Happy Halloween everyone! As with every Tuesday, The Art of Getting By posts a question and I repost and answer it here on most Wednesdays. This week’s question is about fear, in honor of the holiday.

What is the scariest (or some of the scariest) experiences you have ever had?

You can tell me about things that were scary in the moment, but ended up being no big deal in the grand scheme of things or you can go for the real deal type of scares. Basically anything that is scary that you have to share works just fine.

As those who are close to me know, I don’t exactly have a healthy relationship with fear. The most terrifying experiences in my life are somewhat random, very irrational, and quite personal. For those reasons, I am going to simply relate a trivial example of fear I experienced.

I don’t remember how old I was, but it was sometime around middle school. I had a bizarre nightmare. It was perfectly normal at first. In the dream, I was walking down a street in my previous neighborhood that I knew well on a sunny day lost in my own thoughts. As I walked around a car that was parked partially blocking the sidewalk, I heard someone shout ‘Now!’ I turned my head and saw a ghostly figure jump out at me carrying a wooden club poised to strike. The ghost had the face of a kid who lived in the neighborhood, but he had no legs, was floating, and was pure white with sharp black outlines. This, of course startled me. I woke up very suddenly sat bolt upright in bed. My eyes were wide open and I could see my dark room, but there, directly in front of me was the ghost, just as it looked in my dream, floating motionless and staring at me angrily. Slowly, it began to shrink smaller and smaller until it disappeared completely.

In hindsight, I obviously had not fully woken up, but at the time I had no way of knowing that. It was very unsettling.

The next candidate in my The Issues According to a Candidate’s Website series is Democratic hopeful Barack Obama. His issues page is cleanly organized with a brief synopsis of sixteen issues. Each has a link to a more detailed description of Obama’s position on that issue. As with others in this series, I’ll will list the issues in the order that they appear on the website, summarize the candidate’s position, and offer my opinions.

Strengthening America Overseas: Obama addresses many topics under this heading. As comes as no surprise, security is the first thing mentioned. He lists a five-prong approach to security: bring a responsible end to the Iraq War, rebuild and transform the military to address 21st century challenges, prevent the spread of WMDs, renew our alliances, and finally, strengthen impoverished, weak, and ungoverned countries.

He goes on to note the ways he has addressed security issues as a congressman. These include spread of conventional weapons through the bi-partisan Nunn-Lugar initiative, the potential Avian Flu Pandemic, the conflict in Congo, the Darfur Genocide, and former Liberian President Charles Taylor. He emphasizes the bipartisan nature of most of these efforts.

All and all, it’s nice to see an expansive approach to our security and not just fighting terrorism (a massively over-emphasized problem in my opinion) and securing our boarders. He seems to recognize that allies, reputation, and assistance for those in need can be used as well.

Plan to End the Iraq War: Obama has been on record since 2002 as opposing the Iraq war. As his website notes, in a speech given that year as an Illinois State Senator he said that the war would become “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences.” He was right. Unfortunately, he goes on to propose a phased withdraw from Iraq ending at the close of ’08. While a phased withdraw may be possible to have a staged withdraw of combat troops, it is naïve to believe that we can be out of Iraq in just over a year. And even if we do end our military occupation, we will likely have to have a significant presence of some kind if Iraq is to succeed at becoming a relatively peaceful, self-governed country.

Read the rest of this entry »

It’s time for another weekly question. Once again, I will defer to Janet’s wonderful series, Tell It To Me Tuesday (TITMT) over on her blog, The Art of Getting By. Here it is straight from her site:

What is your type? Or in other words, what qualities are you (or have you) been drawn to in the opposite sex? Same sex also applies. I am nothing if not an equal opportunity TITMT’er.

Seeing as I am married and that my wife reads my blog, I had best describe her . In all seriousness, this isn’t an easy question because I am male. For good or ill, I am like most males. I notice physical appearances first. I know this isn’t PC, but believe this is the way males are ‘built’. So I’ll start with what initially attracts me to women and then describe the qualities that attract me on a more long-term basis.

When it comes to looks that I’m attracted to, I’m pretty much an average human male; just about dead-center of the bell curve. I like thin, young women with nice skin and good curves. *Yawn*, I know. I have a few particular preferences as well, but I won’t go into details.

Now for the stuff that society tells me should really matter: non-physical attributes. You know, the things that make a person who they are. In the long run, I think that these attributes are more important, especially for healthy, long-term attraction. First, I like easy conversationalists. I’m not the best at making small talk and women who can do this both impress me and make me feel more at ease. Next to that, I like smarts! Small talk is fine at first, but if that is all someone can talk about, I get bored fast. I also like a certain level of unselfconsciousness. I’m a pretty goofy guy and like women who can play along with me without being embarrassed. Other than having some common interests, there a many, many small things I find attractive in a personality: sense of humor, shared values, willing to try new things, and so on.

Unrealistic expectations you say? Especially for a shy guy with average looks and poor social skills. But you underestimate my ridiculously good luck! I found all that and much, much more in my wife (of five years now), Jess! Somehow I’ve tricked her into thinking that I’m an attractive and charming guy. Either that or she tells me all the lies I want to hear. Either way, I couldn’t be happier.

I’ve been playing around with the idea of doing CD reviews on my blog for a while now but struggled over how I should do it. Should I review only new CDs? Should I carefully select CDs from the past that I love? Should they follow a theme or be limited to a genre?

I finally decide on a cop-out. I’m proud(ish) to introduce the new series Sid’s Random Compact Disk, or SRCD for short. In this series, I’ll occasionally put my iTunes or iPod on random and listen to the first CD that comes up and review it here. This method of CD selection is not meant to be exclusive. I still might insert a new CD review (SNCD) or a carefully-selected CD review (SCSCD) and you’ll just have to adjust to my arbitrary whim .

First up on SRCD is the self-titled release from one of my favorite bands, Clan of Xymox (or just Xymox, depending on the release). Clan of Xymox is the brainchild of Netherlanders Ronny Moorings, vocals and guitar, and Anka Wolbert (Mojca), bass and vocals. Their debut was first released as a limited LP entitled Subsequent Pleasures in 1981. It’s production and song line-up was greatly improved and given full release as Clan of Xymox in 1985. They helped define (and in my opinion, perfected) the 1980′s goth-rock genre, compete with drum machines and simple synth sounds and appropriate wardrobe.

This release features very structured, mechanical drums and simple base lines coupled with distant and echoey vocals and guitar. Ronny took most of the singing responsibilities on this album, a responsibility it sounds as though he was reluctant to embrace. The slightly off-pitch and sometimes nasal style gave the already dark songs a type of desperation similar to that of Ian Curtis. I’m not sure that the similarity is entirely coincidental. Mojca’s singing and bass guitar talents are best displayed on the song 7th Time.

Sometimes the desperation hits an emotional peak through the vocals, like on Stumble and Fall, where Ronny laments “I never saw you” again and again. The same effect is achieved on Cry in the Wind via a layered guitar solo. At the end of that song, Ronny plays like it’s the last thing he gets to do on this earth.

The CD takes a break from it’s dark mood a little on the vocally-minimal single Stranger, which manages to be almost poppy. The highly rhythmic bass dances through the song while the drums sound like a continually morphing typewriter.

About the only thing bad that I can say about this particular release is that some of the ballads sound a bit like filler. The CD would stand just fine with the omission of Equal Ways (the last minute and a half are really good) and No Human Can Drown which makes a disappointing conclusion to an otherwise excellent CD. After listening to Clan of Xymox, one may also be left wondering how this music would sound with modern sounds and production sensibilities. There is no need to! Just pick yourself up a copy of their 2001 release, Notes from the Underground, and hear it for yourself!

Here’s part two of The Issues According to Romney’s Website. In Part I, I made it half way through the first issue, which forms the heart of outlining Mitt Romney’s position. Under this issue, Strategy for a Stronger America, Romney lists ten challenges. I’ll continue with challenge six.

Challenge #6 is “Ending Our Dependence On Foreign Oil”. He claims that this should be top priority for the president yet it is challenge six on his list. Apparently, preparing to invade Iran is more important to him. Still, he does recognizes that energy independence is good policy for our economy and security, and even though he never directly states it, our environment as well. His solutions include increased research not only into alternatives to oil, but more efficient storage and distribution as well, promoting nuclear power, and increasing domestic production. Look out ANWR, Romney’s coming for you! I would like to see ‘promoting domestic conservation of energy’ added to his list.

Challenge #7 is “Curbing Out Of Control Federal Spending”. Unless it’s on the military, of course (see challenge #1). No need to worry Haliburton, Blackwater, Boeing, GE, Rytheon, and all you other military-oriented government contractors, your income is safe in Romney’s hands. He wants to veto every bill that increases non defense spending beyond 1% below inflation, eliminate spending programs deemed redundant, ineffective, and/or inefficient, authorize the president to spend up to 25% less than appropriated by congress, and impose super-majority congressional consensus on all tax hike bills. All of which would help balance the federal budget but all of which are unnecessary as Clinton demonstrated when he was president. All it seems to take is to not invade foreign countries. Romney also wants the line-item veto ostensibly to selectively veto spending portions of bills. Really I see this as further adding powers to an already too powerful imperial presidency.

Challenge #8 is “Ending the Tide of Illegal Immigrants”. The Mexicans are coming! The Mexicans are coming! After ringing the alarm bell and publishing a completely illegible chart presumably showing a disturbing increase in illegal immigration, Romney outlines his plan to deal with this challenge. First, he wants to build the Great Wall of America along the Mexican boarder, of course. This will be as ineffective as it will be expensive. Since this counts as ‘defense spending’ in Romney’s books, it’s not subject to the spending limits suggest in his response to challenge 7. Also, he wants a biometrically-enabled id card system for all non-citizens tied to a national database so that employers can quickly establish the legality of every employee. Who’s going to pay for it? Based on his tax cut plans, the middle class. His punitive plans include ‘punishing’ sanctuary cities that tolerate illegal immigrants and enforcing existing laws. Lastly, and this is the last thing he wants to do to alleviate illegal immigration, is encourage legal immigration. This would be my first response, to lower the barriers to immigration, especially with border countries. The fact that this is last on Romney’s list I think reveals his true attitude to foreigners.

Read the rest of this entry »

Here’s this week’s TITMT, reposted a wee bit late, from Janet’s The Art of Getting By. It’s an easy one for me this week as it doesn’t apply to me. It does, however, apply to some of you.

What are your favorite new fall shows so far and why do you like them? And in returning favorites fashion there’s a second part to the question. What are your favorite shows that keep coming back for more and why are you happy they are still around?

The reason it is easy for me to answer is because, other than sports, I don’t really watch TV. Don’t get me wrong, I do watch television shows, but I watch them on DVD. Thus I never watch television shows as they are released, but about nine months later when the entire season is available on DVD. Even then, I only watch a few shows. I just finished watching the first three seasons of The Office. Season 2 was really good. The other two were only decent. Also I’m up to season 6 of South Park

Why watch television this way? Three reasons: 1) no commercials, 2) watch shows on my schedule, and 3) can watch as many as I’d like in a row. Can’t wait to find out what happens next on the next episode? No need to wait a week, simply keep watching! There would be a fourth advantage if I didn’t get cable for sports. DVD’s of a couple select shows is cheaper than cable. Another minor advantage is that I don’t have to sift through the bad shows to find the good ones. I can find out which are the good ones and buy them after the fact. The obvious disadvantage is that I have to wait nine months to even begin watching the first episode. Since I don’t care all that much about TV, I’m okay with that.

Today, I looked at Mitt Romney’s website. He has an ‘Issues Watch’ section that list several items. Here they are, summarized and editorialized in the order they appear on that webpage.

Strategy for a Stronger America: This issue is addressed in the form of a 68-page PDF download! Granted, all of page 4 consists of a large picture of himself speaking in front of an American flag so large, that fewer than half it’s stripes can be seen. Regardless, this is going to be a long post. To make it a little easier, I’ll break it up into two parts.

Chapter One is a speech Romney gave to the Conservative Political Action Conference in May of this year, and it immediately got me seething. I’m trying to keep in mind that his audience is purely conservative given in a year when he needs to win over the Republican core, but still, I loathe his politics. He’s a God-and-Country conservative who believes that non-religious citizens, homosexuals, and even many single parents aren’t ‘strong’ Americans. Most telling is this line, “The American people are the source of our strength: hard working, educated, skilled, family-oriented, willing to sacrifice for their family and their country, God-fearing, freedom-loving American people.” Lines like this reveal why conservatives of Romney’s stripe feel justified in disenfranchising minorities and the poor; they don’t contribute to making America ‘strong’.

The rest of the document is split up into ten “Challenges” interspersed with more of Romney’s comments from speaking engagements. From here on out, I’ll focus only on the “Challenges” in this document. If others would be willing to read the other sections and comment on them, I’d be very appreciative.

Challege #1 is “Keeping Americans Safe at Home and Abroad”. One full page is dedicated to complaining about the military cuts that occurred after the Cold War. Instead of recognizing the sound reasoning for this, he treats it like it was a mistake (he, of course, blames Clinton despite the fact that congress was Republican at the time). He wants to increase the size of the military by 100,000 troops and increase military spending to 4% GDP! The only reason to want such a large army is to be able to conduct preemptive, foreign wars. His response to this “challenge” is code for “Let’s invade Iran next.” He also wants to consolidate the power of our civilian defense institutions (the CIA, DHS, FBI, etc.) and streamline the chain of command. Presumably, he, as president, would be at the top of this command chain. This is just continuation of Bush’s policy of building an imperial presidency that has already a mockery of the balance of powers set up in the US Constitution.

Read the rest of this entry »

I found a neat little gadget for my Google homepage that provides recommendations from across the web based on my Google search history. As will come as no surprise to most of you, I get a lot of religious and atheist-related links. One of the recommendations I received today was a blog post by Dinesh D’Souza call A Challenge to Believers–and Unbelievers. Well I’m an unbeliever and I like challenges, which is precisely why I read Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton and am currently reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis (thanks Scott). I’ll post my thoughts on that in comparison to The End of Faith by Sam Harris when I finish reading them.

So I read his Mr. D’Souza’s post. I was disappointed that the post was largely a plug for his newest book, What’s So Great About Christianity. But his post was not without content; content that largely exasperated me to the point of blogging about it. The book, and thus his post, is in reaction to the New Atheists and their entry into public discourse. Like the New Atheists, D’Souza rejects Stephen J. Gould’s Nonoverlapping Magisteria (NOMA) that neatly separates science and religion into categories that are not in conflict.

It is after this initial agreement that science and religion are in conflict that D’Souza’s misrepresentations begin. Along with most religious apologists, he starts by unfairly vilifying the New Atheists. This is his characterization of them:

“They want to monopolize the public square and to expel Christians from it. They want political questions like abortion to be divorced from religious and moral claims. They want to control the school curricula, so that they can promote a secular ideology and undermine Christianity. They want to discredit the factual claims of religion, and they want to convince the rest of society that Christianity is not only mistaken but also evil. They blame religion for the crimes of history and for the ongoing conflicts in the world today. In short, they want to make religion-and especially the Christian religion-disappear from the face of the earth.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Janet over at The Art of Getting By has a new Tell It to Me Tuesday. This week is another music question, but one I wouldn’t think to ask.

What are your favorite hair band songs of all time and why?

I really don’t care for most hair-bands. Some of the hits are good for nostalgia but little else. Pour Some Sugar on Me by Def Leopard and just about any hit by Bon Jovi qualify under this category. One I truly like would be Empire, the pro-authoritarian, anti-science song by Queensryche. Listening to it now, it sounds kind of silly like the other hair-band hits and it lyrics are very opposed to my politics yet I can’t help but like this little rocker. On the release of the same title, there is also a nice ballad that’s worth listening to entitled Silent Lucidity.

Next in my series Issues According to a Candidate’s Website is Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Her ‘issues’ webpage can be found here. It is neatly organized into ten issues, each with a brief description and a link to a more detailed position. What follows is a synopsis of Clinton’s position on each issue as well as my opinion of her position.

Strengthening the Middle Class: Clinton aims to increase the size and the status of the middle class. She what she intends to do is conveniently listed in bullet points on her website:

• Make health care affordable and accessible to every American.
• Reduce the cost of energy and make us energy independent.
• Expand access to affordable, high-quality child care.
• Make college more affordable.
• Protect families from predatory lenders and help them avoid foreclosures.
• Increase the minimum wage.
• Create good jobs with good wages to expand the middle class.
• Balance the federal budget so we don’t pass today’s massive debts to the next generation.
• Reward savings, protect pensions, and provide greater retirement security.

Unfortunately, no detail is given on how she’d achieve these goals. These are laudable goals indeed, but at what cost? Who’s taxes will increase and by how much? Can these goals be achieved in parallel with a balanced budget while ensuring the continuous funding of Social Security?

Providing Affordable and Accessible Health Care: The goals of Clinton’s health care plan is to make it affordable, available even to those with pre-existing conditions, and reliable even to those who switch jobs. The program will be optional (though the taxes may not be), and tax credits will be used to help premium affordability. Tax credits would also be given to small business that offer health care (I’d like to see minimum standard requirements for the plan). Lastly, the plan would disallow insurers from denying coverage and from dropping those who pay the premiums. This, of course would increase the risk of the insurers and thus increase the price.

Read the rest of this entry »