Listen, Bernie Fans: Gary Johnson Ain’t Your Friend

Posted on 16 Sep 2016 by Frank Moraes

One of the most amazing things in this election cycle is that Gary Johnson is taking more votes away from Hillary Clinton than from Donald Trump. This makes no sense. I can see Republicans who don’t want to be associated with Donald Trump getting on the Johnson Train. But how can liberal people?

I fear that this has a great deal to do with the “Bernie or Bust” types who just can’t vote for the neoliberal dragon lady. I know: most of them are voting for Jill Stein. That bothers me, but at least it makes sense. Jill Stein is, after all, liberal. Gary Johnson is not. Until 2011, Gary Johnson was a Republican. And it’s not like he has “seen the light.” He’s like Ron Paul: he’s a Republican or a Libertarian depending upon what is in his best political interests at any time.

Gary Johnson: The Good Stuff

It’s a really good idea to see where Gary Johnson actually stands on the issues. And the best place to research this is On the Issues. And of course: Johnson comes out well in a number of areas. People like that he is pro-cannabis. But he isn’t pro-drug. He doesn’t think that what drugs a person takes are their own business. So just like Rand Paul, Gary Johnson thinks that you should have the right to take drugs that he thinks are okay. How this makes him any different from any Republican, I can’t say.

Libertarian Party: Just Kidding, We're Republicans! But he’s libertarian-ish, so he must be good on issues of crime, right? Not really. As governor of New Mexico, he vetoed a bill that granted early release of prisoners because of overcrowding. He’s for the death penalty, even though he is big on talking about sentencing disparities and DNA exoneration. You know: he likes to come off as a liberal guy, but when it comes to policy he is — Oh, what is the name for it?! — a Republican.

On foreign affairs, Johnson sounds best. He also sounds ignorant. And I’m not talking about Aleppo. He thinks we need to “divorce” Pakistan. Well, I agree. Just the same, it isn’t the simple matter that he makes out. And that’s true of pretty much everything that Gary Johnson thinks about regarding foreign affairs. He also seems to think that we spend a huge amount on foreign aid. And then — dunce that he is — thinks that we do it because we’re just such kind people.

Gary Johnson: The Bad Stuff

Note that those are the issue that Gary John is best on. On everything else, he’s a catastrophe. He doesn’t believe that insurers should have to provide birth control coverage. And he doesn’t believe the federal government should fund stem cell research. He does now seem to be pro-choice. But think about what kind of judges he would put on the Supreme Court. Pro-choice judges? No. He would put pro-corporate judges on the Supreme Court, and they would naturally be anti-choice.

On economic issues, he’s just crazy. He’s suggested that we abolish the Federal Reserve. He didn’t think the Debt Ceiling was any big thing. In 2012, he called for the Federal budget to be cut by 43%. You know: we couldn’t raise taxes. He said the 2009 stimulus was a failure. Of course, even conservative economists disagree, but given libertarianism is a faith, it’s not surprising that Johnson doesn’t care.

He doesn’t believe in affirmative action. And of course, he thinks that not taxing corporations would create millions of jobs. He falls for myth of corporate taxes being “double taxation.” (Companies become corporations because they believe it in their interests; they don’t need to be corporations; that’s their choice.) He’s for school “choice.” By that, he means he’s for destroying public education. And he wants to eliminate the Department of Education, just to make it really clear.

He believes in global warming; he just doesn’t think that the government should do anything about it. But even that’s too nice to him. He’s in favor of fracking and coal mining and nuclear power. He similarly supports renewable energy, as long as the government isn’t involved. This is again, his trying to look liberal while having policies that are no different than those of any other Republican.

Gary Johnson Is a Bad Guy

I could go on. Gary Johnson thinks that having more people carrying guns will reduce mass shootings. He thinks that government-managed healthcare is “insanity.” (Apparently, he doesn’t get out of the country much.) He wants to know why we were in Libya at all, because, you know, why would different countries have ambassadors? Most of Johnson’s ideas are vile. When he is on the right side of an issue, he’s hopelessly naive.

To make matters worse, if he were president, the things he would get accomplished would be the things that liberals most hate. He would savage aid to the poor. But Congress would never send him a bill to cut the military. So when Johnson talks about cutting the federal government by 43% — including the military — what we would get is everything else cut. And if you vote for him, it is this practical Gary Johnson who you would be voting for.

If you are a Republican, voting for Gary Johnson makes a lot of sense. But if you are a moderate — much less a liberal — you are crazy to vote for Gary Johnson.

Image cropped from Johnson Announcement 12-28-11 Smile by Gary Johnson. Licensed under CC BY 2.0. Libertarian Party logo licensed under Fair Use.

Odd Words: Auto-da-fé

Posted on 16 Sep 2016 by Frank Moraes

I was feeling pretty ignorant as I perused page 17 of The New York Times Everyday Reader’s Dictionary of Misunderstood, Misused, and Mispronounced Words: Revised Edition. But you know how it is: words clump. But I found a great word that all my atheist friends will like: auto-da-fé.

I’m finding putting these posts together easier since I started using a highlighter. In general, I treat books very well. Truly, I think there is something sacred about a book. But this one is in very bad shape. It was clearly left in the sun for a long time, because the pages are crumbling. What’s more, they are dark, and so hard to read. Interestingly though, the binding is great. As a result of that, I originally didn’t want to soil it with marks. But that seems absurd now considering that I’ve been using the brittle cover for a bookmark from the start.

Burning for Words Beside Auto-da-fé

As I said, there were a number of words I didn’t know. There was “attrahent” — which means attracting or drawing toward.

I suppose I should have known “attrite,” given the word “attrition.” But who thinks in these ways? But I really should have known “austral” — which means relating to the south. I think we get words like Australia and Australopithecus from the same root. I just never thought about it.

On the other hand, I don’t blame myself for not knowing “auscultate” — which is listening to internal organs via a stethoscope. Who would have thought there would be a word for that? The same goes for “autochthonous” — which describes people who are native to a region rather than migrating there. Just the same, we are all migrants. It’s just that we like to have words to describe the people who got wherever earlier.

But I’m sure you are on fire to get to today’s word, auto-da-fé:

Au·to-da-fé noun \ô-tō-də-‘fā\

1. the public burning of heretics condemned by the Spanish Inquisition.

Date: early 18th century.

Origin: Portuguese, ato de fé, which means, “Act of faith.”

Example: But the day came when the powerful arm of the Inquisition caught up with him, and he was accused of living as a Jew. He was summarily tried and sentenced to death by auto-da-fé. —Menachem Posner

Image is of a painting by Grigoriy Myasoyedov. It is in the public domain.

Sole Survivor: 1970 TV Movie Is Quite Good

Posted on 15 Sep 2016 by Frank Moraes

For a long (and in retrospect, lovely) time, my only mention on the internet was in the “Thanks” section of the Star Trek TNG List of Lists. I have no recollection why I was in it. My first wife was a big Star Trek fan. And I always try to get into whatever my wives are interested in. So I wasn’t completely immune to the excitement of last week’s 50th anniversary of the show. So I posted something on Facebook about how our future wouldn’t be that way and told people they should watch Sole Survivor, which stars William Shatner.

Sole Survivor is a made-for-television film from 1970. Shatner plays a fairly small role, even if he does get second billing. It is basically an hour and a half episode of The Twilight Zone, but in color. It tells the story of a flight crew on a bombing mission to Southern Europe during World War II. On their way back to Benghazi, their navigator freaks out and parachutes from the plane. As a result, the plane gets lost and the crew crash lands in the desert (thinking it the Mediterranean in the night). They all quickly die and hang out there as ghosts for 17 years when the cowardly navigator (now a general) returns.

Lady Be Good

The story is loosely (Very loosely; I mean: ghosts?!) on the US Air Force bomber Lady Be Good. It was thought to have crashed in the Mediterranean Sea in 1943. But in 1958, it was discovered over 400 miles inside Libya. Apparently, because of the wind and the sand, the desert looks very much like the ocean from the air at night. In 1960, five of the nine crewmen’s bodies were discovered. They were located 80 miles north of the crash site (indicating that they had walked about 60 miles after landing). This group managed to stay alive for eight days with just a single single canteen of water. Three of the others continued further north. Harold Ripslinger managed to walk a total of 200 miles from the crash site. The bombardier, John Woravka, apparently died on impact because of a parachute malfunction.

Sole Survivor Plot

Such a tragic, but ultimately heroic, story is obviously good fodder for a screenplay. It was the first produced screenplay by television veteran, Guerdon Trueblood — and quite a debut! I didn’t plan to watch it. I posted it on Facebook, so I had to load the film on YouTube. But since it was open in a tab, I decided to watch a bit to get the feel of it. And I was drawn in. The five dead crewmen are remarkably well differentiated, even if they are all stereotypes. And to deal with all the boredom of 17 years in the desert, they play baseball three times per day. And this is paid off beautifully in the open-ended and poignant ending.

A Deeper Film Than Most

The other half of the film, which involves living humans, is not as interesting. But it does deal with the issue of cowardice in a far more nuanced way than I can imagine it being dealt with today on network television. There were two aspects of it that are worth mentioning. The first is that there are acts of cowardice, not cowards. One act doesn’t define a life. I rather like that. At the same time, it shows that cowardice can become a way of life — the banality of cowardice, if you will. The second aspect was more vague, but it had to do with taking responsibility (if only to yourself) when you harm others.

Sole Survivor is hardly a great film. But it works and it is engaging. Almost the entire film has a single location. It shows what you can do with a simple set, fine actors, and a solid script. And the version available on YouTube looks fantastic. It’s worth checking out, but not going out of your way for. I think there is a clear enough reason why it has never been released on DVD.

Sole Survivor image taken from IMDb, licensed under Fair Use.

Odd Words: Ataraxy

Posted on 15 Sep 2016 by Frank Moraes

So we get page 16 of The New York Times Everyday Reader’s Dictionary of Misunderstood, Misused, and Mispronounced Words: Revised Edition. Lots to work with, but I decided to go with a word that describes something I don’t often feel — at least not without chemical help: ataraxy.

These Words Don’t Create Ataraxy

Before moving on to our great word for today, let’s discuss some of the others. One word is really stupid: astromancy. It seems that every page in this dictionary has a word for prophecy based on something. I’m looking forward to “collagenmancy,” which is prophecy by overly large lips. Anyway, a much better word is “asperity.” The dictionary claims it is a sharpness of manner. But better dictionaries tend to use the word “harshness” rather than “sharpness.”

“Asthenia” is also defined rather differently, depending on where you look. I like our dictionary’s definition, “relating to or denoting a physical type characterized by a tall, narrow, lean build.” Merriam-Webster claims it is relating to a lack of strength. Rather different, I think. But that’s the thing about words: they mean lots of things. The complete Oxford English Dictionary is 20 volumes long! Or as Hamlet put it in his vague petulance, “Words, words, words.”

Anyway, on to ataraxy:

At·a·rax·i·a noun \at-ə-‘rak-se-ə\

1. a calm and tranquil state free from anxiety.

Date: early 17th century.

Origin: French from Greek, απάθεια, which means apathy more or less.

Example: Zinedine Zidane’s aura and ataraxy with a ball on a football pitch is renowned throughout the world. —Rahul Bali

Image cropped from Sunset Dusk Silhouette Shadow Girl by Unsplash. It is in the public domain.

Kevin Drum Overcovered Stories

Posted on 14 Sep 2016 by Frank Moraes

I frequently read stories that should have been spiked because they don’t really say much of anything. The problem is that after spending days or weeks reporting something, no reporter wants to leave empty-handed. So they write something, even if it’s little more than narrative or innuendo. Editors should be more aggressive about killing stuff like this.

There’s an additional point… some stories naturally lend themselves to continual coverage, while others don’t. The Clinton email story is an obvious example of the former. Donald Trump’s tax returns are an example of the latter. These are probably equally important stories, but the email story gets dozens of front-page hits simply because new information drips out steadily. Trump’s tax returns get only one or two because there’s nothing new to report once Trump has made it clear he has no plans to release them.

So editors need to ask themselves if a story is getting overcovered solely because of the nature of the information drip, rather than because of its intrinsic importance… I’d say that both the email story and the Clinton Foundation story have been overcovered for this reason. I don’t quite know what the answer is — the whole point of news is to report stuff that’s new, after all — but at the very least political editors should probably retain more perspective about how much attention to give to individual drips in long-running stories.

—Kevin Drum
New York Times Public Editor Shrugs Off Charges of False Equivalence

Image of Kevin Drum taken from Mother Jones. Licensed under Fair Use.

Hillary Clinton Is Not a Flawed Candidate

Posted on 14 Sep 2016 by Elizabeth

Hillary Clinton: Flawed Candidate? Frank and I were talking yesterday. He expressed his annoyance with what has become a standard liberal disclaimer. Before attacking Trump, the writer will note that “Clinton is a flawed candidate.” He was specifically referring to an article by Jonathan Chait, New York Times Public Editor Liz Spayd Writes Disastrous Defense of False Equivalence. In that article, before going after Trump hard, he wrote, “How can the news media appropriately cover Trump and his clearly flawed opponent without creating an indecipherable din of equivalent-sounding criticism…” Frank’s point was that of course Clinton is a flawed candidate. All candidates are flawed. What’s with the constant repetition of this?

I had a different take on it. It ties into a tweet storm I did a few days ago. I do a lot of them because I get cranky a lot.

Not a Flawed Candidate

Clinton isn’t a flawed candidate. She is a great candidate. But I can already hear all the reactions, “But she is a flawed candidate because…”

Hillary Clinton is often thought of as a bad politician. And you know what? She is. She doesn’t glad-hand with a smooth smile, she doesn’t give rousing speeches, and she doesn’t walk into a room and make it stop with her sheer force of personality. Clinton lacks, as Miz Molly Ivins would have said, “Elvis.”

But that’s “politician” — not “candidate.” Charisma doesn’t necessarily make a great candidate. Just ask President Palin.

What Makes a Great Candidate

What makes a great candidate starts with knowing what the hell you are talking about. And Clinton knows. She knows the ins and outs of the federal government and can talk to your ear off about whatever happens to be the question in front of her about the federal government.

She also has over a hundred thousand words in her policy proposals. And she knows them just as well as she knows about everything else. This is why she tends to have a great deal of policy in her stump speeches. A flawed candidate? I don’t think so.

Reaching Out to Voters

Reaching out to voters is another critical skill for a candidate. Now in a presidential race this tricky. You can’t knock on 125 million doors in the US by the time of the election. But there are ways around this.

You can have small community meetings with local officials. And you can have smaller more intimate rallies. You can send people to do preliminary work on what would be best for you to do to have the biggest impact. Clinton does all of this.

In the debates, she stays around after to talk to the people who asked questions about their needs, and has staff get back to them. She has her staff follow up with people who are at rallies. Clinton calls it table talk time. Back when she was in the Senate, it led to a lot of legislation that she never asked credit for.

And unlike most other candidates, she is still thinking about Flint. This is not a flawed candidate.

Clinton’s Stamina

Stamina is another essential quality of a great candidate. And we know how legendary Hillary Clinton’s stamina is. Her schedule the day she found out she had pneumonia had two fundraisers in two states, a two hour policy meeting, a press conference, and an interview with a reporter. She lasted an hour in the direct sunlight with Kevlar on in the New York humidity on 9/11. Then despite taking the rest of the day off, she did another interview on Monday. Reporters have complained on Twitter about how they can’t keep up.

Strategy

Finally, she has the ability to turn the tables on her opponents. Witness the brilliant trap she sprung on Friday that few people seem to understand is brilliant. First, she made a statement that the media won’t shut up about. Granted, they are tut-tutting her for saying something that they all know is true.

As Scott Lemieux noted, “It strikes me as obvious that Clinton’s much-discussed ‘deplorables’ phrase was a Kinsleyian gaffe — a politician’s statement that gets criticized not because it’s false but because it represents a truth that is supposed to remain hidden.”

But in addition to the discussion of the “optics,” the media have been talking about the fact that she isn’t wrong. They’ve said, “Oh, you were too broad.” So she walked it back by saying that she was wrong about the number of deplorables. That can be taken either way. And it doubles down on the fact Trump is followed by too many racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and Islamophobic people.

It further lays a trap since it gives the media an excuse to ask people like sitting governor Mike Pence if he will denounce David Duke as deplorable. Pence, of course, refused to do so.

Clinton Is a Great Candidate

There are many other reasons why, far from being a flawed candidate, Clinton is a great candidate. But for me it is the fact that she has the knowledge, the stamina, an eagerness to connect with people, and the ability to trap her opponents into making fools of themselves. Regardless how you look at it, she isn’t a flawed candidate.

Hillary Clinton by Gage Skidmore. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

Odd Words: Asomatous

Posted on 14 Sep 2016 by Frank Moraes

Page 15 of The New York Times Everyday Reader’s Dictionary of Misunderstood, Misused, and Mispronounced Words: Revised Edition gave me a lot to work with. But the words are hard. I think I need to get the Oxford Dictionary that has four pages per physical page along with a magnifying glass. As it is, Merriam-Webster wants to sell me a subscription so I can get the information that real word people need. Today, we have: asomatous.

Asomatous and So Much More

Before we move on to our word, there were a number of good ones. Because of yesterday, I couldn’t us “armomancy.” That is foretelling the future through the use of shoulder bones of animals. Who would have thought? I assume this was at one time even more popular than Taylor Swift. The word “arrack” is a group of hard liquors that are distilled from molasses. Didn’t even know there was such a thing. And here’s a word for our time: arriviste. That’s someone who became rich through unscrupulous means. So Donald Trump is not an arriviste, since he just inherited his money and then lost much of it considering opportunity costs.

Anyway, on to asomatous:

A·so·ma·tous adjective \ə-‘sō-mət-əs\

1. bodiless; incorporeal.

Date: mid 18th century.

Origin: late Latin from Greek, ασώματος, which means not (α) body (σώματος).

Example:

I looked to my left and saw a wan silhouette of an asomatous necromancer — whom I initially thought to be a crinose, bedraggled mendicant — practicing rhabdomancy. —Tom Edmondson

Image cropped from Halloween Ghost Cemetery Grave by AdinaVoicu. It is in the public domain.

Serial Comma: Just Use It and Stop Complaining!

Posted on 13 Sep 2016 by Frank Moraes

Yes, I’m going to talk about the serial comma one more time. But this is it. After this, I’ll shut up and just let the rest of you sink or swim in the writing world. But just so you know: I warned you.

(Before I continue, please note, it is the “serial comma” and not the “Oxford comma.” Why? Because we speak American around here! Oxford comma, indeed!)

There are good writers who hate the serial comma. And there are bad writers who hate the serial comma. Given that there are far more bad writers than good writers, chances are, you are a bad writer. So you need the serial comma. Using it makes your life easier. If you just use it, you will never go wrong.

So how might you go wrong? Consider, “Speaking of pale people, have you seen the vampires, Taylor Swift and her newest boyfriend?” Maybe that’s not the best example, because there is a good chance that Taylor Swift and her newest boyfriend are, in fact, vampires. But you get my meaning.

The same thing is happening in the three examples in the image above. They come from a tweet by Blaw:

Among those interviewed were Merle Haggard’s two ex-wives, Kris Kristofferson and Robert Duvall.
This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand and God.
Highlights of Peter Ustinov’s global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector.

I’m not sure if any of those is real, but the last one seems to be, given that it would be stronger without the “a” before “dildo collector.”

No Publisher Ever Gets Rid of the Serial Comma

You will occasionally hear of this or that publisher getting rid of the serial comma. This is not true. What they have done is gotten rid of the serial comma by default. So they will typeset a sentence, “The first three numbers are one, two and three.” But they will not typeset a sentence, “And then came the strippers, Dwight Eisenhower and Joseph Stalin” — unless I’m confused about 20th century history.

When a publisher decides to jettison the serial comma, it’s kind of like a make-work project for copy editors. Because this is my experience with writers: they don’t like the serial comma and they don’t know that they have to use it from time to time. Or maybe they do. The thing about professional writers is that in order to make any kind of living at all, they have to write fast. So you can see why they wouldn’t want to waste the time to type an extra character. And you can see why they really wouldn’t want to waste the time thinking about whether a sentence they just wrote said that Taylor Swift and her newest boyfriend were vampires.

A Matter of Space — We Don’t Need

So why is it that publishers make this decision? I blame The Associated Press. I think it is their effort to cut down on page space. Really! In the old days, with print newspapers, that was an issue. Any way you could save space was important. You will note that my preferred resources, The Chicago Manual of Style, does not agree with those newspaper mongers. It says:

Chicago strongly recommends this widely practiced usage, blessed by Fowler [Praise be thy name. -FM] and other authorities, since it prevents ambiguity.

So that’s the thing, all you writers out there: just use the serial comma and you will be fine. But I do understand how it is hard to change. When I was writing the examples above, I always put the comma in. It’s just habit. But people can change and learn. Even writers!

Comma image is in the public domain. Twitter image is licensed under fair use.

Odd Words: Arithmancy

Posted on 13 Sep 2016 by Frank Moraes

Page 14 of The New York Times Everyday Reader’s Dictionary of Misunderstood, Misused, and Mispronounced Words: Revised Edition was hard. It wasn’t that there weren’t a lot of words that I didn’t know. But they were so obscure that they were hard to research. That was even true of today’s word: arithmancy.

I really wanted to go with “apposite” (an easy one) today. But that would require breaking the rules, since I am very much aware of the word. But I would never use it. I think it confuses people in conversation. Most think you have mispronounced “opposite.” And that isn’t apposite at all!

Beyond Arithmancy

One really cool word was “arcifinious.” It is a word that describes a location with geographical boundary that also serves as a defense. So, for example, a country might be acrifinious because of a mountain range or a river. Then there is a similar word that brings war to mind, “armipotent.” It means being powerful in battle. Neither of these words — nor a few others — are in regular online dictionaries.

But here is arithmancy:

Ar·ith·man·cy noun ar-‘ith-man-sē\

1. prophecy by numbers, especially the number of letters in names.

Date: unknown to me.

Origin: Greek, αριθμός (number) and μαντεία (divination).

Example: It’s almost impossible to find a reasonable sentence with the word “arithmancy” in it since it was used in the Harry Potter books. —Frank Moraes

Image cropped from Paper Stairs by Chrstphre Campbell. Licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Will We Strike Gold in California District 49?

Posted on 12 Sep 2016 by Elizabeth

It is time to come to the weirdest race I have written about so far: California District 49 (CA-49). The incumbent is a guy who has been arrested multiple times for something other than protesting. Who then ran a business selling those annoying car alarms. This included the Viper car alarm, which he provided the voice for. He insulted the likely next president to her face. And he has done numerous things that just make me gasp.

Meet California District 49’s Representative

He is, of course, Darrell Issa.

Issa was first elected to Congress in an overwhelmingly Republican district in 2000.

Since then, he has had a colorful career. He has some cookie-cutter Republican views: opposition to abortion, homophobia, anti-tax absolutism, and a general anti-reality orientation. But mostly, he is a reliable Republican attack dog in the House, and seems to have no shame about it.

Issa is part of the reason why the Benghazi investigations have gone on as long as they did. He also doesn’t mind going after anyone he thinks is a political enemy of the Republicans. Issa was behind holding low-level IRS staffer Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress for her refusing to join in their endless witch hunts.

He also has his issues with email. Meanwhile, he even defended the Republican use and destruction of private email, while managing to become known as an IT expert on Capitol Hill.

Ultimately he is a blustering fool who annoys everyone who has to deal with him, even Republicans.

The California District 49 Race

This year, Darrell Issa has a competitor who just might topple him.

Doug Applegate is a retired Lt Colonel lawyer who has been able to do something major: he got nearly 46% of the vote using next to no money. He’s only spent about $50,000 so far, based on the last report I could find (in April). He has been added to the Red to Blue program recently.

Before 2006, the DCCC didn’t add people they originally thought didn’t have a chance of winning. Since then, they have been more nimble. In Arizona in 2006, Ann Kirkpatrick was added at the last minute. She won that seat. And part of the reason why she was added is that the DCCC could see the wave that was about to hit. That makes Doug Applegate being added so late a very good sign for his general election chances.

Doug Applegate’s great showing was largely due to Issa’s support for Trump. Colonel Applegate has not been shy about hanging that around Issa’s neck. One of the things that makes it hard to unseat incumbents is getting attention from the media. Yet Applegate has been very good at being politely but firmly provocative in a way that gets him noticed.

That said, he hasn’t ignored the needs of the district like Issa’s has.

My Prediction

Like most pundits making predictions, I have no idea how this is going to play out. But I will give my opinion anyway.

Issa is probably going to lose. On retail politics, if nothing else.

You don’t neglect your district. And he has. He is also being tied to someone that makes the military vets in his district very unhappy. And there are a lot of vets (PDF) in California District 49. So when Doug Applegate does a compare and contrast, he comes out better.

There are plenty of other problems Issa faces but he isn’t doing anything to fix them.

It is a general election though, so it is possible this turns into another 60-40 loss for the Democrats because California District 49 is conservative. But the polling isn’t saying that.If Applegate keeps pushing as hard as he is and uses what time is left strategically, he will win.

Image of Doug Applegate cropped from one on his campaign website. Licensed under Fair use. Darrell Issa’s image is in the public domain.

Odd Words: Apodosis

Posted on 12 Sep 2016 by Frank Moraes

Page 13 of The New York Times Everyday Reader’s Dictionary of Misunderstood, Misused, and Mispronounced Words: Revised Edition kind of sucked. I thought it might be a page where I knew all the words. But it turned out to be just a clump at the beginning of the page.

Just the same, there are already days that I think this series was a very bad idea. I’m pretty skeptical today because I didn’t have a great deal to work with. And today, we have a word that is about grammar. I suppose that isn’t such a bad thing. It’s helpful to me to know these obscure words to describe how sentences work. I’m just not sure how interested you all are. Then again, since when have I cared what you all think? (Actually: all the time — especially when I’m writing something I know you aren’t interested in. Sorry, but it’s for your own good!)

Beyond Apodosis

So what do we have besides “apodosis” to make your life interesting? There is “apopemptic,” which is an adjective that describes the act of leaving — apparently in an official sense. And there is “apothegm,” which is a pithy saying, which I guess makes it different enough from “aphorism” to make it worth while (it’s more general). Finally, there is “apperceive,” which is to be conscious of perception. That’s a good one because so much of my life is habit. Did I take my thyroid medication today? I try to be very conscious of it so I don’t wonder all day. Of course, I could buy one of those daily pill boxes, but why? I can just work on apperceiving it.

But here is apodosis:

A·pod·o·sis noun \ə-‘päd-ə-səs\

1. the consequence clause in a conditional sentence, beginning with “then.”

Date: early 17th century.

Origin: Greek, απόδοση, which means to return.

Example: Of course, not all conditions begin with the word “if” and end with a clause starting with “then.” Nor is the protasis always placed before the apodosis. —If… Then… Conditional Statements

You will note that the definition above is not correct. the apodosis usually starts with “then,” but not always. I just thought you would want to know, given how much you are likely to use the word.

Image of letter from 1942 is in the public domain.

Remember 9/11: 15 Yearly Missed Opportunities

Posted on 11 Sep 2016 by Frank Moraes

Do you remember 11 September 2002? It was the first year that we got to remember 9/11. Ah, it was a good time. By that point, we had only lost 67 American troops in Afghanistan. No one was much thinking about Iraq, even though the Bush administration was already pushing hard for war. That’s not completely true, of course; Donald Trump told Howard Stern that day that he was for the new war. But overall, it truly was a good year to remember 9/11!

By 11 September 2003, it wasn’t quite so great to remember 9/11. By then, 342 American troops had died in Iraq. On the plus side, the number of American deaths in Afghanistan was down to only 54. The unemployment rate had gone up to 6.1 percent. Things certainly weren’t getting better, but times were nice enough to look back and remember 9/11.

On 11 September 2004, things were much the same as they had been in 2003. There were a few things that were worth celebrating. The unemployment rate had gone down to 5.4 percent. What’s more, Thomas Friedman had already started using what would later be called the Friedman Unit. On 30 November 2003, he wrote, “The next six months in Iraq… are the most important six months in US foreign policy in a long, long time.” Yes, it was still a good day to remember 9/11!

The Unwinding

Still, things had started to unwind a bit. By 11 September 2005, every person I knew who had voted for George W Bush the year before claimed to regret it. How could they have known that the Iraq War was a sham — something the Bush administration had wanted to do from the moment they got into office? Certainly reading a book was out of the question! This was the Bush era: real Americans didn’t read! In 2005, it was not a good day to remember 9/11.

So much had changed. But I wondered from the start exactly what we were remembering. It’s not that I don’t accept that 9/11 was a huge tragedy. But it was also a great gift to the war mongers. I doubt that Bush would have gotten his Iraq War if everyone didn’t remember 9/11. We wouldn’t have seen the huge increase in the security state. We wouldn’t be flying unmanned death machines all over the world and killing children because some set of criteria indicate that maybe someone in the vicinity kinda seems like maybe they are sorta terrorish.

Remember 9/11: In Your Own Way

Every year that we remember 9/11, we get yet more reruns of documentaries about what happened that day. I don’t think anyone has to be reminded. We all remember. But I think “Remember 9/11” is kind of like “Remember the Maine.” It’s just a call for war. We were attacked and therefore anything we do is okay. “They raped our queen, so we raped their city, and we were right!”

Now I know: everyone remembers 9/11 in their own way. But as a society, I think we remember the attack. Many remember the rescue, which was both heroic and incredibly successful. (Pretty much everyone who could get out did.) But overall, I’m not sure what we are remembering. It seems that too much of it is remembering that we were wronged. Well, even if you accept that simplistic analysis, what did we learn?

What Are We Learning?

As we remember 9/11 for the 15th year, what are we getting for it? As a country, we are just as likely to resist democratic movements and support autocrats. We have normalized continuous war. Jihadism seems to be alive and well. We haven’t accepted a lick of responsibility for the blowback of our meddlesome foreign policy.

So when we remember 9/11, just what are we remembering? It doesn’t seem to be anything deep. It seems to be like the frat boys partying on the announcement of Osama bin Laden death. “We’re number one! We’re number one!” It means nothing to remember something if you don’t learn from it. And I don’t think that our country has learned anything. We will remember the attacks on 9/11 until the next attack. And we will respond to that attack in the same way we always do.

On this 15th remembrance of 9/11, I think we should remember that responding to tragedies like this should be done in a mature way — and not as a child would. But we won’t. We never do. Humans never have. “They raped our queen, so we raped their city, and we were right!”

Image cropped from 9/11 WTC Photo by 9/11 WTC. Licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Frankly Curious

Everything interesting for everyone interesting…

Monthly Archives: September 2016