The crowd chillin at Neil Young's Bridge School Benefit concert. Gillian Welch is on stage who, despite her comments that they play, "downer acoustic rock" is jammin with some great guitar riffs. Its shaping up to be a great night... Dave Mathews, Pearl Jam, the Foo Fighters and more Neil still to come.
When the Mark Foley scandal hit, the hypocrisy of the Republican Party finally became clear to many formerly firm believers. What was truly amazing was not that Mark Foley was gay, or that he was initiating inappropriate relationships with teenage boys or that his fellow Republicans attempted to cover it up. What surprised me the most was that he was leading a committee charged with protecting children while trying to have sex with exactly the underage boys he was supposed to be protecting. It seems like the low-hanging fruit for him would have been to at least resign this committee.
What I often find frustrating about the Republicans is that what they say and what they believe are often two different things. Only in the Republican Party will you find a gay man going against gay rights. This is not the case with the Democrats. You can even find straight Democrats who support gay rights because while not gay themselves, they believe in gay rights. I don't believe that all these Republicans are so against the gay community. I don't believe that all of them are as religious as they say they are. I can believe that most Republicans (like Democrats) think abortion is unfortunate and to be avoided if at all possible. But I don't believe that all these Republicans think abortion should be illegal knowing that many poor women would be forced to seek secret and often dangerous alternatives. And I wonder if all the Republicans who say they are religious believe that invading Iraq was the right thing to do now that over 600,000 Iraqis have been killed. Is it right to be a deeply religious person and still believe that all this killing is what God would want us to do?
It seems to me that a Republican will say whatever they need to say to win the vote. Not only are they good at this gaming of the political process but they are also good at uniting on which issues are key. Democrats seem to be on-the-whole, much truer to their beliefs. What they say matches what they really believe. You would think this would be an easy recipe for success... spawning passionate candidates who easily beat Republicans feigning their beliefs. But the inividual passions of all these Democrats results in a 1000 issues being raised against the 8 - 10 the Republicans consistently rally around.
In the last six months, many heartfelt Republican issues have finally been exposed as political strategies and not deeply held convictions. Issues like, "We're winning the Iraq War", Bush's true feelings about religious conservatives, Mark Foley's concern for the security of our youth, and the motivation behind the Healthy Forests Act. Hopefully this will be the undoing of several incumbant Republicans running for re-election. Then, all we have to worry about is getting the Democratic party to recognize that we can't take on all the issues at once. And we need to make it clear that when we take on an issue, we really believe in it. You don't have to be saying you are the morally superior party to be it... you just have to believe.
This is a good interview with Frank Rich, author of, The "Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina."
Until a few years ago, Frank Rich was the lead Broadway Theater Critic for the New York Times. What's interesting about his switch to a serious political writer is its relevance to the Bush Administration's approach to the truth. He makes the case that the way Bush has tried to manipulate the truth is very similar to staging a theater production with one thing being acted out on stage while a completely different truth is going on back stage.
Given a flawed blueprint, nature will sometimes use symmetry as a stand in. I learned this at a lecture by Greg Lynn on mutations in nature. One of his observations was that organisms attempt to create features even when they lack a complete instruction set. Lynn showed several examples of symmetrical mutations including a human hand with two mirrored thumbs. What initially appeared as just a random deformity now had a logical (albeit flawed) reasoning. Over the last year, as I have read story after story on Bush’s strategy for fighting terrorism, it reminded me of Lynn’s talk. In many ways, Bush is behaving like a mutation of American policy. In the absence of a rational blueprint, he is slowly and steadily resorting to symmetry as his instruction set for international policy.
Symmetry as a concept is not new to international policy. For years, the Pentagon has labeled the battle techniques used by terrorists as “asymmetrical warfare”. It was mentioned frequently in the wake of 9/11 and is a classic example of egocentric military thinking. The assumptions embodied in the term are absurd when you break them down. Asymmetry refers to the techniques, scope and technologies employed between two military opponents. Our preferred style of military engagement, the “shock & awe” approach, involves aircraft carriers, fighter jets, nuclear submarines, the best radar systems in the World, tanks, and the highly coordinated efforts of large ground forces. Their approach involves small, independent cells of fighters initiating small-scale attacks with homemade weapons. Asymmetrical warfare implies that the enemy has chosen not to engage us on a similar scale… as if they had a choice! I suspect that the Pentagon has finally stopped using the term because there is no other country capable of engaging us in symmetrical warfare. Symmetry also implies a kind of aesthetic judgment… as if two opposing symmetrical militaries was the only proper way to fight. You can almost hear the British Generals in the Revolutionary War complaining that the Minutemen did not know how to stand up and fight like gentlemen.
Symmetry as a policy for international diplomacy also has its problems. The Geneva Convention attempts to minimize the horrors of war by asking all nations to adhere to certain policies and restrictions. Things like civil treatment of prisoners, avoiding the killing of innocent civilians, and refusing to use chemical and biological weapons. When adhered to evenly by nations at war, the policy benefits everybody. The problem arises when so-called “non-state actors” like Al Qaeda engage in warfare since killing innocent civilians is core to their military strategy. They were never asked nor are they interested in signing the treaty. Given its focus only on recognized nations, the Geneva Convention starts to become an asymmetrical policy that favors Al Qaeda over participating countries. In this situation, what should the US do?
Alberto Gonzalez called the Geneva Convention, “quaint.” We remain a signer, but our day-to-day actions seem to be mirroring rather than countering the tactics of our enemies Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. We invaded Iraq because we said Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons and might be preparing to use them again. President Bush said that someone who would consider such diabolical behavior should be removed from power. But few Americans know that America employed chemical weapons during the battle of Falujah inside Iraq. We denied it until we were faced with clear evidence to the contrary and finally admitted to it. How can we justify using the very technique we are seeking to eliminate?
We have said that Saddam Hussein killed innocent civilians, imprisoned suspected militants without due process and engaged in torture. Again a policy that is antithetical to the principals the US was founded on. The policies remain ours of record but not action. We put captured Al Qaeda militants in Guantanemo to avoid due process rules and then proceeded to treat them inhumanely. By putting captured Iraqi insurgents in the Abu Graib Prison and then torturing them, we have literally followed in Saddam Hussein’s footsteps. Again, we denied doing it until the pictures came out to prove it. New pictures have recently surfaced that confirm the behavior continues.
In perhaps the biggest example of hypocrisy yet, we have been considering using our nuclear weapons to stop other countries from making their own. The original stated reason for invading Iraq was to rid them of their WMDs. We continue to condemn Iran and North Korea for seeking to develop nuclear weapons. But we do so as the World’s second largest possessor of nuclear weapons. The average American hopes we never use another nuclear weapon. But under Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld’s direction, we debated the use of small-scale nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq in order to penetrate under-ground bunkers. In Iran, we are again considering using our nuclear weapons to destroy their nuclear weapons facilities. I don’t know if this is ironic or shameful. So far, reason has prevailed but to have even considered it as part of our public discourse is highly hypocritical.
In all of these examples it appears that the US policy has moved from one that lives by the ideals set by our founding fathers to one that mirrors the policies of those that we oppose and detest. The average American still believes that the USA is a good country and in their own personal lives, most Americans are. But as Americans, we also have to take responsibility for the actions of those we put into power. There has been much discussion on the relationship between Al Qaeda and Islam. Moderates in the Middle East and here agree that it is not the religion but the few radical Islamic fundamentalists that are causing the problems. Our hope in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran is that the moderates will rise up and overcome this radical minority. Isn’t it time for the moderates of this country to rise up and get us back on the right course.
As a designer, it’s always interesting to see design terms used to describe something else. In design, symmetry is still used today for everything from wallpaper to typographic layouts. But one thing is always true about symmetry in design. It’s only worth copying something if you find the original beautiful and worth repeating. Al Qaeda is not the aesthetic choice.
I just bought the soundtrack to "No Direction Home" Martin Scorsese's new documentary about Bob Dylan. Anne and I watched the documentary on PBS and found it funny, insightful and amazing. The unfolding of Bob Dylan's life from a small town in Minneapolis to the voice of post WWII youth is incredible. Dylan says early in the film, "I wasn’t born where I was supposed to be so I've been trying to find my way back home." It is an amazing story of transformation and Scorsese does a masterful job curating great archival footage into a portrait of Dylan’s early years.
Bob Dylan's own comments are brief and in keeping with his cynical approach to the media throughout his career. Lucky for us, a close friend of Dylan seems to have convinced him that he needs to start talking because his life and music are too important for him to remain silent. Sharing his feelings comes hard to Dylan. This leads to some of the humorous moments in the film… whether it is being difficult with the press or, more recently, when he starts to own up to being cryptic.
It seems as though throughout his life, his only consistent effort to promote his ever-changing mystique was to not promote it and not answer questions about it. In some of Dylan's interviews he acts like an adolescent interacting with his parents… saying as little as possible, making faces, not even agreeing with them when they happen to agree. The closest he comes is a slight smirk as if to say, "I know you’ve got a point, I know I’m being difficult but I’m still not going to meet you half way." Somehow, over time, this becomes an appropriate response to the many fans and media that confront him about the deeper meaning of his lyrics. He consistently responds that they are just songs and he a simple "song and dance man".
Early in the documentary, Dylan indicates that although he was enrolled at the University of Minnesota, he didn’t attend classes. Instead, he spent his time going to clubs and studying every piece of folk music he could get his hands on. Dylan even subtly admits to stealing a bunch of records from a casual friend. Bob Dylan became a student of music and got his bachelors, masters and PHD from the school of Woody Guthrie and many others. He studied the masters, copied them, thanked them, and then moved on to become "Dylan" a singer and songwriter like no other. It is an amazing story of both the poet and cultural icon. The soundtrack and DVD are worth a close listen.
Californians love to dine outside. It makes total sense in Southern CA but it can be a bit of a stretch here in San Francisco. This is a shot of the new Cafe @ the Beach Chalet at Ocean Beach. Its a bit like a small-scale version of the Bryant Park Cafe behind the Public Library in NYC. The interior is casual but well designed and the cafe opens up onto the yard behand the chalet. Service was very slow but had it been warm, we wouldn't have minded. But we had biked there in shorts and as the sun ducked behind the building, it started to feel more like the Ski Chalet.
Like many other SF restaurants, they roll out the portable heaters as the sun goes down which softens the chill slightly. The cold was total deja-vu since we had dined outside just the night before at the wedding of a good friend in Napa. The location and table settings were absolutely beautiful but as the sun went down, the chill came. As the night wore on, the men got more dressy and the women donned shawls if the had them. A few who were more prepared walked around in evening dresses with serious winter coats over the top. I guess it is one of our time-honored traditions... like watching 4th of July Fireworks through the fog. Beautiful in their own way (just make sure you're properly dressed).
This is the very Northern tip of Point Reyes. Its at the end of the McClures Ranch to Tomales Point trail... a beautiful five mile hike. Since the entire hike was shrouded in fog, it wasn't until we descended the final bluff that we saw that we were surrounded on three sides by pounding surf... the Pacific Ocean on one side and Tomales Bay on the other. The waves where the two bodies of water meet are big and loud. It was an amazing sight given how tranquil it was on the hike out.
We passed a small herd of tule elk along the way. Since they were pratically standing on the trail, we were hesitant to pass them. We decided to sit and watch them for awhile. After about 10 minutes, a noisy group of hikers came along and scared the elk away. We thought it was ironic that the noisy hikers turned out to be from the Sierra Club. But we were also happy that the elk had moved far enough away for us to continue the hike. The whole hike was serene in the fog but I'm guessing the views are awesome on a sunny day so we'll have to do it again.
Just snapped this at the Icer-sponsored ski jump on the Fillmore St. Hill in San Francisco. The delays and public outcry of local residents seems to have only fueled interest in the event. Even though it took place mid-day on a Thursday, attendance seems to be higher than for the SF Grand Prix bike race. Slow snow and a possibly poorly designed take-off area made for some nasty wipe outs at the start of the event. One guy landed an left his skis where he landed and just kept going. This guy was the first to clear the lip where Fillmore meets Vallejo. Definitely made for some exciting moments.
Just got back from an offsite meeting that was held at the Carneros Inn in Napa, CA. Amazing setting... especially this view of the Napa Valley first thing in the morning. Each room is simple, small but well appointed individual cottage. The architecture is a well executed blend of agricultural and industrial... a clear reference to the less chic surroundings of Carneros as compared to central Napa. They don't promote it but much of the inn was built using prefab architecture.
Interesting article on Nintendo's new Revolution controller. It uses gyroscopic control for things like racing games or sword fights. It can also be used as either a vertical remote control or held horizontally in 2 hands as a traditional game controller. It will be interesting to see how the gyroscopic function is received. Its been tried before with limited success but physical gaming is a big trend as Dance Dance Revolution and PlayStation's EyeToy have shown.
In my ongoing series of city views on-the-run... here's Chicago from a taxi stand. You get a bit of Mies in the foreground, followed by a piece of the Chicago Tribune building with just a glimpse of the Hancock building in the distance. I was there for all of 14 hours but I'm hoping to be making longer trips in the future.
Just setting my blog up for mobile blogging. I shot this telephone pole in San Francisco the first day I got my Sidekick. I thought the archeology of past messages was kind of cool looking.
Bush’s Perfect Storm
I think it is ironic that Hurricane Katrina, a random natural disaster would shed so much light on Bush’s leadership as a president. At first, the problems on the Gulf Coast all seemed to be due to Hurricane Katrina’s wrath. But in many ways, it was careful and deliberate planning that caused the damage and destruction. The writing has been on the wall for New Orleans and the Gulf Coast for this type of event. There have been numerous projections and warnings issued by state, local and federal officials. There was even a simulation, done quite recently and funded by FEMA. The drill predicted almost everything we are now seeing on the ground. Everything except the problems created by FEMA and the current administration.
George Bush stated during his first presidential campaign that Natural Disasters test the mettle of a leader. You would think that having said this that he would have worked hard to avoid any potential problems in dealing with one. But natural disasters of this scale have a way of revealing the impact of decisions made over years, not just those made in the immediate aftermath. Perhaps the most monumental of these was the decision to install Michael Brown as the head of FEMA. George Bush demands loyalty, respects loyalty and rewards loyalty. Hopefully, it was loyalty that got Michael Brown his job because it certainly wasn’t his experience managing natural disasters. Bush’s loyalty priority means that Brown was put in place over many other qualified people. This had little impact as long as the agency wasn’t needed but problems became strikingly clear when the time came for strong and decisive leadership.
FEMA’s response to Katrina is even more of an issue given all the changes George Bush has put in place in the aftermath of 9/11. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security and moving FEMA under it was done under the pretense of making the country safer in the face of natural and man-made disasters. Katrina was the fist big test of the effectiveness of these changes and from most accounts things are not better.
These are possibly the most dramatic examples of Bush’s “mettle” but there are more. Along with the predictions of the Gulf Coast’s vulnerability came numerous requests from the Army Corp of Engineers for a budget to upgrade the levees surrounding New Orleans. But Bush delayed the approvals and cut the budgets for these projects. The former head of the Army Corp of Engineers was forced out by Bush’s administration after he openly criticized the budget cuts. One of the key roles of National Guard troops is to help restore order in times of natural disasters. But many of Louisiana and Mississippi’s National Guard Troops were busy over in Iraq. Some have been recalled but as with almost everything else, it may be too little, too late.
Loyalty can be a double-edged sword. Its an effective weapon in building and keeping a strong team. But if honesty is seen as a lack of loyalty it can have the exact opposite effect. In this scenario, those that are too honest are forced out and replaced by more “loyal” but less experienced candidates. Eventually you end up with an army of yes men. Isn’t this what happened to Colin Powell?
Hurricane Katrina has definitely tested the mettle of President Bush. It is ironic that something so random and “out of our control” could be such a clear indicator of Bush’s careful and deliberate plan. But that is exactly what it has done. I only hope that those most affected by his decisions will keep this in mind the next time they are casting a vote. Blind loyalty can be a fatal flaw in citizens too.
Impeachment… Bush vs. Clinton
Congressman John Conyer’s efforts to investigate Bush’s run-up to the Iraq War has got me thinking about which acts the US government is willing to prosecute and which it is willing to ignore. There are not many things about our government that get me angry. For the most part, I understand that governments, like most organizations are political. That political maneuvering delays, diverts and derails some issues from a logical course of action is to be expected. However, what does make me mad is having one side so powerful that they are able to prosecute the misdemeanors of another party while escaping all legal attention for serious crimes of their own. This is exactly what seems to be happening with George Bush and Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton was impeached for adultery. Conservative Republicans will try to tell you that he was impeached for lying under oath (how hard would it be to prove that George Bush has lied to us about any number of issues). The simple truth is that Clinton committed adultery. Most of us, if caught having an affair, would first try to hide the truth. How many people have an affair and then come right home and tell their spouse about it? Congress had many options for indicating their disapproval of President Clinton’s behavior… censure being just one of them. But the Republicans chose to go the impeachment route. Impeachment for having sex that was perfectly legal albeit morally reprehensible.
As the facts are now making clear, George Bush made the decision to go to war with a sovereign nation and then fixed the intelligence to justify his decision. Recent facts such as the release of the Downing Street Memo make it clear that his decision to go to war predates his step-by-step reasoning before Congress and the United Nations. The Iraq War has resulted in at least 25,000 Iraqi civilian casualties and over 1700 American military casualties. The prewar intelligence used to justify the war has been shown to be incorrect and inflated. It would seem that, at the very least, an investigation is called for.
It could be argued that Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinski resulted in victims. Hillary Clinton would probably top the list but it might also include, Chelsea Clinton, Monica, Linda Tripp, and maybe even Bill himself. But that’s 5 victims and no fatalities. For this we sought impeachment. On the other hand, Bush’s little experiment to install democracy in the Middle East has resulted in many fatalities, and skirted Constitutional procedures regarding the decision to go to war. It seems to me that if you asked an objective group of people which case was grounds for impeachment the decision would be obvious and not the one that history has thus far followed.
What Bush has done is serious. Many innocent people are dead and it will likely take decades to restore faith in American foreign policy. It seems to me that, in light of the current facts, investigating the legality of what the Bush Administration did is the minimum that should be done. I’m certain that any effort in this direction would not result in an impeachment. Bush’s crafty bunch of sympathizers will find a way out or Congress will simply drop the ball out of fear of future retribution. But I know this, if Bush is not even accused of wrongdoing by Congress when Clinton was impeached, that there is something seriously wrong with our government.
Republican Strategy as Fast Food Diet
What if the Republicans' strategy was something like this... Get control of Washington (the senate, White House, etc.) and stay there as long as possible. While there, reduce taxes, raise spending and balloon the deficit. Ignore international relations by making decisions that are popular domestically but extremely unpopular in the international community. Do this while knowing they are not good strategies for the long haul but make for easy political gain now. Then, every so often, know that the Democrats will regain control. The Democrats, being the responsible parent, will then make unpopular but necessary adjustments like raising taxes, reducing the federal deficit and taking a global view in international policy.
After a few years, the Republicans will regain control with empty proposals. This will return America to it's fast-food diet of lower taxes, higher deficits and self-centered international policy. The strategy requires the Republicans to periodically lose control but they would always be the popular guys working for the concerns of the regular (albeit misinformed) American. Under this strategy, the Democrats would be forced to become the strict parents, the ones making the un-popular but necessary decisions. Secretly, the Republicans would be happy to have the adjustments the Democrats provide. They know that their own policies, if left unchecked, would bankrupt the country. Publicly they would bitch and moan so that once the necessary adjustments are made, they could rush back into office with more tasty promises full of empty calories.
Hiking Pinnacles
Anne and I spent last weekend at Pinnacles National Monument near Soledad, CA. Definitely deserves more traffic than it seems to get but we were happy to have the peace and serenity. The rock formations are not as dramatic as Yosemite but they are great given their proximity to the Bay Area. There are 2 trails that take you through caves. They were formed over time by rockslides into the valley so technically they’re not caves. But they make for a great little hike, climb and crawl adventure. Both get quite dark in the middle so flashlights are required. The hike to the top also offers a number of loops and diversions that can keep you busy for an afternoon. Lots of great rock perches that make for great lunch spots overlooking the surrounding valleys. We also stayed at the Inn at the Pinnacles, a B&B 3 miles from the West entrance to the park. The B&B is surrounded by vineyards and has some nice views of the valley and hills. The owners are very nice. The only down side is that there is not much in the way of culinary adventures in the area. To compensate, the owners outfitted every room with a fridge and outdoor grill so you can bring your own food and cook. If you want to sample the local wines, the owners will sell you one or let you sample it for free at the daily wine & cheese hour. The B&B and the Park are an easy 2 – 3 hour drive from San Francisco. We’ll definitely be going back. There is a private camping ground near the East entrance so maybe we’ll try that next time.
