Tannishblog

 The NY Times reports US troops began building a 12 foot high, 3 mile long wall to divide Shiite and Sunni neighborhoods. Just like the Berlin Wall. US Commanders say “the wall is one of the centerpieces of a new strategy by coalition and Iraqi forces to break the cycle of sectarian violence.”

Residents see things differently:

A doctor in Adhamiya, Abu Hassan, said the wall would transform the residents into caged animals. “It’s unbelievable that they treat us in such an inhumane manner,” he said in a telephone interview. “They’re trying to isolate us from other parts of Baghdad. The hatred will be much greater between the two sects.”

“The Native Americans were treated better than us,” he added.

That last statement is a stretch by any measure; Indigenous Americans were subject to genocide. As bad as things are in Iraq, we haven’t quite gotten there - yet.

Nonetheless, one man’s wall is another man’s cage. I bet the US got the idea from Israel. Partitioning the Palestinians has worked so well…

Speaking of Israel, shouldn’t the Jews be protesting such aggressive segregation tactics? As I recall my history, the Warsaw ghettos were created to "protect" the Jewish population suffering increased hostilities at the time. We know how that story ended, too.

While the US continues to mouth platitudes regarding benchmarks of progress by Iraqi officials, they’re taking steps to create a permanent physical embodiment of sectarianism. Sunnis should well be enraged, they’re the ones who will stand at the checkpoints in order to travel to and from work or gather groceries. They are the ones who will look out their windows to a vista of concrete block and concertina wire and wonder - now that they’re all scrunched into the New Warsaw ghetto - when the rocketry will arrive. Given all that, wouldn’t this make these arbitrary benchmarks harder to achieve?

Perhaps the US is getting desperate. Might we be running out of options, grasping at tactical straws in light of the uncontrollable situation and a dearth of planning on our part? Perhaps we’re just going through pantomimes to placate an increasingly restless American public, failing presidential job ratings, and shouts of impeachments? Perhaps we’re not protecting a minority faction so much as walling ourselves in?

Four years ago and then some, the Bushniks created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) out of fear and the need to look like something was being done about their fear. Amorphous and veiled behind a blackout of news coverage and secrecy, this huge addition to our already vast bureaucratic behemoth has

Just for giggles, I searched the following phrase in Google to see all the great and wonderful things the Wizards of DHS have been doing for our country:

"What has the Department of Homeland Security done for you?"

This is the resulting page; one article that has little actual substance. I tried a different tack:

"accomplishments of the department of homeland security"

Much to my bemused un-surprise, the Greatest Search Engine Yet Created, after years of aggregating the collective knowledge of the Known Universe, found one page of entries. A grand total of seven items, most involving testimonies of DHS officials to congress after only the first year. At least one entry is a duplicate. Nothing since then.

Has congress not bothered to monitor the fledgling agency? Perhaps the information is part of the mountain of classified documents our secretive, paranoid administration holds so tightly. Whatever the cause, information about the DHS is not the the delectation of the masses.

I ask this: What has the DHS done for you? Name five clear accomplishments of the Department of Homeland Security? I can only think of one. The politically expedient and curiously convenient thermometer of Terror Alerts. (did you know in the new Windows Vista sidebar gadgetry you can get the latest terror alert downloaded right to your desktop?) It’s not like the DHS has hammered out a smooth protocol for airport security. Besides absorbing long-standing governmental agencies like a cancer gobbles up cells, or putting spin to the impossible and impractical "problems" the DHS was supposed to be tackling, (PDF) is there anything concrete the agency has done for the People of the United States?

Well? Do you feel safer?

What is that sound… Oh. Crickets.

Imagine the following scenario: After a pent up morning in the classroom, children burst from the school for recess. Several of the older kids group to play a game. But the same old games are becoming boring, so one child begins a new game by pretending to be president. Another pipes up to vie for VP, and soon the prominent roles are filled in this schoolyard administration.

Over the course of a few weeks, this game plays out. Policies are discussed. A war is planned and executed, causes invented, and the children recruit underclassmen to act out a battle.War is, after all, what governments do. Follow through limited, as the kids quickly loose interest.

At one point, a younger group of kids attempt to join the game, and are snubbed. Talk begins on building an imaginary fence to keep out the undesirables.

An election begins when two more vocal members disagree on policy. Sides are drawn and after a week of recess one-upmanship, a vote is taken. this leads to a protracted argument on cheating, but the child with the bully on his side eventually wins reelection, and losers sulk and start scheming together.

The newly reinstated president again plays at general while younger kids fight for him, but the battles are confusing and it’s hard to see who is winning. Talk begins about passing laws, but every initiative by the losing group is ignored by the winners. Meanwhile, the empowered few start cutting imaginary taxes because someone once heard parents complain about taxes. As the children lower taxes, they cut money for the things they don’t like: education, hospitals, improved roads and bridges, helping poor people.

One child heard on the news about a big storm somewhere, and this is folded into the play. The president quickly dismisses the story: "Who cares?" he said.

Another pipes up about his grandma getting help from the government for medicine, and the vice president speaks out against giving things away for free to old, sick people. Better they just die.

Talk eventually comes to teachers they don’t like. There are many of them. One child, in a desperate attempt at being noticed by the president, suggests firing them, and a list is soon made of the teachers that should go. Some of the other kids disagree and task the president about the idea. He just points to the small boy who thought the idea up, and the group starts picking on him.

Eventually, the game becomes stale, and the children look for other amusements. Their mock government dissolves. Unknown to them some younger kids, having overheard the game, start their own governments, and in time, the game becomes a permanent fixture in the arsenal of recess amusements. As some kids relocate to new schools, the idea of playground politics spreads, evolves, and becomes more sophisticated and treacherous as the kids constantly try to one-up the previous motions.

Meanwhile the first group grows up, attend college and seek careers - some in politics. Styles and aspirations developed on a gravel lot come back to influence their methods and motivations. Some things never change.

Is anyone you know Autistic? CNN reports over half a million adults are living with Autism in the United States. That number will increase as more children with the condition reach maturity. The Center for Disease control estimates that one child in 150 is affected.

None of us can imagine what it’s like. Thanks to YouTube, one adult with Autism has reached out to the world. Through her video "In My Language,", Amanda Baggs describes with elegance what its like to live in a world created for others - a stranger in a strange land, to borrow from Robert Heinlen. Also, she was featured on the "Anderson Cooper 360" show in CNN. The resulting interview, questions provided by audience members, allows the curious a peek into different mentality.

Q: There are three persons with autism in my family. How do you think an island, populated only by autistic persons such as yourself, would function?
Lawrence Decker, Floyd, Virginia

BAGGS: I don’t know. I don’t think I would want to live on an island with people of only one neurological configuration, no matter what it was.

A different neurological configuration: Is it a disease, or is it a mutation? That depends on your viewpoint. If you are in the majority in viewing the current state of humanity as paradigm, then any aberration is distasteful. Labeling an altered mental state a disease is facile, but is it accurate? Amanda clearly would argue to the contrary. As intimated by her video is it us who pay be deficient. Not versed in the science, I take the idea of mutation from my wife who, as a school social worker, has the opportunity to work first hand with Autistic children. In her efforts to do the best social work she can, she’s read up on the subject and tested theories in the kids she knows.

Autism is on the rise. As there’s no known "cure," and given the numbers of people involved, it may soon become as common as deafness, blindness, or any other "affliction." I hesitate to call Autism a disease, although it may bring on a lack of ease in unaffected people, and I ponder the possibility of a "cure." It may very well be like trying to cure a man of ethnicity.

What if autism is proven to be a mutation? What if there comes a day where there may be enough Autistics to become a voting bloc? How would the mainstream react? Greg Bear has written his take on similar issues, although he was careful not to stomp on real science by using Autism in his book: Darwin’s Children. I realize this is speculative fiction, but Sci Fi has been right before. It might be that humanity can learn learn from an altered state of reality. Most Autistics are non-violent, in the conventional sense. That’s a good start.

I've been trolling this week anything I find regarding Windows Vista. As part of a postpartum depression for dropping a chuck of money for what is essentially two DVD's (one of which is actually used,) I subconsciously gravitate to the I Hate Windows crowd. Most I could ignore, but one message in particular stood out because the word Zen is prominent in the blog's title. So I click to find out why Leo Won't Be Switching to Vista.

I feel bad, but I trolled him a bit about his attitude. Read the comments. To his credit, he was good-natured about it. Kudos for that.

It got me thinking: The whole computer operating system debate, Windows v Mac v Linux, is really about people's expectations. In fact the way people interact - or don't - with computers is about their expectations of the computing experience.

I'm old enough to remember Tandy's TRS-80, the first truly mass market personal computer. Several other quickly followed, but the early adapters had mixed feelings about these trendy new gadgets. Some people didn't mind learning a few tricks to use them, some were turned off by that.

Later, When the big OEM's emerged, marketing madmen were learning how to sell people on the concept of buying a machine that a person needs to learn how to use. Even today, that issue is being wrestled. These companies took a page out of the automotive industry and began sell their brand, then following up on the details of the tech. Imagine a typical conversation between neighbors:

"Is that a new car in your driveway?" One guy says leaning over the fence for a better look.

"Yep," came the reply, barely hiding pride.

"Looks nice. What kind is it?"

"It's a Jaguar."

No more needs saying. Neighbor number two has arrived. it's unlikely anyone will out-status this guy soon. Dell computers wanted that same dynamic to work for their brand: you went out and bought a Dell, not a Pentium III, 1.5 gigahertz with 512 mb RAM and a Radeon graphics card. But computers are not cars. They can't be sold like any previous product. In fact, there is no "one good way" to sell computers. that's why some sell software foremost; some sell the glitz. Some sell the whole package, and some prefer the components. It all depends on consumer expectation.

Many people, uninterested in the minutia of machinery, just want to take the thing home and plug it in like their TV. After all, it looks like one. (But computers never got as simple to use as a television set. As time progressed, the TV became more like a computer. Today, there's many more connections to be made on your new widescreen than "back in the day".)

Mac users seem to me to be in that category: Just turn the thing on and use it. As response, Apple's software gurus have consistently lead the way to more a intuitive User Interface. Microsoft (and everyone else) has forever played catch-up.

At the other end of the spectrum, the digital equivalent of grease monkeys embraced the hardware itself. To them, software was just what you did when the thing was assembled to prove how well it was built. They gravitated toward command-line programming languages that eventually lead to UNIX and Linux. In terms of point-and-click, these systems, while technically elegant, were way behind the ease-of-use trend.

Fast forward to today, and the two camps still stand between the same lines drawn in the proverbial sand. "That product sucks, this one's great." The truth lies somewhere in between, as truth is wont to do. All operating systems have flaws. The same can be said for all products created by humans. There are Pro's and Con's to, well, anything I can think of.

In terms of computers and human interface software, what you prefer depends largely on how you intend to use it, but also upon what you're willing to put up with. If you're looking for a stable, secure platform, Linux rules. If you want style, simplicity and artistic licence, Mac is your choice. If you want general business and communication, media and entertainment - read: games - "Hello, Microsoft".

Increasingly, the computer is becoming central to our lifestyles. It's only natural to assume it will become a central appliance in our households. Microsoft is ahead of that curve, wisely so. We can only guess what our grandchildren will expect out of their computing experiences. But expectations will continue to drive the industry.

I get my horoscope every day in an email, perhaps a residual habit from the seventies. I don’t take is too seriously, yet I sometimes get a kick our of it. Today’s message, however is weirdly prescient.

You need to dare to invite kindred spirits into your life, T[annish]. While your Scorpio nature makes you hesitant to participate in group activities, your interest in politics and philosophy would make you an ideal member of organizations devoted to these causes. What is holding you back? Are you afraid of being absorbed by the group? Only by taking a risk will you be able to fully participate in life.

For years I’ve build up a cocoon, armor against the harsh world. Only in the last few years have I opened up. Still, I’m very much the hermit. I keep very few people in my life. Anyone who frequents here will agree with the assertion of my interest in philosophy and politics (call the latter a morbid curiosity.) Finally, for the past year or so, I’ve entertained occasional thoughts of the previously unponderable: Joining a political grass roots campaign.

If I took horoscopes seriously, I would march out right now and do just that. But I don’t. This will make me ponder the issue further today, that’s all. Is it serendipity, or coincidence?

I’ve heard it said that bloggers should specialize to maximize readership. Something about search engine functions and results usually follow. Increased traffic is the ultimate goal, isn’t it? Every one wants to be like Kos.

Not really. While I would like a bit more people to visit regularly, I feel having hoards of readers to be a big responsibility. Soon, it would become a burden as my concern over continued edification, edutainment and enlightenment of virtual masses foreshadow my family life, work life, then life in general. I wish not to become a target for the likes of Bill O’Reilly.

Besides, I’m no specialist. I’m a well-rounded guy. If you could see me stomach these days, you’d agree. Lacking formal edu-ma-kation, I learn haphazardly of many subjects.  My father would say I possess a "smattering of ignorance," (but I’m showing off my issues again… ) Many things interest me, and I like to share them. Mostly, I like to write, to string words together about whatever comes to mind - stream of consciousness stuff. Even stupid things like this post.

If others read this I’m happy. If they return for more, I’m happier. Isn’t the point of life to pursue happiness? To anyone reading: Thank you.

One of the most challenging aspects of any adult life is child rearing. To spend years dealing with the consequences of our behavior, intended or unintended, is our primary existential quandary. Having and raising children is what gives life meaning. Ensuring your offspring has all the tools needed to succeed is of paramount importance.

Seeing as this is a central part of what is means to be an adult in society, one wonders why people are so unprepared for the job. What I've seen on the playground, in the malls, during vacations and everyday places like the grocery, I ponder the collective ignorance of parents. Often when I see a child misbehave in public, I look toward the parent and see them behaving badly as well. I guess they don't understand that a parent is the child's first role model.

Generally, people of all ages tend to act inappropriately. As I love to point out: "Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional." Many parents need to mature themselves.

As a Buddhist, being compassionate is of equal importance, and to instill that value in my offspring is vital. Happily, other people are attempting the same. CNN has an article for the newly expecting or the seasoned pro on how to raise a compassionate child. But the most important instruction is to be compassionate yourself. You children will naturally reflect the values you hold, whatever they may be.

Today is World AIDS Day. While America sleeps, tens of thousands of people are living with a highly transmittable disease of which we aren’t supposed to speak.

It’s sad to think that such a pervasive disease cannot get the airtime and attention given to breast cancer. I remember the outcry many years ago where a few prominent televangelists labeled AIDS "the gay disease," and summarily doomed any effort to combat the problem in the USA. Others of similar beliefs dismiss AIDS as a heavenly retribution for promiscuity. Or for poverty, as if that is ever a conscious choice. I can’t help wondering how those same people would react if their virginal daughters contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion, for example. Would they then believe their own rhetoric?

Meanwhile, over in the UK, they’re seeing RED and organizing fund raising in harmony with the single thing people share in all the affluent, industrialized nations: shopping. Buy a RED product, wear a red ribbon. Force the world to acknowledge a disease that affects us all.

While AIDS is the Disease That We Must Not Mention, breast cancer, by comparison, is widely publicized. Everybody worries about breast cancer these days although fewer women die from it than from AIDS. Even conservative ministers like tits, it seems.

Thanksgiving dinner wound down last night, and conversation resumed. A comment was made about cigarette smokers and soon we began discussing the ways various municipalities were using laws to curb smoking in public places. The overall tone was of acceptance. We are all non-smokers.

I piped up in my usual devil’s advocate, buck the trend style, that as a former puffer, I felt the trend was discriminatory. Americans are free to kill themselves if that’s what they want. The rebuttal (weak, I thought) was of the dangers second-hand smoke. Being the host, I felt unusual restraint and let the conversation turn. What I wanted to point out is how free non-smokers are to not frequent establishments that smokers prefer, to not associate with others who smoke if the habit is bothersome.

I wanted to point out that Americans need to get back to a culture of acceptance, inclusiveness and compassion of others. We’ve lost whatever meager gains we’ve made over the past fifty years toward a society modeled after a core belief in religious freedoms and the attendant mentality of acceptance of diversity. (Placeholder for deleted political dig.) As a Buddhist, I feel we need to remember the teachings of our founders during this weekend of National Pride.

Remember the "Great Melting Pot ™?" I’ve often quipped it’s more like a chunky stew, but lately it seems more like and oil-and-water mix. We need to get back to basics, get back to a compassionate, people-centric world of open minds, open hearts, and the understanding that others will do what we wish they wouldn’t - and that’s alright, too.