Where've you been, Sleepy?

Dang, it's been a long time since I've blogged. What was it going to take?
Birthdays, holidays, vacations?
Dems taking control of both houses of Congress?
USC to win the Rose Bowl?

Or, was it just going to be that I remembered that Larry has been linking to me from the Nut Bar. Shame of shame, I've been caught.

I'm not going to be too hard on myself--I've been focusing on the real important things in life, my two boys. But here's to trying to keep up with the fast times.

Liebermania Run Amok

Desperation in politics engenders some pretty wild stuff.

Today Joe Lieberman, in a last-ditch effort to save his political arse, accused Ned Lamont's campaign of attacking his Web site Joe2006.com. Down in the polls, despite massive help from Bill Clinton and others, the campaign pulled out this desperate PR stunt to "campaign" as the victim on election day. As polls close, it's becoming fun to wonder what the Democratic Party would look like without Joe.

But first, let's consider this: who is Ned Lamont?

Races featuring incumbants are usually cast as referenda on the office-holder. But this primary campaign has been more about Lieberman's friends--namely how he can be so bipartisan that he might as well skip being a Democrat. Most of the talk is centered on Lieberman's unwavering support of the Iraq War and his willingness to give Bush the tools to wage it endlessly. Nobody is actually talking about Ned Lamont. Even the New York Times OpEd piece endorsing Lamont dedicated 11 of 12 paragraphs to Lieberman and why he's no longer right for the job. Apparently the only thing Lamont has done is allegedly hack a Web site--is this the future of the party?

So let's say Lieberman does lose (rather than say "Lamont wins"). Does this mean that pro-war Democratic candidates will have a tougher road ahead? Will voters be able to make real distinctions between pro-war Dems like Hillary Clinton (NY) and Maria Cantwell (WA), and their Republican counterparts? Has it really taking this long after the Kerry campaign to realize that you can't have be a Dem and have it both ways--pro-war and anti-this-war? Pro-ousting Saddam but anti-drawn-out-campaign? Pro-war and anti-instability? Pro-war and pro-peace? This is Liebermania run-amok.

We must take this one step at a time. We won't know what this primary election means for Dems in November until results from CT are released tonight. And there's no need to speculate about 2008 until we see what really happens in November.

But, for the first time in a long time, an established, powerful lawmaker is about to get the hook for his political views--and not for any scandal. I think that's a strong step in the right direction for figuring out what the Democratic Party should represent.

Good luck Ned!

Uphill Battles

Now for painful training, here's a site for cyclists who love to climb in their everyday rides--BicycleClimbs.com. Log in, pick your region, and check off which climbs you've done and how many more are left to do. After I checked all the hills I've climbed on the list, I still see 75 or so that I'll need to hit. Sheesh!

The Seattle region looks a little heavy on East Side hills--hasn't anybody climbed NE 65th St. from the Burke Gilman into Wedgwood?

Why Cycling Hurts the Environment?

Here's a kicker--bicycling and bike commuting hurts the environment.

So says UPenn scholar Karl Ulrich in an article published last week. Ulrich argues that while most environmentalists believe that any self-propelled transportation option is better than using fuel-burning, toxin-emitting cars and trucks, there's actually a hidden costs. If more people bike to work, they'll be in better physical shape, live longer, and ultimately consume more energy over the course of their lives than if they stayed sedentary, stuck to driving, and died early.

If that's the case, all environmentalists should start smoking immediately!

Ulrich's essay states that using a bicycle for limited trips to replace single-occupancy car outings can be helpful to the environment overall. Commuting, however, causes otherwise sedentary people to be active, burning up the energy that they store inside their bodies, and requiring more food and energy intake (with the associated food production costs) to maintain a healthy, active lifestyle. With all those healthy bike commuters living longer, and consumming more in their later years, think of the costs!

Of course, I don't buy it. Think about all the energy and cost that is required just to burn fossil fuels, let alone fund the medical care for illnesses related to obesity and sedentary lifestyles.

Now if only we could get cyclists on the roads and in the gym to harness all that energy that they produce and sell it back to the power grid...

When rhinos are dogs

Feeling guilty that it's been months. The Web hardly needs another blogger who can't commit and get the job done. But a guilty blogger might be even worse, so I'm over it.

Now on to business. My son N has a thing for stuffed animals, as many 3-year-olds do. Nothing strange there. He also likes dogs--wishes he could have one, but he's got some stuffed animals instead, though some of them aren't really dogs.

In fact, none of his three favorites, named Moshe (small grey rhino), Pup (smaller bear), and Joey (polar bear), are dogs--though you couldn't explain that one to N at all. In his view, Joey is a polar dog, Pup is a pup (though it's really a bear), and Moshe, the rhino, is a "horn-dog." N, of course, has no idea what a "horn dog" connotes in the impossibly immature grown-up world, so he delivers this explanation with a perfect poker face. It's brilliant.

Saw Mary Matalin and James Carville speak today. How the heck they get along every day is just astounding to me. It's wonderful that they can accept that there are multiple ways to progress if both conservatives and liberals want essentially the same core notions of progress, freedoms, etc. It might also help that they know political leaders as people, and not just soundbytes, which offers the possibility of humanizing the likes of even the neo-cons (shudder to think). It hardly seems possible.

That said, they did agree on one political item today that impressed me--the need for an independent, non-partisan commission to investigate the relief response to Hurricane Katrina at both local and federal levels. They also agreed that this commission should not be congressional--the biggest political quagmire of our system. Hats off to both for saying this--hopefully the Bush folks get the message that nothing else will really do.

Carville got big yuks with this one. A friend in Hollywood, which was hit by a huge power blackout yesterday, asked him, "Do you know what it's like to be without power?" Carville said that he replied, "I'm a Washington Democrat--what do you think?"

--D

Now Leia has a jetpack, too

It's appropriate, now that Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Siths has opened and started breaking box office records, to convey how our house has descended into Star Wars madness.

It all started a few weeks ago when my brother and sister-in-law visited and brought Luke Skywalker superhero action figures for N and his cousin S. These aren't the little action figures--they're a little bigger, about 9 inches tall, and Luke has exaggerated feet and hands. He's got gear, too: a light saber (which N took over to S's house and promptly lost), and a jet pack.



Now I'm not a Star Wars fanatic, but I have seen the movies, and there's no jet pack that's connected to nobody except Boba Fett. True enough. But N will have none of that, because all superheroes have jet packs and light sabers and how else could they save outer space from bad people who fight?

After N got his Luke, the young Skywalker has been everywhere with us, jet pack and all. In the bed, in the bath, to the Little Gym, all over the Seattle galaxy. Then N saw a Wired magazine featuring Lucas and Darth Vader, and we were off. Who's this Robot? Who's that furry guy? Is Chewbacca related to our friend Joe Baca? What's an R2D2? Soon, great potty feats were being rewarded with R2D2 action figures, and C-3PO, Chewy himself (no relation to our family friends, though now N is wondering how Ewoks and Wookies can't be related.)

Finally, the real discovery: N found his mom's original Star Wars trilogy collection on VHS.

Sorry, N, it's too scary, and you're only 3. I told him that I was scared of Star Wars in 1977 when I was 5 (though that was in a big theater with Dolby Sound and, truth is, it was scary no matter what my sister tells you). That weekend, Empire Strikes Back was on TV, and even though that's the "dark" one, N loved it.

We relented. After telling the (edited) saga night after night for bedtime stories, N got us to show him 6, the Return of the Jedi (otherwise known as the "Ewok Movie"). He digs it. He's wonderfully confused. How did Luke's father turn bad? Is N's father going to turn bad? No, N won't let him. Jedi's aren't superheroes, but Ewoks are, though they use pokers and not blasters.

Most importantly, N was so relieved for Leia when he found out that she is Luke's twin sister. "Now she gets a jetpack too!" (The jetpack, btw, is from PlaySkool-Hasbro--same people who brought us Mr. Potato Head reincarnate, a.k.a. Darth Tater).

Since then, N has seen Phantom Menace, and was bored silly. He prefers the goofy Ewok language to Jar Jar. He wasn't even impressed with the pod races. We're going to keep him away from Episode 3, though. Too many nightmares in all of this, though N would never admit it because he doesn't want the bedtime stores to stop. Too bad for him that in those stores, Darth Vader evil ways are restrained to more naïve misbehavin', such as making people have food fights at the ice cream store, or making the animals switch voices at the Zoo. That Darth… Luke and the superhero Ewoks are going to get you!

A place for kids, and cats?

I've been building my 3 1/2-yr-old son a sandbox now for a while. This morning, before I left for work, I realized why it was worth it.

The sandbox can be a controversial yard item. Of course, boys love the idea, and N is definitely into it. He's been waiting patiently, asking persistently when it's going to be done, talking about what color he wants to paint it, what kinds of things he's going to dig up, etc.

Then there are the skeptics. My sister and brother-in-law (A & B), made almost-smug smiles.
"The neighborhood cats are going to love you!"
"Crunch crunch crunch--you'll always be able to hear your floors now!"
"Don't forget to cover the sides, too. The best part is when your kid steps into cat poop on his way in and out of the sandbox."

Awesome.

Even our neighbors are excited that they'll have to change kitty litter less often now that we've got a sandbox.

This morning, after waiting patiently for weeks, N made it worthwhile. Of course, it didn't take weeks to build it, but to weed the ground, level it, buy tools, wait for the rain to stop, and then build it. I finished it last night just as he was going to sleep.

He woke up at 6:45 and said, "Daddy, are my Tonka trucks awake? It's time for them to go to work in my new sandbox."

Thanks N!

--D

Pope in Black and White

Hard to start a blog with 2 references about the Pope, but the choice of Ratzinger has brought about some interesting question--namely, how his brand of conservatism gels with the "man of peace" and more progressive image that we've seen--correctly or not--in John Paul II. Yet as another generation of global geopolitics is renewing the bond of religion and politics, we have to see all leaders of world religions as serious power brokers for all, and not just the faithful.

First off, we now have a pope who once wore a Nazi uniform.

It was so easy to think of John Paul II as a man of peace who spread goodwill, etc., etc. Part of that, especially for Jews, arose from the idea that he fought against Nazism and Hitlerism, and thus against "evil", as a young man. John Paul's religion seemed to dictate that he reject evil.

Now there are tons of caveats. John Paul II was Polish, so he had plenty of non-spiritual reasons to reject the Nazis. Ratzinger is German by birth, was just a boy when Hitler took power, and was most likely more a victim of conscription than a willing member of the Hitler Youth and the German army. By nature of his circumstance, his religiosity seems to have provided an escape from the Third Reich, but not a driving will to fight a regime--a viewpoint that may well apply to Church itself under Pius.

I thought the reaction of the Israelis to Ratzinger's election was quite telling. Ha'aretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/567037.html
) yesterday reported that Israel's leadership, including Moshe Katzav, acknowledged Ratzinger's past, but was still hopeful that he, as Benedict XVI, would continue JPII's outreach to other religions, and Jews and Israel in particular. As a nation of conscripts, it may be easier to understand that being drafted doesn't mean you believe the policymakers 100-percent.

But I'm curious to learn more about Benedict's conservatism--and whether the absolutism that divides right from wrong in Catholic orthodoxy means that the new pope will be less tolerant than his predecessor.

More later. --D