Despite the fact that it is narrated by a dog, this one's for everyone, including non-dog types. Garth Stein's The Art of Racing in the Rain isn't new, but it's your must-read for the summer if you haven't yet treated yourself.
It's the story of Denny and his companion Enzo, a dog of indeterminate breed confounded by his lack of opposable thumbs. Enzo is convinced (thanks to a special he happened to catch on TV one day) that when dogs die, those who are ready return to life as a human. But only dogs who are ready. Enzo takes this quite seriously and spends his days observing, preparing and absorbing as much as he can. We're treated to his thoughts on people in general, to his concerns about not measuring up once he's human, and his fears that maybe being a human isn't all that great. (After all, they can't just live in the moment and they'll never understand the joy of finding an old cracker under the couch.) Denny marries, has a child and endures a number of human trials, and Enzo never fails him--reminding us of why we love our dogs.
This is not Marley and Me, where you finish the book and cry for 90 minutes as you think about every dog you've ever said goodbye to. Nor is it War and Peace. But you'll experience every possible emotion and you may never look at your dog the same way again as you try to determine just what they're thinking.
Even a curmudgeon could love this book.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Deb's Five Best Books on Curmudgeons
John Derbyshire of National Review has created a list of the Five Best Books on Curmudgeons. I have read none of them--but know where my reading list is now headed.
Abortion, Contraception, Plan "C"?
News here of a new drug with the cutesy name "Ella", that is being hailed as a new "morning after" pill--that is, a pill that a woman can take in the days (in this case--five of them) after unprotected sex to create an "inhospitable" atmosphere for any for potentially dividing cluster of cells, otherwise known as a "zygote" or a "blastocyst" depending on how soon after fertilization one discusses it. Some refer to this mass of cells as a "human being", but we'll drive past that one for the now.
This new drug is already available in 22 countries, and there is a likelihood that it will soon be introduced here. "Plan B", which works in a similar manner, is already available here without prescription. If the FDA finds "Ella" (gag) to be safe, then I am for its introduction into the American pharmaceutical regime, and here's why.
Abortion is a terrible thing, a tragic thing. Yet we are a nation of laws, and under our laws, it is legal. Its legality however, in no way diminishes its tragedy.
Yet--here we are, nearing forty years since Roe v. Wade, and as ridiculously ruled as that case was, it remains in force. I think a rational look into the future would reveal that it is unlikely to be overturned. It does not matter that an increasing number of Americans call themselves "pro-life". What matters is the percentage who would support Roe v. Wade being overturned--and that is not anywhere near a majority.
So we are left with a dilemma--a country that increasingly finds abortion to be distasteful and horrific and a great moral tragedy--though there is little stomach to dispense with the legal framework that protects it. The great symbols of the Pro-Life movement--in utero videos, abortion clinic protests, revealing the evil of "partial birth abortion" to those who simply don't know--are meaningful and help stoke the fires of what often appears to be an insoluble debate. This is where drugs like "Ella" and "Plan B" come in.
Some Pro-Lifers would suggest that at the moment of fertilization, a being is created entitled to all the protections the law would extend to that entity outside the womb. This is--I believe--an extreme position--and I use that term only to describe its distance from a "moderate" position--it is not a value judgment. It is this group for whom even drugs like Plan B and Ella are as evil as partial birth abortion. To them, a four day old proto-human is as worthy of legal protection as a six month old fetus. Morally--I agree with this view; that is, philosophically, either a human is formed worthy of protection at fertilization, or such protection essentially means nothing. Why not three months? Why not six months? If the dividing line is the womb itself, isn't that just a little too confining? I mean, in the grand scheme of things, it isn't a big step to suggest that a partial birth abortion on an eight month old fetus is just a stone's throw from tossing a newborn in the dumpster.
But this isn't only a moral of philosophical question. It is also a legal and political one, and this is where the search for compromise takes me. Yes---in a late-night dormroom conversation or a dinner party throwdown--I could make the case I just did--that abortion is a pre-echo of infanticide--but I would invariably run up against the continuing inconvenience of Roe v. Wade. Plan B and Ella offer a useful "compromise" to those who remain open to it--the possibility of shuttered abortion clinics, the elimination of angry crowds shaming women who are already in a fragile state, the neutralization of fetal videos showing fingers and toes and lips and noses.
I realize there are some in the US for whom contraception of any kind is anathema--these people will not be part of reaching compromises on this issue that ultimately remove it from the political stage. The overwhelming majority of Americans support a woman's right to pre-emptively prevent pregnancy through the use of hormones ingested as oral contraceptives or through the skin. It seems to me that the use of similar chemicals to prevent a zygote from attaching to the uterine wall--is not demonstrably different from the pre-emptive use of such chemicals. Yes--to those who see conception beginning at fertilization EVEN AS A LEGAL AND POLITICAL ISSUE, this is unacceptable. But for the rest of us who are able to make this distinction, the act of a woman ingesting a pill to prevent a pregnancy (not fertilization--they appear to me to be different--the distinction being the attachment of the zygote to the uterine wall) OF WHICH SHE IS ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT AWARE is not fundamentally different from the act of preventing that pregnancy through oral contraceptives. In this similarity lies a path to compromise, a path in which a woman's "choice" really is a choice between her and her conscience, one that does not involve the rest of us (through the need for abortion clinics and the concomitant desire to protest them). Of course, the wide availability of such drugs would not eliminate the "need" for abortion clinics, but it seems quite clear that "abortion" as we know it today would dramatically decrease.
There are no easy or perfect answers here--there are just less bad answers. It seems to me that Plan B and Ella are less bad answers, and the sooner we are able to accommodate them into this debate, the sooner we'll be able to remove abortion as a divisive and insoluble issue from the political discourse.
This new drug is already available in 22 countries, and there is a likelihood that it will soon be introduced here. "Plan B", which works in a similar manner, is already available here without prescription. If the FDA finds "Ella" (gag) to be safe, then I am for its introduction into the American pharmaceutical regime, and here's why.
Abortion is a terrible thing, a tragic thing. Yet we are a nation of laws, and under our laws, it is legal. Its legality however, in no way diminishes its tragedy.
Yet--here we are, nearing forty years since Roe v. Wade, and as ridiculously ruled as that case was, it remains in force. I think a rational look into the future would reveal that it is unlikely to be overturned. It does not matter that an increasing number of Americans call themselves "pro-life". What matters is the percentage who would support Roe v. Wade being overturned--and that is not anywhere near a majority.
So we are left with a dilemma--a country that increasingly finds abortion to be distasteful and horrific and a great moral tragedy--though there is little stomach to dispense with the legal framework that protects it. The great symbols of the Pro-Life movement--in utero videos, abortion clinic protests, revealing the evil of "partial birth abortion" to those who simply don't know--are meaningful and help stoke the fires of what often appears to be an insoluble debate. This is where drugs like "Ella" and "Plan B" come in.
Some Pro-Lifers would suggest that at the moment of fertilization, a being is created entitled to all the protections the law would extend to that entity outside the womb. This is--I believe--an extreme position--and I use that term only to describe its distance from a "moderate" position--it is not a value judgment. It is this group for whom even drugs like Plan B and Ella are as evil as partial birth abortion. To them, a four day old proto-human is as worthy of legal protection as a six month old fetus. Morally--I agree with this view; that is, philosophically, either a human is formed worthy of protection at fertilization, or such protection essentially means nothing. Why not three months? Why not six months? If the dividing line is the womb itself, isn't that just a little too confining? I mean, in the grand scheme of things, it isn't a big step to suggest that a partial birth abortion on an eight month old fetus is just a stone's throw from tossing a newborn in the dumpster.
But this isn't only a moral of philosophical question. It is also a legal and political one, and this is where the search for compromise takes me. Yes---in a late-night dormroom conversation or a dinner party throwdown--I could make the case I just did--that abortion is a pre-echo of infanticide--but I would invariably run up against the continuing inconvenience of Roe v. Wade. Plan B and Ella offer a useful "compromise" to those who remain open to it--the possibility of shuttered abortion clinics, the elimination of angry crowds shaming women who are already in a fragile state, the neutralization of fetal videos showing fingers and toes and lips and noses.
I realize there are some in the US for whom contraception of any kind is anathema--these people will not be part of reaching compromises on this issue that ultimately remove it from the political stage. The overwhelming majority of Americans support a woman's right to pre-emptively prevent pregnancy through the use of hormones ingested as oral contraceptives or through the skin. It seems to me that the use of similar chemicals to prevent a zygote from attaching to the uterine wall--is not demonstrably different from the pre-emptive use of such chemicals. Yes--to those who see conception beginning at fertilization EVEN AS A LEGAL AND POLITICAL ISSUE, this is unacceptable. But for the rest of us who are able to make this distinction, the act of a woman ingesting a pill to prevent a pregnancy (not fertilization--they appear to me to be different--the distinction being the attachment of the zygote to the uterine wall) OF WHICH SHE IS ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT AWARE is not fundamentally different from the act of preventing that pregnancy through oral contraceptives. In this similarity lies a path to compromise, a path in which a woman's "choice" really is a choice between her and her conscience, one that does not involve the rest of us (through the need for abortion clinics and the concomitant desire to protest them). Of course, the wide availability of such drugs would not eliminate the "need" for abortion clinics, but it seems quite clear that "abortion" as we know it today would dramatically decrease.
There are no easy or perfect answers here--there are just less bad answers. It seems to me that Plan B and Ella are less bad answers, and the sooner we are able to accommodate them into this debate, the sooner we'll be able to remove abortion as a divisive and insoluble issue from the political discourse.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Separated At Birth, Friday Edition
Raging Bull Robert De Niro and...
Raging lunatic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
A New Blog To Check Out
Sometime poster and full-time brother Sam Shapiro has a new blog out called Tales From The Unemployment Line. Check it out!
Big Fat Friday Free For All
All time high (April 1 2009): 192.2
Last weigh in: 183.6 (6/04/10)
This week's weight: 183.6
Sorta glad there wasn't more damage this week--busy week with bad eating and little exercise.
So friends, what's on your minds? Use this little chunk of high priced interweb real-estate to speak up on whatever it is that's got your attention.
Last weigh in: 183.6 (6/04/10)
This week's weight: 183.6
Sorta glad there wasn't more damage this week--busy week with bad eating and little exercise.
So friends, what's on your minds? Use this little chunk of high priced interweb real-estate to speak up on whatever it is that's got your attention.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Tigerhawk Is On The Job
The internets are all aflutter that Sarah Palin may have gone under the knife....
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Agenda For Tonight's Radio Show
Here's the working agenda for tonight's Conservative Wahoo Live! show--remember--it has a 9:30 start time
• Helen Thomas
- Election returns from last night
• Van der Sloot
• Israel Blockade—Iranian threats to escort
• Perfect game spoiled/Debut in Washington
• Oil spill (cont)
• Fired because she was too hot (“Miss Citibank”)
• Helen Thomas
- Election returns from last night
• Van der Sloot
• Israel Blockade—Iranian threats to escort
• Perfect game spoiled/Debut in Washington
• Oil spill (cont)
• Fired because she was too hot (“Miss Citibank”)
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Obama Smash!
A wee-weed up President Obama tells Matt Lauer this morning he wants to know "whose ass to kick" over the Gulf spill:
"I was down there a month ago before most of these talking heads were even paying attention to the Gulf. A month ago, I was meeting with fishermen down there, standing in the rain...we talk to these folks because they potentially had the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick."
A month ago? Brian Williams starts the clip off by stating that June 8th will mark the 50th day of the Gulf spill:
"I was down there a month ago before most of these talking heads were even paying attention to the Gulf. A month ago, I was meeting with fishermen down there, standing in the rain...we talk to these folks because they potentially had the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick."
A month ago? Brian Williams starts the clip off by stating that June 8th will mark the 50th day of the Gulf spill:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
And why is Obama relying on fishermen, as opposed to structural engineers, geologists and emergency response experts for answers to a deep water oil drill disaster?
The President is getting defensive. It is times like this when we are painfully reminded that executive experience - and character - matters.
Radio Show Bleg
Ok--what's on your minds--what would you like to talk about on tomorrow night's radio show?
Remember, it is at 9:30PM for this Wednesday only. One Hour.
Remember, it is at 9:30PM for this Wednesday only. One Hour.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Helen Thomas to Retire
On Travel
Heading back up to Newport, RI for the next few days--things could get slow again from me. But I'll try to uphold the standard!
Sunday, June 6, 2010
This Isn't Like Any Marine I Know
Former USNA Football player and recently discharged would be Marine Officer Adam Ballard is protesting his dismissal from the Marine Corps--a dismissal brought about by his cheating on a land-navigation test at a USMC School. Here's a key graph:
"In the letter, Ballard admits his actions were wrong but said they were facilitated by “inordinately lax procedures at TBS,” the Corps’ first step for newly commissioned officers. He alleged that as many as 30 lieutenants were originally accused of cheating and that 16 were eventually separated from the rest of the company as the investigation unfolded."
I got it--I was wrong, I cheated, but really only because your system made it an attractive option. Despicable.
"In the letter, Ballard admits his actions were wrong but said they were facilitated by “inordinately lax procedures at TBS,” the Corps’ first step for newly commissioned officers. He alleged that as many as 30 lieutenants were originally accused of cheating and that 16 were eventually separated from the rest of the company as the investigation unfolded."
I got it--I was wrong, I cheated, but really only because your system made it an attractive option. Despicable.
Elena Kagan A Liberal? Hell No, Says the White House
Take a look at this video from CBS' legal correspondent Jan Crawford. Interesting stuff. Kagan believes in virtually everything the President believes in--but they are running from it. Oh, and Jan Crawford is way hot.
CW Live! Internet Radio Program New Time This Wednesday ONLY
I've moved the radio show to 9:30 PM this coming Wednesday to accommodate my travel schedule. More to follow. I hope you'll tune in.
I'm too sexy for my bank
This is 33-year-old Debrahlee Lorenzana, who was recently fired for being, well, too sexy. 
Citibank let her go last August and told her she was too 'distracting' and 'upsetting' to the male managers. She apparently was forbidden from wearing anything clingy or revealing. Ms. Lorenzana claims she wore appropriate clothing.
Of course she is suing. Her lawyer claims she was fired only because her bosses couldn't keep their libidos in check.
I suspect Ms. Lorenzana pushed the envelope, but I'm sure she'll win her lawsuit. Question, though: wouldn't someone who looks like this ATTRACT business?
"On Being A Conservative"--Michael Oakeshott
My friend Tim Long posted this on FB this morning. Weighty, deep, and wonderful.
Will v. Broder
Interesting dichotomy on the pages of today's Washington Post editorial page--George Will and David Broder with differing views of spreading around money in education. Will carries the day.
Democrats need to realize that a better education system does not equal more teachers.
Democrats need to realize that a better education system does not equal more teachers.
The Vapidity of Kathleen Parker
Washington Post editorial columnist and recent Pulitzer Prize winner Kathleen Parker--who I like to refer to as "our side's Maureen Dowd" (not a positive appellation), has written a column about the carnival that is South Carolina politics. First we had Governor Sanford's AWOL affair in South America and rambling apology, and now we have Republican favorite to replace him Nikki Haley being accused by not one, but two men of infidelity--with them.
Putting aside for a moment the considerable indiscretion of these males (I shall not grace them with the term "men") and the continuing ridiculosity of South Carolina politics--we have the unbelievable vapidity of Kathleen Parker (a resident of Charleston) who wins awards for sounding like the ditz you sat next to in homeroom. A sample:
" I've known Folks (one of the miscreants) , a take-no-prisoners political blogger, for years and take him at his word when he says that a story was about to break about his alleged relationship. Recently married and a new father, he says he was attempting damage control when he broke the story himself. I don't condone or agree with his decision, but he's no Marchant, whose earnest confession reeks of the self-service to which he has now consigned himself."
And then there's this:
"I also know Haley and take her at her word when she denies the allegations. But let's get at the deeper truth and ask: Is this really where we want our politics to go? Are only perfect people acceptable for public service? As Bill Bennett once put it to me: "If perfection is our standard, then no one gets to talk."
So let's see here--she takes at his word a man who claims to have had an "inappropriate physical relationship" with a married woman, and then takes at her word the woman who denies the allegations? How can this be? How can anyone be so vacuous? Are there no editors at the WaPost with the guts to call her on this stuff?
Putting aside for a moment the considerable indiscretion of these males (I shall not grace them with the term "men") and the continuing ridiculosity of South Carolina politics--we have the unbelievable vapidity of Kathleen Parker (a resident of Charleston) who wins awards for sounding like the ditz you sat next to in homeroom. A sample:
" I've known Folks (one of the miscreants) , a take-no-prisoners political blogger, for years and take him at his word when he says that a story was about to break about his alleged relationship. Recently married and a new father, he says he was attempting damage control when he broke the story himself. I don't condone or agree with his decision, but he's no Marchant, whose earnest confession reeks of the self-service to which he has now consigned himself."
And then there's this:
"I also know Haley and take her at her word when she denies the allegations. But let's get at the deeper truth and ask: Is this really where we want our politics to go? Are only perfect people acceptable for public service? As Bill Bennett once put it to me: "If perfection is our standard, then no one gets to talk."
So let's see here--she takes at his word a man who claims to have had an "inappropriate physical relationship" with a married woman, and then takes at her word the woman who denies the allegations? How can this be? How can anyone be so vacuous? Are there no editors at the WaPost with the guts to call her on this stuff?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
