Holy Cow! He's already *seven* months old! Here's another shot I took of him on the day he turned six months (because I haven't processed the more recent photos yet):

Love him! Love him!

I've been meaning for a couple of years now to post a little ditty here about one of my favorite authors, Roger Ebert. He is one of the most important 'men of letters' writing in America today.

You may remember him as one of the thumbs up/thumbs down reviewers from TV's movie-review programs "Siskel & Ebert" or "Ebert & Roeper". But he's been a newspaper man for a few decades in Chicago, and his work has been online for the last several years. I visit his site regularly (rogerebert.com) and catch up as much as I can from the archives in addition to the new stuff that's posted. Mr. Ebert and I often disagree in matters of taste as well as politics, but I enjoy reading his work immensely.

Ebert has a phrase that he likes to employ when discussing a movie that has a particular bent; he'll remind us that "a movie is not about what it is about; it is about how it is about it." This is a profound thought, and it bears consideration. For the sake of argument, think about the movies "The Godfather" and "Analyze This". Among other things, both are ostensibly about how hard it is to be a crime family. But how they go about showing that is what makes them the (very different) movies they are.

This is all by way of saying that similarly, Ebert's movie reviews are not about the movies he's reviewing; they are about how they are about them. This is what makes his writing so much fun. His reviews and essays are multi-layered.

Take, for example, his review of "The Aristocrats," a movie featuring a large number of different comedians telling the same joke. Ebert starts his review by commenting on the nature of different kinds of humor (the quick and the slow build-up), then takes a series of quick snips at pieces of the movie. His review then ends with a killer punch-line, that reveals that the whole review was a slow build-up all along. Brilliant!

(As a former producer of a comedy radio show, I was put on guard when he states early in his review of "The Aristocrats" words to the effect that, "I know something about humor." Echoes of "Good Morning Vietnam" rang through my head. But when I got to his punch line, he had me convinced.)

Alas, my post today is not really about why I enjoy Ebert's writing so much. But take my word for it; you should go read him.

Mr. Ebert spent a couple of years recuperating from surgery complications that nearly ended his life. He still is unable to eat or speak (so yes, his television days appear to be behind him at present and may well stay that way, and yes, he is much thinner than the guy you might remember seeing on TV), but he is back at work, writing as if there were no tomorrow. During his medical ordeal, a movie called "Expelled" came out that, in Michael Moore-ish fashion, creatively mixed fact and fiction to claim that Intelligent Design proponents were being unfairly treated by Big Science.

As Ebert resumed writing, he was frequently pestered to write a review of this pseudo-documentary. He recently posted his response, not within his formal movie reviews on the Chicago Sun-Times sponsored site, but on his personal blog here.

In my opinion, the blog entry stumbles out of the gate, but once he picks up steam, he hits it out of the park. (How many metaphors can I mix in one sentence? My record so far is tied at three.) You should read it. Go ahead. I'll wait.

As you'll notice, he allows comments to be posted. What inspired me to write tonight was a series of comments that appeared below this particular entry. Keep in mind, his essay was about the movie Expelled and, in particular, the intellectual dishonesty that Ben Stein and the movie's producers employed in claiming that Intelligent Design was anything other than a cover for religious dogma. That was the whole point of Ebert's essay.

He often notes the use of the "excluded middle;" the failure of the movie's producers to entertain the notion that some people can be religious and still believe that evolution works the way scientists describe. What I found fascinating was how several commenters (commentors?) completely missed the point of Ebert's essay and went straight to the same "excluded middle" assumptions by begging the question, "What is the meaning of life if we're all just the result of a bunch of chemical interactions?"

Understanding biological evolution has nothing to do with resolving philosophical or, for that matter, religious conundrums. Ebert's review did not take a position on religion (although, if I recall correctly, he has stated elsewhere in his writing that he believes we are more than just a bundle of chemical reactions). Religion wasn't the point. Intellectual dishonesty in a movie that claimed to be a documentary was the point.

But I feel compelled to address the little philosophical conundrum that those commenters posed, because I hate, hate, hate crimes against logic. The commenters in question assume that subscribing to the concept of biological evolution necessarily means believing that we are nothing more than a bundle of chemical impulses. Therefore, they further deduce from this faulty assumption, people who agree with evolution have no ends worthy of pursuing; "no heart to love / no evil to rise up above," etc. If we accept the theory of evolution as demonstrated, then our lives hold no value and we hold no faith but greed.

These responses completely missed the point of Ebert's take on the movie, they completely miss the point of scientific inquiry, and they insultingly miss the point of logic. They also assume that atheists (as if everyone who understands evolution must therefore be an atheist) don't feel emotions, engage in morality, or hold values. Which begs a question that's interesting to ponder:

If this is all there is -- if we get one shot at life, and there's nothing left of our consciousness once our brain stops working -- then isn't this life that much more precious than if we instead assumed that life is never ending? Isn't the atheist who dies for a cause more noble than the believer who expects that there will be rewards in the Great Beyond? Isn't triumphing over evil all the more urgent if we know that there are no second chances to get it right? And likewise, aren't we less likely to strap a bomb to our chest or commandeer an airplane on a murder/suicide mission if we are assured that what waits for us "on the other side" is not our own personal paradise, but instead... nothing?

It seems to me that life is precious, no matter which side of the philosophical or theological fences you find yourself standing.

Well, we have a new President-Elect. And yes, I'll continue my earlier promised (serious) political discussion soon. In the meantime, it's time to recognize that humor will never be the same now that we have Barack Obama as our newly elected President-to-be.

In the spirit of getting the ball rolling, I present to you my list of...

Top Ten "How Many President-elect Obamas Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb?" Jokes As Told By...

• Barack Obama: "One. And I'll set up the committee to look into that change on Day One."
  
• John McCain: "One. That One."
  
• Hillary Clinton: "None. He's not experienced enough to change a lightbulb."
  
• Joe Biden: "One. But he'll need my help."
  
• Sarah Palin: "All of them!"
  
• George W. Bush: "It's too early to talk about numbers for lightbulbification."
  
• The Cast of Saturday Night Live: "Shhh! We can't make jokes about the Chosen One!"
  
• Bill Clinton: "I did not screw in that light bulb. Or anywhere else, for that matter."
  
• Rush Limbaugh: "You see? Barney Frank *broke* that light bulb in the first place!"
  
• Gloria Steinem: "THAT'S STILL NOT FUNNY!"

Here is the weather forecast for the greater Seattle Metropolitan area:

This morning and afternoon, cool with light rain showers. Highs in the lower 50s.

This evening and overnight, cooler with light rain showers. Lows in the mid to lower 40s.

Chance of precipitation one hundred percent.

Extended outlook:

Tomorrow: the same.

The Day After Tomorrow: the same.

The Rest of The Week: the same.

The Rest of the Month: Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

The Rest of the Year: the same, with highs slowly dropping to the mid-40s and lows to the mid-30s. Some snow in higher elevations.

Long-Range Forecast:

From early January through mid-April: the same, with highs eventually increasing to the mid-50s and lows to the mid-40s. Snow in higher elevations will taper off in mid-March.

For all my peeps out there on the Innernets, please give me your thoughts on this most important question.

Facebook: yes or no? Discuss.

As readers of my blog will note, I often (although not always) make light of complicated or troublesome topics in order to drive home to a particular point.

A couple of days ago, at the request of a friend of mine, I drew attention to "World Diabetes Day". I hadn't even been aware, until I received her e-mail, that there was such a day. And yet, the topic is of particular concern to me for a number of reasons. As I am often wont to do, I eased into the discussion on my website with my usual attempt at a light touch. Once I started talking about Type 1, I got a bit heavier. It's possible that maybe, just maybe, by implication, I was making it appear that Type 2 is a walk in the park by comparison, which it is not.

One thing I mentioned is that Type 2 can be managed by lifestyle choices, often in combination with drugs. The emphasis here, however, should be the word "managed." It cannot, at present, be cured. It does not go away. The disease (and its treatments) produce a number of complications and undesirable side-effects.

A relative of mine who occasionally is kind enough to read my musings here and post his thoughts contributed a comment to my previous post on the subject, and I'm repeating it here because it bears repeating:

"Type I & II are both terminal. Type II is very difficult for me. It is not the 3 or 4 shots a day, its what it does to your body long term even when it is under control. It never gets any better." --Tony

Either way, thank you for indulging me on this topic. And if it should happen that you have a few bucks to contribute to a good cause, I hope you'll consider one of the diabetes research foundations I mentioned in my previous post.

Also, if you are pregnant or have a child who is younger than three months, please consider participating in the previously mentioned TEDDY Study. If you have a relative with Type 1, you might want to consider participating in Trialnet.

And now, we return to your politics-ranting, baby picture-displaying, pop culture-commenting, sometimes humor-making blog, already in progress.

Yesterday morning, Andrew turned six months old, and I had the presence of mind to take a few photos to capture the event.

Happy half-birthday, little guy.

This Friday (November 14th) has been designated "World Diabetes Day" -- a day when everyone in the world will be struck by diabetes.

No, wait. Let me try that again.

This Friday (November 14th) has been designated "World Diabetes Day" -- a day to dance and sing and celebrate diabetes.

No, that's not it either.

It's more along the lines of an "awareness day". Like "Cephalopod Awareness Day", only not that stupid.

Seriously, did you know there are two main types of diabetes? Type 2 sucks, and it usually hits you when you're a fat old feeb, like me (although some children come down with it, as well). No, I don't have type 2 diabetes. At least, not yet. But, because of my lifestyle choices (choosing to be a fat old feeb), I'm a prime candidate. A relative of mine does have it, and he has even commented about it here on my site from time to time. Who knows? He may choose to comment again. In the meantime, I'll sum up what he has noted in the past: it sucks. But you manage it, and life goes on.

That's the thing about type 2 diabetes: often, one can manage it through lifestyle changes. Occasionally, management of the disease involves taking oral drugs.

Type 1, on the other hand, is a colossal bitch. There is a genetic component, and it can not be managed through lifestyle changes alone. Once it sets in, it requires aggressive, annoying, invasive action every day. It generally affects children, and only rarely strikes a person past the age of 15. Here's what a good friend of mine has to say on the subject of having a child with Type 1:

"I can't tell you how much I hope and pray that they will find a cure so my son won't have to go his whole life with 4 injections and 4-8 finger pricks every day. "

Parents of children under the age of 15 need to know the signs. Fat old feebs like me need to work on not being fat old feebs. And when you vote, in either local, statewide or national elections, please think about what your candidates' positions may be with regard to scientific and medical research. (That said, if you wanted to donate a few bucks to research for a cure, that could only help.)

Thanks in advance for taking a few minutes to become a little bit more aware about diabetes.

UPDATE: Here are a few other sites that have more information about the disease, and also information about funding research for a cure: the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International at www.jdrf.org, the American Diabetes Association at www.diabetes.org, Diabetes Australia at www.diabetesnsw.com.au, and the TEDDY Study at http://teddy.epi.usf.edu/.

This post follows a thread that began with my musing about checks and balances, continued with a follow-up comment posted by my friend Amy (click here to see both), and continued further with my response to Amy's response (and my friend Allen's response to that). It was the note below that made me decide to keep this conversation public, because it touches some very interesting points (and I loves me some good conversation. Join in the fun, you other readers of mine!).

It is her question at the end that I intend to make the subject of an upcoming post. And, while you wait for baited breath for my answer, think about how you might respond. (And, as always, feel free to post your response by using the "comment" link below.)

Thanks for the e-mail. You're definitely right about one thing in particular -- I've been getting myself good and riled up about this election too. ;-)

Hmm, where to begin? Well, I'm not as pessimistic as you about Obama as a candidate, but at the moment I'm incredibly pessimistic about this country, even if I get the result I want today. I think econonically the next decade is going to suck. I have two friends who've lost their jobs in the last month. My bank failed. (Wamu -- by the way, I deliberately didn't withdraw my money when I knew they were in trouble, because I didn't want to be part of the cause of the failure!) I think if Obama wins, and even if there's a filibuster-proof House, that the Republicans will spend the next four years inventing new and creative ways to sabotage him, at the expense of ordinary people. I think there will be more than the usual number of attempts on his life and that greatly concerns me in terms of racial tension and overall country morale.

Oh, and I hate hate hate speeches, so I've not listened to his speeches -- I've been getting it all by reading (and I'm heartily sick of it all, too). So at least I'm not just swayed by the cult of personality.

I think the reason I reacted so strongly to your post (overreacted, it's fair to say) is because I thought you were implying that no matter how bad the Republicans screw up, it's the voter's duty to say "oh well, they done wrong, but it's my responsibility to count the seats and make sure there's the right level of checks and balances. Guess they get a free pass this year." My feeling is that if the Republicans are so worried about checks and balances, they should have tried not to alienate so much of their base for the past eight years, and they should try to keep their hands out of the cookie jar, or at least not get caught. Your post said (IIRC) that what Stevens did was wrong, and he'll be punished, but don't let that tank the country's future = vote for McCain. But it seems illogical to suggest that some undecided voters out there were going to say "Oh, Stevens was bad! Now I'll vote for Obama -- that'll show 'em!" And anyone already decided either way, on McCain or Obama, should not have to take Stevens' conviction into account.

I don't think I'm explaining this well, but I guess it's a pet peeve of mine when people imply that the average voter is required to not only weigh policies and character, but to try to analyze to the nth degree the effect of their vote far beyond the race in question. Months ago, I had a discussion with a friend who was seriously pissed off at people who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary in California, because he felt that Hillary absolutely couldn't win the general election, and therefore those people were deliberate traitors to the Democratic party.  Even though I was already supporting Obama at that point, I maintained that they may have been voting for Hillary because they genuinely agreed with her policies more, and they certainly have the right to do so. I also believe people have the right to vote for Nader if they want to. I cringe at the result, but they still should be allowed to take a stand for a candidate that they want.

And if we ARE going to take "effects outside the actual candidate" into account..... that's an argument for Obama, in my opinion. There's how the world views us. We elect McCain, and the rest of the world thinks (and rightly so, in my opinion), "Nice, America. Same old shit for another 4-8 years." We elect Obama, and they realize that we finally realize we're way off course. There's also the effect of how our own citizens view us. I work at a community college that's 98% African American. I think it will do this country a world of good to see a non-rich-white-old-man in the White House. These aren't the reasons I voted for Obama, but still, there it is.

Regarding going further into a police state, I do still think the Republicans will be worse for that. How long do you think it will be before McPalin (yes, that was intentional) seats another Supreme Court justice and rushes a challenge to Roe v. Wade up the line? That's a police state. And Palin is just stubbornly, willfully ignorant enough that I wouldn't put it past her to try getting a little more creation taught in the schools -- hey, they'll have time since sex education isn't necessary. Also, McCain has already shown that he will compromise his principles, which to me means that once he's in a tough White House, he'll probably compromise them a lot more, because he's already started down that road. Obama, having kind of taken the high road during the election (admittedly, he could afford to -- I don't know what he would have done if he'd been trailing all along), may be able to maintain standards for longer than McCain.

Anyhow, I'll end by saying I don't think Obama is the second coming or anything. But I am still hard pressed to find virtues in post-February McCain.

By the way, did you catch that bit on the Daily Show several weeks or months ago, probably shortly after McCain picked Palin, where Stewart played clips of Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly, and Palin herself contradicting the hell out of themselves? It was priceless, and telling.

No hard feelings. Thanks for taking the time to explain some of your feelings. Say hi to Paulette for me!

Oh wait, not ending yet.... I hope you don't mind if I throw this question out there for you, but it's something I've wondered about for a while. Hmmm, there's not going to be any good way to put this. OK -- I have a conservative librarian friend, who constantly bemoans the fact that almost all librarians she knows are Democrat. Unsurprisingly, she's from Texas and she's at least religious enough to go to church. I have often wondered if it doesn't make her pause to realize that the group she has proudly self-identified with -- as a librarian, she's very into Freedom on Information, privacy, etc. -- on the whole completely disagrees with her. I'm definitely not suggesting that anyone should bow to peer pressure in such matters! But I think if the group of people I admire, respect, and self-identify with completely disagreed with me on such fundamental things, it would make me wonder. Now, the same thing goes for science fiction. I know two people in the field who are leaning towards McCain: you and [Someone Else, who is a member of a controversial organization that may or may not employ inappropriate means to influence the views of its members]. So what I'm wondering is, doesn't it make you wonder that the group of people that you admire and to whom you want to belong, almost all disagree with you? I hope I managed to say that in a way that isn't offensive -- I'm just really, really curious about this, andI know you like discussion and will always give thoughtful answers. Although if your head is going to explode if you think about the election any more, don't feel compelled to respond to this!

OK, I'm really done now. ;-)

-- Amy

In a previous post, I mentioned an on-going conversation between a friend of mine and me regarding the recent Presidential election. I will post a follow-up or two on that shortly. However, I need to spend my writing time right now on a novel-in-progress, so my blogging time is short.

That said, I wanted to share my thoughts on an interesting little story that is playing out, even though I realize I'm not the only blogger out there to hold these particular opinions:

Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman found himself in an interesting situation when his party leadership pulled their support for him during his most recent election cycle, even though he clearly had some strength behind his candidacy for re-election. He had annoyed party leadership by supporting the war in Iraq, and when he and his Democratic challenger split the primary and caucus phase of the campaign, party leadership backed his challenger. Lieberman left the party, campaigned as an "Independent Democrat" (or some such designation) on the positions to which he had stayed true, and won the seat.

Interestingly, the D's found themselves needing him, even though he clearly owed them no favors. With Lieberman, the D's would claim a Senate majority. Without him, The R's would hold on. Lieberman had always identified himself as a Democrat, so the choice was easy for him to make: he'd caucus with the Dems in exchange for chairmanship of an important Senate committee.

This past Presidential election cycle, Lieberman endorsed and campaigned for Senator McCain, with whom he shared many of the positions he himself had run and won on. Because the Democrat leadership had worked against him in his bid for re-election, Lieberman was not feeling particularly bound to support a Democrat candidate with whom he had little in common.

Okay, that's enough of the re-cap. What I find interesting about the events playing out now is that the Democrats have a larger majority in the Senate, and therefore no longer need Lieberman to hold onto their control. So, what do they do? Apparently, the majority leader wants to punish Lieberman by taking away his committee chairmanship.

This should come as no surprise, and I'm actually kinda glad that Lieberman is facing this possibility; Lieberman took a calculated risk, and he should be prepared to pay the consequences. Lieberman, like McCain (I assert), is a man of principle, and both honoring and violating those principles must necessarily entail consequences. (I suspect McCain might be paying consequences for violating his own principles, but that's an essay for another day.)

Lieberman wants to continue caucusing with the Democrats, but he has also said that he will not do so if they decide to strip him of his committee chairmanship. I'm glad he is taking this stand. I'm glad he continues to stand for what is important to him, even to the extent that it may harm his political career. (The committee in question is Homeland Security, which deals with issues of particular interest to the Senator.)

But here is where standing firm may provide a win-win or a lose-lose proposition for all of the parties involved.

I have read that President-Elect Obama has let it be known that he wants Lieberman to continue caucusing with the Democrats. Had I written this essay a couple of days ago, as I'd intended, I'd have suggested that the President-elect do just that, for reasons that should be obvious.

If you run on a campaign of "change" and "hope" and getting away from "partisan politics as usual", then your bluff is being called when a situation like this arises. Many so-called Progressives of the Democratic Party want to see Lieberman punished for breaking from the party leadership -- never mind who ditched whom at the big dance. But if our leaders are to move forward in a spirit of hope, change, cooperation, working together, etc., etc., this is where they start to reveal their true colors. Be vindictive, or welcome into the fold and move on.

If the Democrats ultimately decide to punish Lieberman, and Lieberman stops caucusing with them, both Lieberman and his party are impoverished. Lieberman, because he loses some political clout (at least, for the time being), and the party, because they lose credibility and the active participation of one of their more thoughtful voices.

On the other hand, if the D's welcome Lieberman back into the fold without vindictiveness, Lieberman and his former party are both enriched. Lieberman's stature grows, and the party is strengthened both in number and in quality of voice.

If it's true that President-elect Obama has, in fact, weighed in on the side of reconciliation (keep in mind that Obama can claim "injured party" status because of Lieberman's participation in McCain's campaign), and is willing to use some of his influence to help make that happen (the ball already having been set in motion toward punishment and vindictiveness), then I say... good.

I disagree with much of the President-elect's politics (just as, quite frankly, I disagree with much of the politics of his challenger). But if he's willing to call "bygones" and be all the stronger for it, then maybe, just maybe, there is hope for the notion that standing on principles actually matters.

There's more I want to say on the subject, but my novel-in-progress (as well as my bed) awaits.