OneMind

I was watching MSBNC’s post-debate coverage on last night’s Democratic Presidential Candidate set-to when Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Constitution made a comment that sickened me.

She said that Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s statement and belief that he could end war for all time is “hopelessly naive.” None of the political pundits take Rep. Kucinich seriously, of course, because, after all, he’s “so far out of the mainstream.” But I wonder if Americans were asked if they wanted an end to all war in their lifetimes, how they’d respond. Whether or not you believe it can be accomplished, isn’t it a worthy goal?

Shame on you, Ms. Tucker. You have essentially declared yourself to be one who believes that war will of necessity always be with us. And so long as you and other media types and other politicians keep believing that, it will continue to be so. But why not become a more hopeful commentator? Why not, as we used to say in the 60′s, give peace a chance?

Microsoft is fighting a new battle on a 50-state front as proponents of open document standards attempt to convince legislatures to adopt laws that require the use of non-proprietary file formats for government documents.

The software behemoth sniffs out potential legislation that encourages states to use more accessible and open document formats like the Open Document Format (ODF) and they send in armies of lobbyists to convince lawmakers that their own Open XML is equally open and more robust. Interestingly, their robustness argument derives from the fact that the misnamed Open XML can read Microsoft proprietary formats better than ODF. This tacitly admits, of course, that MS has not been a willing participant in the ODF movement and has not made its document formats available to fit within the ODF specifications.

In other words, Microsoft wants lawmakers to belief Open XML is more open than ODF because Microsoft supports Open XML and not ODF. A pretty circular arugment from where I sit.

I admit to not having looked in detail at the specs for ODF or Open XML. But without looking, I can tell you one thing: Microsoft’s proprietary formats are bloated beyond all necessity and belief. I can only imagine and guess that Open XML is probably equally bloated if it has to read all the proprietary nonsense in a Word or Excel file.

The right answer to this problem is for legislation to require that document formats be open (including being managed by a true company-independent body) and that all applications being considered for license or purchase by the government be able to write to and read from these formats. Period.

My own take on tonight’s Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate on MS/NBC:

• I was completely put off by Richardson (who’s not only too conservative, but a sloppy thinker) and Gravel (who’s almost as out of touch with reality as Bush).
• I was disappointed in all of the candidates — Kucinich the least, perhaps — because they just didn’t answer the questions they were asked.
• The format of the debate was refreshing but hardly balanced.
• Obama was a huge disappointment. I really expected him to be smart, articulate, cutting-edge; he was more middle-of-the-road and seemed rehearsed to me most of the night.
• Kucinich was the only one besides Edwards who used the word “compassion” that I can recall.
• I thought it was a mistake for Kucinich, the “war is not an option” candidate who stands for peace and love, to get into Obama’s face in the only personal confrontation of the evening.
• Dodd and Biden were both more thoughtful and insightful than I’ve seen them previously. I don’t know if they’re hitting their stride or what, but they’re back on my radar, though still not in the top 3.

My top three are now, in order:

1. Dennis Kucinich
2. John Edwards
3. Barack Obama

Obama drops down one, Edwards moves up one.

But at least I no longer think Dodd or Biden would be a huge mistake.

Later Addition: On further reflection, Edwards’ very militant response to the question Brian Williams posed about how to respond to a nuclear attack on America concerns me. Pretty knee-jerk and, it seems to me, a bit of a pander.

I wonder if writing a usable, intelligent printer driver is so hard that nobody has ever figured out how to do it or if the people writing them never encounter printer problems.

Tonight, I was printing a medium-sized (87-page) document, mostly in black, when my black ink cartridge ran out. No big deal. I had a spare. So I opened the printer hood, replaced the cartridge, closed the lid and pressed the ink button so the printer would know it had a new cartridge.

Several moments later, after the printer ground its way through whatever noisy testing or initialization it had to do, it started to print again. But the sheet jammed. Thereafter, there was no getting the printer to restart the job. I finally had to reboot my machine (an OS X box I almost never have to reboot except when a printer screws up or I take the system elsewhere) to get it to restart.

This can’t be that hard. There’s a queue. Printing had to stop part-way through the queue. The problem has gone away. Resume the queue. Sheesh.

During the past few weeks I’ve returned to my long-time but long-dormant interest in hard science fiction. I’ve read numerous novels in that time, including three of Terry Pratchett’s hysterical satires in his Discworld series (“Going Postal”, “Thud!”, and “Small Gods”), Larry Niven’s hauntingly elusive “Integral Trees”, and a few others.

But none of them has been quite as totally satisfying as two books I’ve read by Stephen Baxter: “Manifold: Time” and “Manifold: Space”. This is one terrific writer whose sweep and imagination are really breath-taking. He has taken his place alongside Isaac Asimov, Clifford D. Simak and Arthur C. Clarke in the small pantheon of hard-sfers I’ve read over the decades and just thoroughly enjoyed.

Are there other contemporary hard s-f writers you’d compare favorably to Baxter? I’d sure like to hear about them.

Walter Shapiro has suggested in an article at Salon.com today, that we repeal the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. He acknowledges the likelihood of such an action is remote at the moment but suggests that if we begin to discuss the idea seriously, we could get to a repeal in a generation or so.

Repealing the Second Amendment would certainly bring into focus the real issues in gun control, whereas as long as the amendment remains in force, every debate and discussion over any move to restrict gun ownership gets hammered into submission and the victory goes to the tiny minority who own and support the unregulated ownership of guns.

I agree with Mr. Shapiro. And I don’t think repealing the amendment is such a radical idea when the amendment itself is seen in its historical context. Have you read the amendment in its entirety lately? If not, here it is:

(Read more to see the amendment and further historical/legal analysis).

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights with a desired outcome attached to it. The justification or rationale for the Second Amendment’s inclusion in the Bill of Rights is stated clearly for all to see. It is intended to ensure that a well-regulated militia can be maintained in order to secure a free State. The words “militia” and “State” are crucial and of very limited meaning and scope in the vernacular of the framers of the Constitution. In fact, we can get a clue about the meaning of Militia by reading the Fifth Amendment. There, persons on actual active service in a Militia (clearly a state military organization) are exempted from being tried for particular crimes without a Grand Jury indictment. Clearly the word “Militia” (which is capitalized in both cases) does not mean and cannot reasonably be construed to mean civlians in defense of their homes or lives, let alone in the pursuit of hunting animals or other humans.

Clearly there is no longer a need for state Militias to exist to ensure the “security of a free State.” The very notion harkens to a time when the national government was small, weak and physically incapable of defending an incursion into a state. Today, with military bases in every state and with every state having adjunct services such as Reserves and National Guard, the need for the right to bear arms must rest on some other rationale.

If you listen carefully to the NRA and its members, you’ll find that their real justification for the extension of the Second Amendment into private life has two bases. First, they say that since criminals have (illegal) access to guns, they need them to defend themselves and their families. But although the right to self-defense is a long-standing principle of law, the right to own guns in pursuit of that objective is not a Constitutional guarantee. Second, they claim that private citizens need guns to prevent the national or state (or presumably local) government from forcibly interfering with their rights. In other words, they claim a need for legal weapons to counter what would presuambly be an illegal coup or similar undertaking.

I find the self-defense claim plausible but suggest that we don’t need a badly outdated Second Amendment to permit its realization. And I find the defense-against-govenrment idea ludicrous and absurd, even in times like these when I distrust those in power more than at any other time in my lifetime.

So I think a meaningful public debate on repealing the Second Amendment is a refreshing and useful idea. I’d like to see it pursued.

Back when I worked at Salon.com in the magazine’s formative first year, one of the editors I always found most insightful and creative was Gary Kamiya. So I trust what he says and often admire the way he says it. Salon.com remains a daily read for me.

Today, Kamiya lambastes PBS for a new series entitled “America at a Crossroads” that debuted last night. The series consists of 12 hours of content including 11 independently produced films. It purports to be an attempt to sort out the “connection” between Islam and 9/11. Gary says the problem is that the series is fatally flawed because it never examines the deeply underlying political context behind what he calls “Muslim rage at the West.”

I haven’t seen the series but if what Gary says is right — and I suspect it is, just based on his reputation — then PBS is demonstrating a hard right turn here. That, in turn, continues a recent trend on the part of the public network to shed its image as a leftist media outlet, a charge that has never been true at the national level though it is certainly true of some local PBS stations.

A wire service story this morning plays the Republican Party line about the choices Democrats face after President Bush hampers his own private war by vetoing spending legislation that isn’t to his liking.

The article says, “The debate is likely to expose fissures among Democrats, who remain divided on whether to cut off money for the unpopular war and risk leaving troops in the lurch.”

Typical of the media, the reporter wants to find something unpleasant to say about the subject of her piece. I don’t see Democrats as “divided” on the issue of “leaving troops in the lurch.” Not a single Democrat — even one of my heros, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) who has the most immediate funding cut-off plan on the table — wants to leave the troops in the lurch and it is irresponsible of the AP to say that any Democrat wants this outcome.

What the Democrats are trying to do is to prevent Bush from further escalating and unnecessarily extending his Iraq misadventure, and that, I submit, is their right and proper role. And the power of the purse granted to them under the Constitution is the right and proper vehicle for accomplishing that objective. Every de-funding plan or approach I’ve heard gives the President up to a year to get the troops out of there safely, providing funding not only for their security during the redeployment but also to fund what Democrats see as legitimate military efforts including training Iraqi troops to take over the combat role.

To characterize the Democrats as being in any part interested in leaving defenseless military foces on the ground in Iraq unsupported is irresponsible and disgusting.

San Jose Mercury News TV critic Charlie McCollum takes the producers of Fox’s one-time hit show ’24′ to task for last week’s abrupt story line shift. In a season that has easily been the show’s weakest yet, the writers, in an apparent attempt to get out of the ugly hole they dug for themselves, brought the main plot line to an abrupt halt and re-introduced a sympathetic character from 2006. Suddenly, Jack Bauer goes from chasing terrorists in America (echoes of “fighting them there so we won’t have to fight them here”) to having to rescue his old flame Audrey Raines from the Chinese who had captured him at the end of the previous season.

Makes no sense. I’m not at all sure I’m even going to watch the remaining seven episodes of this show, which is getting long in the tooth before it had to. With two or three exceptions, the first 17 episodes of this year’s series have been dull, repetitive, anti-climactic and beyond the credulity even to the degree I was willing to suspend disbelief.

Combine that with the series’ continuing bull-headedness about torture — a technique that is used repeatedly and almost always with “good” results — and I’m beginning to think it’s time for me to find something else to do on Monday nights. If only it were football season.

An Indonesian Catholic priest has urged his countrymen to develop spiritual beliefs that overcome the walls and borders placed between religions when their adherents believe they have all of the entire truth. In a pluralistic society, Father Philipus Tule argues, adhering to a belief that there is a single “right way” leads to intolerance. He pointed out that the Second Vatican Council of the Roman Catholic Church concluded that “There is salvation outside the Church.”

As an active member of the Interfaith Alliance and a local interfaith worker, I am greatly encouraged by Fr. Tule’s comments. Particularly at a time when Islam is being misrepresented and misunderstood by many individuals for socio-political reasons, it is important for voices of interreligious communication and understanding be heard.