabinet replacements (Gonzalez and Rice) are long term Bush insiders. Their track records show they are both consummate "yes men". Inconceivably, Bush is managing to further insulate himself from dissenting opinion and frankly, reality.

Powell often clashed with Rumsfeld and Cheney in the war cabinet. The White House has said they are optimistic that Rice's appointment will end that sparring. Hello? This is a good thing? So now the military and foreign policy brain trust is Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice? We are sooooo screwed.

The Great American Bottle Drive

I'm sitting here at my kids' swim practice bemoaning the loss of the charity bottle drive. Not that this was one of the greater American institutions, but in its current incarnation the name is clearly an anachronism.

I recall a few bottle drives from when I was a kid. Saturday afternoons rummaging through people's garages. Fighting bees for bottles and loading them into the truck to haul them to the store. At the end of the day your organization had a few extra dollars, and your dad had a pick-up bed full of soda-syrup sticky 11-year olds who smelled of stale beer and B.O. The point being, there was sweat equity in the fundraising.

A few years ago, I noticed groups setting up drop-off sites where people could clean out their own garages. At least the kids still hauled the bottles to the store.

More recently, groups would ask that you haul your own bottles to the store and the kids collected the bottle machine receipt tapes to redeem for cash. I suppose there was always the risk of a paper cut, and the kids did have to go all the way to the store for the money.

But now we've taken the final step. On the swim team's bulletin board is a flyer announcing the bottle drive. The instructions are to take your bottles back, get the money, and send it in. Maybe I'm missing something, but what exactly makes this a bottle drive? And how are the kids involved? Isn't this really just a "bring us cash" drive? With this basic premise you could hold an EBay Drive. Sell stuff you don't need on the internet, bring us the cash. Or why not get more to the point with a Scrounge Around in Your Couch for Change Drive. The really progressive groups will probably just hold a Checking Account Drive.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think there was value in the kids having to earn the money. They felt more invested in their groups. Somewhere we've lost that, and I think as a society we're poorer for that.

Besides, my dad has a basement chock full of bottles and a soft spot for kids' causes.

Paradise By The Dashboard Lights

Obviously, Meatloaf albums don't get a lot of air play on Bahrainian radio.

For Consideration...

Admittedly, this is an option I overlooked.

You've got to admit, it has a certain appeal. Canada would certainly benefit from the economic power the coasts bring to the table. And residents of Jesusland would never miss it anyway as they don't seem to care much about being employed or having health care as long as nobody gets killed what didn't need it, and them faggots go back in the closet where they belong. In their evangelical arrogance, they'd probably bid us good riddance. At least until they get done converting the Middle East to God-fearin' Christians and turn their gunsights north. But that'll take 'em a while.

Derailment Spills 20,00 Gallons of Beer

Oh, the humanity!

Voting Without the Facts - Bob Herbert

Bob Herbert writes for the NY Times. I'm copying this column in here because otherwise you need to register for the Times to see the piece. Frankly, you should do that anyway, but to save you time, here's something you should read:

The so-called values issue, at least as it's being popularly tossed around, is overrated.

Last week's election was extremely close and a modest shift in any number of factors might have changed the outcome. If the weather had been better in Ohio. ...If the wait to get into the voting booth hadn't been so ungodly long in certain Democratic precincts. ... Or maybe if those younger voters had actually voted. ...

I think a case could be made that ignorance played at least as big a role in the election's outcome as values. A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that nearly 70 percent of President Bush's supporters believe the U.S. has come up with "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda. A third of the president's supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion.

This is scary. How do you make a rational political pitch to people who have put that part of their brain on hold? No wonder Bush won.

The survey, and an accompanying report, showed that there's a fair amount of cluelessness in the ranks of the values crowd. The report said, "It is clear that supporters of the president are more likely to have misperceptions than those who oppose him."

I haven't heard any of the postelection commentators talk about ignorance and its effect on the outcome. It's all values, all the time. Traumatized Democrats are wringing their hands and trying to figure out how to appeal to voters who have arrogantly claimed the moral high ground and can't stop babbling about their self-proclaimed superiority. Potential candidates are boning up on new prayers and purchasing time-shares in front-row-center pews.

A more practical approach might be for Democrats to add teach-ins to their outreach efforts. Anything that shrinks the ranks of the clueless would be helpful.

If you don't think this values thing has gotten out of control, consider the lead paragraph of an op-ed article that ran in The LA. Times on Friday. It was written by Frank Pastore, a former major league pitcher who is now a host on the Christian talk-radio station KKLA.

"Christians, in politics as in evangelism," said Mr. Pastore, "are not against people or the world. But we are against false ideas that hold good people captive. On Tuesday, this nation rejected liberalism, primarily because liberalism has been taken captive by the left. Since 1968, the left has taken millions captive, and we must help those Democrats who truly want to be free to actually break free of this evil ideology."

Mr. Pastore goes on to exhort Christian conservatives to reject any and all voices that might urge them "to compromise with the vanquished." How's that for values?

In The New York Times on Thursday, Richard Viguerie, the dean of conservative direct mail, declared, "Now comes the revolution." He said, "Liberals, many in the media and inside the Republican Party, are urging the president to 'unite' the country by discarding the allies that earned him another four years."

Mr. Viguerie, it is clear, will stand four-square against any such dangerous moves toward reconciliation.

You have to be careful when you toss the word values around. All values are not created equal. Some Democrats are casting covetous eyes on voters whose values, in many cases, are frankly repellent. Does it make sense for the progressive elements in our society to undermine their own deeply held beliefs in tolerance, fairness and justice in an effort to embrace those who deliberately seek to divide?

What the Democratic Party needs above all is a clear message and a bold and compelling candidate. The message has to convince Americans that they would be better off following a progressive Democratic vision of the future. The candidate has to be a person of integrity capable of earning the respect and the affection of the American people.

This is doable. Al Gore and John Kerry were less than sparkling candidates, and both came within a hair of defeating Mr. Bush.

What the Democrats don't need is a candidate who is willing to shape his or her values to fit the pundits' probably incorrect analysis of the last election. Values that pivot on a dime were not really values to begin with.

Revolutionary Redux

Americans take a lot of pride in our Revolutionary War success. Granted, it was over 2 centuries ago, but our school kids still learn about how the Redcoats were defeated because the colonists used unconventional war tactics. Bill Cosby has an old and wonderful routine likening the war to a football game. Before the game, the referee tosses the coin, which the colonists win. As a result the British have to wear bright colors and stand in straight lines while the colonists get to scatter in the woods and hide behind trees and rocks.

Now many historians have noted that the war was hardly that simple, and they are right. Nonetheless, this was a turning point in the history of warfare. It was an end to the old medieval European rules of engagement. It was the beginning of what we've called "modern warfare" which is far bloodier, has fewer rules, and results in more civilian casualties. It is focused more on winning that on playing the game.

Okay, so that's a nice trip back to grade school. So what? Well, the "what" is that we seem to feel that this historical lesson cannot possibly apply to us now. But consider for a moment that the difficulty we are having getting our heads around terrorism and how to combat it is pretty darned similar to the trouble the British had trying to figure out how to cope with single soldiers hiding behind rocks. The colonists were as much "the terrorists" back then as the enemy we face now. We complain that the terrorists have no honor. They don't fight openly, but rather from the shadows. They attack the innocent. They employ unconventional tactics. All claims that the British might have made of us back then. Hmmmm...

So why did the British lose the American colonies? Several reasons. Homefield advantage. People defending their own turf tend to be extra motivated. Arrogance. "We are the greatest army on the face of the Earth. Who shall stand against us? A bunch of disorganized farmers?" Uh-huh. They failed to adapt to the tactics of the enemy. They wanted the Americans to fight on their terms, and kept fighting the war the old way regardless of the outcome. They focused on their victories in battle and failed to realize that battle results do not necessarily add up to accomplished goals. And finally, the British lost interest at home. King George (hmmm...) was butt deep in domestic problems and other brewing threats to the empire and ultimately couldn't afford to put enough attention and resources on the Americans to suppress the revolution.

Curiously, we find ourselves in Iraq in a situation disturbingly similar to the American Revolution, only now we're playing the role of the British (ironically, so are the British). Are we smart enough to acknowledge this? Probably not. The self-righteous arrogance of the majority of the population (the ones who gave King George his "mandate") will never willingly back away from the crusade.

So, we are saddled with the arrogance. We can't change the homefield advantage. We can't ignore all the other global and domestic problems which threaten us. That pretty much leaves the tactics vector as the one we can do something about.

So recognizing that, why do we drop leaflet bombs on Fallujah for two days warning them to get out before we attack. We steadily build up forces around the outskirts of the city, without attempting to seal it off. Then we roll in and are surprised to find all the insurgent leaders have left the city? Duh. We are proceeding from the apparent assumption that the insurgents want to battle our army. They don't. They wish to blend in with the civilian population and pick us off a few at a time from behind rocks and sand dunes. We are playing the game like we are opposing someone who wants to win. We are not. We are opposing someone who wants to not lose. Strategically, that's a very different thing.

Perhaps if we sent bright red tail coats to the infantry, then someone might get a clue. Hmmmm...

Unity & The Path Forward

Everyone is talking about unity now that the election is over; saying how we need to heal the divisions caused by the vitriolic campaign. That's crap.

First, the schism wasn't created by the campaign. It was created by Bush's statements and actions over the last 3 years. There's no reason to believe he'll be more of a uniter now that he's got his "mandate".

Second, personally there is nothing Bush could do to earn my trust and respect at this point. I respect that he holds the office of President. I will follow and support my country. But I refuse to unite with Bush or his kind. I do not welcome the vision of America they hold. I will continue to fight to preserve and build my vision of America - the land of the free.

Window Wars

And you think your computer has emotional issues?

Sad and Scared

Well, Mr. Bush has sufficiently scared enough of you (and you know who you are) into voting for him such that he got reelected. The polls agree, he was largely elected on the basis of two things. People are scared of terrorism. People think his morals are "correct".

Both are poor reasons for having elected him. But those were points doubtless lost on the evangelical, under-educated, ill-informed, and/or emotionally fragile Bush supporters who were the substantial anchor to his voting base.

I hope I'm wrong about what has been unleashed unto our country. I expect we will slip further into becoming a Christian theocracy. (Ironic, in that we are so opposed to Islamic ones.) Laws will be passed, judges will be appointed, programs will be funded (or not) which further promote and legislate the conservative Christian moral agenda, including overturning Roe v. Wade, erosion of gay rights, and outlawing of stem-cell and other related bio-tech research.

In general, fundamental research funded by the government (which is most of it) will continue to be cut. This will erode our base of technological innovation on which much of our economy is based. Science will be politicized and polluted to justify the corporate and Christian agenda.

Big business will continue to win out over the environment, workers, or most anything else. Short term profit will be the focus. Building for the future will be assumed to be a foregone happenstance, but in reality will be a delusionary bubble to explode in the next generation. The growing class discrepancy in the US will exacerbate. Your effective wages (in constant dollars) will continue to decline. Environmental damage and public debt will pile up.

The "War on Terror" will continue apace. Personal freedoms and privacy will be curtailed in the interest of public safety. If Iraq ever subsides, the war will go somewhere else. It has to. Bush has built his power from our fear of terror. He can't relent on that front. Military action will continue on a large scale - somewhere - for the next four years. This will further pile up debt and alienate the average-Joe whose family will be the ones on the front lines. Reinstatement of the military draft would not be unlikely as long as an angle can be found to justify it. Wait for the next major domestic terror attack (and yes, there will be one). This will be the ticket to whoop-up support for drafting fresh soldiers and heading to a fresh battlefield.

The pile up of debt and class alienation along with the erosion of freedom and legislation of personal choice will be here long after Bush's next four years are past. It is with sadness that I recognize that my children will be able to sup the poisonous fruits of yesterday's election.

My faith in democracy is shaken... perhaps irreparably. It is said that Democracy is the worst possible system, except for all the others. That may never have been more true, for democracy suffers the admonition of Karl Marx - "The masses are asses."

I've never before hoped to be proven so wrong.

Pupil Appeals Harry Potter 'Witchcraft'

It should not escape you that the person in this story who is claiming Harry Potter is a witchcraft manual is named "Dudley".

And I'm curious, would this Rhodes scholar also not answer a question on Karl Marx because it supports communism?