greater one horned rhinoceros (not political!)

taking a brief break from political writings: At the Seattle Design Commission last week we looked at a proposal for a new Asian (Greater One-horned) Rhinoceros exhibit for the Woodland Park Zoo. It is curiously different than the African Rhinos that I know, it has one horn and lives in the water most of the time, which made me think of the Ogden Nash poem that I read as a child and then while running on Saturday I composed my own ode to the Asian Beasts:



Thanks to the magic of the WWW I was able to find the poem I so badly mangled on Thursday:

The Rhinoceros

The rhino is a homely beast,
For human eyes he's not a feast.
Farewell, farewell, you old rhinoceros,
I'll stare at something less prepoceros.

Ogden Nash


Inspired by that (and with deep apologies to Ogden Nash's memory) here is my own:


The Greater One-horned Rhinoceros

Sue and Bob were East African White Rhinos,
Sue liked to gaze at the ocean through her binos,
from the warm shore of Tanzania,
she thought she spied a beach in Asia.

While known for their great might,
Rhinos have dreadful eyesight,
while she imagined it was India afar,
it was actually the sands of Zanzibar.

Said Sue to Bob: "Let's take a little swim.
The exercise will help keep you fit and trim.
I've also heard their curries are quite good."
"I'm in!" cried Bob "I'm tired of chewing on wood."

They struck out and at first the going was easy,
but after a while the waves made them quite queasy,
then the rain and winds started to blow a terrible storm,
the rough waters soon broke off Bob's lesser horn.

Just when they thought it was their fate to be salted Rhino soup,
a wave landed them onto a stretch of beach in one fell swoop,
they looked around and it was clear the landscape was not African,
Sue said: "I read PA and this architecture is not American."

Unlike Christopher Columbus,
Rhinos think the world is a rhombus,
but on one thing Sue and Bob were right,
they'd landed in India that summer night.

After a good sleep they both awoke,
it was Bob who first spoke:
"Sue, I must say I feel quite preposeros,
with only one horn am I truly a rhinoceros?
Or with all this swimming have I become a hippopotamus?"
Sue looked at him adoringly: "You will always be my Greater One-horned Rhinoceros".


Footnotes:
1. binos is the South African abbreviation for binoculars
2. if the rhymes don't seem to work, think of the accent of an East African who has emigrated to India

good wishes for the fall

13 September 2004

Mr. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20500

Dear W,

I feel lax in not writing sooner to congratulate you on your glorious victory in Iraq last year. Who would have guessed that you would have achieved your mission so quickly? Peace and democracy must be a wonderful thing for the people of Iraq. I am sure that they will shower the US troops with flowers as soon as they are able to dodge the bullets, land mines, mortars, missiles and car bombs to grow some. Your new best friend, John McCain, is predicting that it will be a quick 10 to 20 years before we can withdraw our troops. I have no doubt the time will fly for those in the National Guard who will be there for the duration.

I think that your election campaign is a pure stoke of genius for several reasons. No, I don’t mean your assumed air of the common un-educated redneck. Sure it is a great act that a multi-millionaire with degrees from Yale and Harvard can speak like a buffoon and the press never questions whether it might be a cynical act to sell a candidacy, but you did that in 2000. The true genius of your 2004 campaign is how you are laying the groundwork for the future with these two campaign themes:

1. “We must not change leaders in mid-stream”. Apparently the war in Iraq is planned to last another decade (see above) so we clearly need to keep you in office for another 2-3 terms. Wait, the “War on Terrorism” is planned to continue forever (see Orwell), so we actually need to keep you in office for life. I am going to get on the phone with my legislators to start the constitutional re-write ASAP.
2. A Strong Leader who Never Waivers, never changes course, always makes bold clear choices, never has self-doubts, never questions his own decisions and has god on his side. How can one not want a leader like that? History shows us that leaders with this leadership style have written history: Ivan the Terrible, Attila the Hun, Hendrik Verwoerd, B.J. Vorster, Papa and Baby Doc, a couple of mid 20th Century people in Europe, etc. Not one of these men could ever be accused of being weak. I am so glad that you have molded yourself into a leader who can be clearly understood by all the people of the planet.

I don’t want to take up too much of your valuable time, just wanted to wish you well for the fall.




Nic

speaking of old material: here is a poem I wrote during the 1999 WTO debacle in Seattle

I walked the streets of Seattle during the first day of the WTO "Riots" in 1999 and I don't think I have ever felt safer, especially as cars had to avoid the area. Things fell apart when the police insisted in "taking back the streets" the first night and outraged the protestors who were overwhelmingly peaceful. Yes there were gangs of so called anarchists dressed in black and with scarves over their faces who broke windows. It would have taken almost no effort on the part of the authorities to stop this, but they didn't, instead they made mass arrests of people whose crime was standing up for the concept of freedom of speech. We spent the rest of the week as an occupied zone. I was stopped and searched regularly as I biked to and from work. The police told me that they were not targeting cyclists, even though I never came across a single car commuter (or even bus rider) who was stopped and searched even once (except City Council member Richard McGiver who is black) . Anyway, here is the poem I wrote that week.

r.i.p.

today i come to bury the rotting corpse of the first amendment, not to praise it,
only words on old parchment it is no longer part of the soul of this society,
if it were relevant to our modern society it would be part of the msoffice suite of applications,

the “liberal” emerald city, let me stop while i wipe the bitter tears of laughter from my eyes,
unquestioningly sacrificed its liberty and civil rights on the altar of the mighty god ORDER,

our threshold for chaos and understanding of its essential role in life is so limited that
we happily leap into the arms of military occupation, blindly follow the mindless orders of uniformed thugs
so that our streets can be kept pristine and safe for commerce uber alles,

let us pray:
may our happy no protest zone protect us from noisy young people with the gall to suggest that commercialism might not be the
highest form of existence,
may our joyous curfew allow our sacred riot police to safely teargas our citizens and arrest them for resisting arrest,
the beautiful union between the civil police and the national guard bears witness to the obsolescence of the bill of rights,
our essential rights are now enshrined in the advertising slogans of nike and macdonald's (and are available on line)

blessed are the peaceful protestors, willing to gassed and arrested to assert their right to assemble and walk the city streets,
for they are young and naïve, and will never get stock options unless they change their antiquated ways,

yeah verily, if the mayor is kind we can all sip lattes and safely shop at pacific place as early as next week.

amen

letter to the president of university of washington

8 September 2004

Mark Emmert
University of Washington

Dear President Emmert:
Re: Obscenity on Campus

I am disturbed by a recent incident of obscenity on the University of Washington campus. No, I am not speaking about someone bearing their body, or a photograph of someone's naked body, nudity seems like one of the few clean pleasures left to a citizen in this society. I am talking about the appearance by National (In-) Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on campus on September 7, 2004.

As I understand it the Supreme Court's definition of obscenity rests on what is not acceptable to local community standards. From what I have read of the Condoleezza Rice speech it appears that this event clearly meets the definition of obscenity when considering the norms of our community. Ms Rice has been at the center of promoting the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war. Simply put the most economically and militarily powerful nation on the planet (possibly the most powerful ever) declared in January of 2002 that it had the right to declare war on any other nation for any reason. The subsequent invasion of Iraq was carried out in clear violation of international law and norms. Thus far the US has killed well over 50,000 Iraqis (including at least 10,000 civilians) while over a thousand US soldiers have died. About 7 to 10 times as many have been severely injured on both sides. This type of wanton bloodshed can only be described as obscene.

Allowing one of the architects of this policy to appear on the UW campus in a forum where she was not asked to answer a single question from people who disagree with her is completely contrary to the spirit of our community and the academic institution you lead. I assume that you are aware of the level of fear and loathing for the Bush administration that exists throughout the rest of the world. Moderate friends from Europe and Africa agree that they now fear the US in a way that was inconceivable 5 years ago. I cannot understand how you can in good conscience moderate an event like this that appears to provide free propaganda for an obscenely violent and vehemently anti-intellectual regime. I am frankly embarrassed that my alma mater has sunk so low.

Nic

primary election endorsements

For the 812th consecutive election cycle not one single candidate has asked for my endorsement. Apparently they have all had the good sense to look at the record of my candidates during the past 811 elections. True Nelson Mandela won in 1994, but my successes have been a little scant in the decade since then.

Rules: I am making picks in all races where I have a vote. As this is a primary election and the rules in Washington State are that you have to pick either a Democratic, Republican or Libertarian ballot (other parties are officially non-existent), I am going to list my picks for each party with my commentary.

US Senator: Patty Murray (Dem) Patty has done a sound job and really responds to constituent's requests for help. She voted against the moronic decision to invade Iraq.
If you vote on the Republican ballot: William Edward Chovil. He looks sporty in his cowboy hat and he will be easy for Patty to defeat in November.
US Representative (7th District): Jim McDermott (Dem) Jim rocks. He speaks out intelligently on what matters and it works because he speaks to the spirit of his constituents.
I would recommend looking at the candidate that the Republicans are running in the 7th. Just when I thought that King County Republicans had no sense of humor, they managed to come up with the most comical candidate of the year. Assuming that she is a real person Carol Cassady is the kind of right-wing nut that would probably rise to the top levels of leadership in Washington DC these days. Someone should tell her that it is the Senate, not the House that votes on judicial nominees.
Governor: Ron Sims (Dem) Vote for Ron as many times as you can. I am so sick of the attitude that the Democrats should never run a progressive candidate state wide/ nation wide. As a result we land up with ultra-cautious moderates who never take a stand unless it looks popular in the polls. Why not run someone with vision, compassion and heart. Ron has all of these and will defeat the Republican candidate in November.
If you are doing a spoiler ballot, try John Aiken, Jr. (Rep) he looks to be the most defeatable Republican and any vote against Dino Rossi is a good thing. Rossi is not the moderate that he is trying to portray. He was responsible for blocking the mental health parity bill from reaching a vote in the State Senate. He lacks compassion and is beholden to his corporate sponsors. He is the single worst candidate on the ballot this year.
If you are voting Libertarian, vote for Ruth Bennett. She is the one candidate from this party that stands out
Lieutenant Governor: I cannot endorse anyone on the ballot. The incumbent Brad Owen (Dem) is a total doofus. He has at least expanded his platform beyond waging a personal War on Drugs. The best thing I can say is that keeping him busy at the office will keep him from his hobby as an "avid sportsman". Heaven help our State if this guy ever becomes Governor. As I will be voting on a Democratic ballot I plan to use my favorite write in candidate, Steve Pool the TV weatherman.
The Republicans in the race make a root canal sound like fun.
Jocelyn Langlois (Libertarian) wants to abolish the office, which sounds like the best thing on offer. I am not voting Libertarian in the primary, but will support her in November unless the Green Party comes up with a good candidate.
Attorney General: I was amazed to read the Stranger's endorsement of someone they used to call Satan and the worst thing imaginable (a Republican), Mark Sidran (Dem). Amazingly I find myself in agreement. Deborah Senn might be a good solid leftie, but she isn't really running a great campaign and Sidran has been more willing to speak out on liberal issues.
However you vote make sure you are aware that the likely Republican candidate in November is the truly evil King County Councilman Rob McKenna, so if you are voting R on the 14th cast your ballot for Mike Vaska who sounds like a good attorney and decent person.
Secretary of State, State Treasurer, Commissioner of Public Lands, Insurance Commissioner: These are almost all unopposed in all three parties. I see no reason to vote against the party picks. The one exception is that the Republicans have a gaggle of insurance salesmen who want to become Insurance Commissioner. I would have to go for Earl C. Dennis whose experience as a certified Stroke and Turn Judge for Pacific Northwest Swimming makes him an obvious choice.
State Senate and House: My Senator is not up for election this cycle and Reps are unopposed in the primary, so no comment here. Continuing the theme of a Republican Party with a sense of humor: the King County R's have found a couple of kids to run in November who are being very careful not to say too much.

Non-Partisan Races: (This is more like it, we get to vote for whoever we please)
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Judith Billings seems like the smartest candidate for a tough job. She did a great job when she used to hold this office and should do so again.
State Supreme Court (Position 1): Robert Alsdorf and Mary Kay Becker stand out, vote for either
State Supreme Court (Position 5): I am told by smart people that Terry Lukens is the best choice and he seems to be from all I read.
State Supreme Court (Position 6): James White looks to be the judge of choice to unseat the whacky incumbent Richard Sanders (who is vociferously anti-choice and anti-gay rights).
Court of Appeals (Division 1, District 1, Position 1): vote for incumbent Kenneth Grosse whose opponent seems to be motivated to run because Grosse spends time at his cabin in Leavenworth (apparently that Bavarian architecture really rubs some people the wrong way).
King County Superior Court (Position 13): Theresa Doyle is an excellent choice by all accounts
King County Superior Court (Position 23): Andrea Darvas seems like a solid civil libertarian
King County Superior Court (Position 42): Mark Mestel appears to be the best choice
King County Superior Court (Position 45): Jim Rogers seems like the best in this race
Finally but not Leastly:
Seattle Families and Education Levy (aka Proposition 1): Yes I think the goal of better education for underserved students cannot be criticized. I think the new school board can be trusted to do something positive with this levy and not go $50 Billion over budget (hopefully).

Vote everyone,

Nic

abu grabababble (or whatever W calls it)

another oldie from May 2004

What surprises me about the recently revealed prisoner abuses in Iraq is not that they occurred but that people are surprised by them. This type of prisoner abuse is a completely predictable result of a war that is based on the premise that we (the aggressors) are good and that anyone that opposes us is evil. Given the Bush program to hold POWs from Afghanistan and Iraq in Guantanamo Bay and to keep all Al- Qeda prisoners at undisclosed countries "where interrogation techniques can be used that are not legal in the US", how could we be surprised that this was going on in Baghdad. I am outraged, but not at all surprised. I grew up in apartheid era South Africa and saw the horrendous abuses carried out by the police in a populace who were controlled by fear that was carefully orchestrated by the leaders. We have exactly those conditions in post 9-11 USA. We had better get used to this type of barbarity, or vote out the leadership that has turned that horrendous crime into an excuse to rule the world by fear and intimidation.

Nic

helen speaks

I have tried to avoid saying negative things about this year's great white hope, but then I saw this column by Helen Thomas and thought, what the hell what harm can my rantings have in comparison to Helen?

Ever since I first heard Kerry say (in the primaries) " I don't disagree with Bush on the War in Iraq, I disagree with how he conducted the War in Iraq." I have wondered:

a) What the &%*$ does he mean? More smart bombs and less carpet bombing in urban areas, or what? I still don't understand what Kerry means (not that I won't vote for him) and he never seems to try to clarify what it is he means.
b) Why would Kerry support the war? I know he has spent the last 4 years carefully grooming his image for this run for the Whitehouse. Maybe he bought the (idiotic) Democratic leadership position in the fall of 2002 that the party needed to jump on the bandwagon to be politically viable, but hasn't anything in the past 2 years made him question the basic premise that invading and occupying Iraq was anything but a very moronic/ immoral idea?

Anyway, for those who missed it here is Helen's column.

Nic

Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Kerry deals away his ace in the hole
By HELEN THOMAS HEARST NEWSPAPERS
WASHINGTON -- It appears American voters have little choice between the presidential candidates in the November election when it comes to the disastrous war against Iraq.
Both President Bush and his rival, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., seem to think it was worth the 932 American lives (so far) and thousands of U.S. wounded to get one man behind bars -- Saddam Hussein.
There also are the untold thousands of Iraqis dead and wounded as well. But, as one Pentagon spokesman told me, "They don't count."
Kerry has made a colossal mistake by continuing to defend his October 2002 vote authorizing President Bush's invasion of Iraq.
Last week at the Grand Canyon, Kerry said he would have "voted to give the president the authority to go to war" even if he had known there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction -- Bush's original justification for war on Iraq.
Kerry explained that he believes a president should have the "authority" to go to war, and he voted accordingly. But he insisted that Bush subsequently misused the authority by rushing headlong into combat based on faulty intelligence about Saddam's weapons arsenal.
Kerry is mistaken on a key point. Under the U.S. Constitution, the president does not have that sole right to declare war. Despite its mindless default, that right still belongs to Congress.
Kerry has passed up several chances to distance himself from the Iraqi debacle. But instead he has left himself wide open to Bush's ridicule. What's he got left -- stem-cell research?
Bush had a field day smirking and mocking his political rival and telling the nation that he was "right" to attack Iraq, absence of weapons notwithstanding.
Bush has sarcastically told cheering Republican rallies, "After months of questioning my motives and even my credibility, Sen. Kerry now agrees with me."
"We did the right thing," Bush bragged. "And the world is better off for it."
The senator should have called Bush's hand months ago and laid it on the line after so much official deception. How could he say he would have voted for the 2002 war resolution after he and the whole world learned the rationale for the war was based on falsehoods?
Does Kerry realize that the U.S. invasion of Iraq without provocation violates the U.N. Charter and the Nuremberg Tribunal principles?
Kerry has a weak fallback position-- that he would have planned things differently before going to war and would have lined up more European allies. Knowing what they know now about the Bush fiasco, France and Germany are congratulating themselves for having the good sense to stay out of Iraq.
So Kerry has blown it big time, rising to Bush's bait and throwing away his ace in the hole -- Bush's shaky credibility on the profound question of war and peace.
Bush has yet to apologize for misleading the nation or to explain why he needed a war when Saddam's regime was tightly contained with sanctions, weapons inspections and U.S. patrolling of the "no-fly" zone.
Bush has no exit strategy or timetable for a troop withdrawal even under the facade of Iraqi sovereignty.
Kerry has talked about drawing down American forces and an eventual pullout.
But he could learn something from two previous wartime Republican presidential candidates who had a better take on the public pulse and won the White House.
In 1952 during the Korean War, Dwight D. Eisenhower made a campaign promise that he would "go to Korea" and end the bloodshed. He did go to Korea and the war ended with a cease-fire standoff months after his inauguration.
In 1968, Richard Nixon said he had a "plan" to end the Vietnam War and the voters, wanting peace, bought it. Nixon -- in part forced by Congress -- reduced the U.S. troop commitment to Vietnam, but U.S. forces were still there when Nixon was forced to resign from office in 1974 because of the Watergate scandal. But the war ended the following year.
These were not triumphal solutions but they did give Americans some hope of eventual escape from the two quagmires.
In 1964, a Los Angeles Times cartoon by famed Paul Conrad showed a pollster knocking on a door. A woman sticks her head out of a window and the pollster asks her voting preference: "President Johnson or Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz.?" She replies: "Who else have you got?"
That may be the fix some Americans are in again.
Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. E-mail: helent@hearstdc.com . Copyright 2004 Hearst Newspapers.

economic girlie men

I am not an economist and don't really read anything that vaugely resembles economic commentary, but this is good:

Girlie-men economics era dawns
Commentary: Arnold sheds new light on age-old debate

By David Callaway, CBS.MarketWatch.com
Last Update: 12:01 AM ET Sept. 2, 2004


SAN FRANCISCO (CBS.MW) -- Move over, Keynes. The era of girlie-men economic theory has begun.



Not since the 1936 publication of "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" split the academic world and changed the way governments look at their economies has such a weighty treatise been posited.

Yet California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger made it sound so simple in his speech at the Republican National Convention: There are no economic problems, only economic girlie-men.

It was only a brief mention in a longer, wider-ranging speech about something or other. But it struck the academic world and the financial markets like a bolt of lightning. At last the curtain of secrecy can be pulled back from the Fed, and Alan Greenspan can be exposed for the girlie-man he truly is.

Coming at a time when the stock market is facing one of its darkest hours of the year, it is particularly helpful.

The U.S. economic recovery has clearly stalled in the last few months, with Friday's employment numbers perhaps the most important government report of the presidential campaign season.

On top of that, the second major hurricane in a month is bearing down on Florida, what's left of the solvent airline industry is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, oil prices are back on the rise, tech stocks are hinging on Intel's (INTC: news, chart) midquarter forecast late Thursday, and we have just entered what is historically the worst month of the year for trading stocks. See Trading Strategies report.

But hey, that is such a girlie-man way to look at things.

What we need to do is to stop whining about unemployment and outsourcing, stop worrying about what the tax cuts of the last few years and the Iraq war have done to our deficit, and stop badmouthing this administration as it seeks to make America safer for CEOs and energy lobbyists.

In other words, start acting like men and focus on something else. A baseball game, perhaps.

Like most new economic theories, this one is sure to be challenged by academics and economic forecasters alike. How does it address the issue of price flexibility, for instance? What about the debate over the use of fiscal stimulus? And, perhaps most importantly, how does girlie-men economic theory prosper in a society that is half female?

Alas, Schwarzenegger did not expound on his theory, preferring instead to let the masses wallow in the beauty of its simplicity. But he struck a theme that is likely to be used again and again in coming weeks as the election campaign heats up.

Recession means expansion. War means safety. Power means respect. These are offshoots of the girlie-man economic theory to be sure, but each is a critical postulate in its own right, underscoring the basic theme of "just-listen-to-what-I -say-and-shut-up" that defines this political party.

The real question is whether the naysayers, as Schwarzenegger dubbed them, on Wall Street will wake up and listen in time to prevent another full-fledged bear market from erupting.

The rise of the girlie-men couldn't come at a worse time in the election cycle, which is why it was so important that the nation see this week that Schwarzenegger is there to save us, just like he rescued California last year from the manicured clutches of former Gov. "Girlie-Man" Gray Davis and his gang of free-spending liberals.

Unfortunately, like most economic and scientific theories, it could be years -- maybe decades -- before the value of girlie-men economics is ever actually proven, and the markets don't have time for that. With indexes such as S&P 500 ($SPX: news, chart) and the Dow Jones Industrial Average (INDU: news, chart) essentially flat going for the year to date, the election is likely to be the determining factor behind how the markets will finish the year.

Bets will be made by large and small investors in the next few weeks, with the economy the driving force behind not only how people trade, but also how they vote in November.

So Schwarzenegger's theory, while radical, is unlikely to override the more basic economic proposition that the majority of Americans will once again vote on election day based upon how much money is in their pockets -- or not.

David Callaway is editor-in-chief of CBS.MarketWatch.com