Scintillae

scin-til-la: Latin, particle of fire, a spark.

My Photo
Name:
Location: Winona, Minnesota, United States

Friday, August 26, 2005

The Coming Iraqi Civil War

It is dangerous to predict the future, but the sputtering negotiations over the draft Iraqi constitution are not inspiring confidence over the future stability of the country. In fact, the draft that now exists features a weak central government, with a largely autonomous Kurdistan in the north, and a Shi'ite state in the south that will, no doubt, develop ever closer ties to Iran. (Remember Iran? They are the ones who have reactivated their nuclear plants and are enriching nuclear fuel again...)

There are also troubling signs that Islamic law will be forced into a position of supremacy over civil law, creating either a theocracy, or splintering the country as large regions reject Sharia law in favor of civil law. In the ensuing chaos, US troops would be caught in the sectarian struggle, attempting to support a theoretical central government that wields no real power over the autonomous regions. This is a recipe for alienating both the Kurdish north and the Shi'ite south, areas that were previously more uniformly supportive of US suppression of the Baathist Sunni minority. We are about to lose our remaining friends.

So, let us examine what we have thus far gained for the 1872 US dead and $200 billion, in addition to over 14,000 wounded and a tremendous forfeiture of international good will (not to mention uncounted thousands of Iraqi dead, most of them innocent civilians):

* Iraq, which had never really harbored terrorists before, is now the primary destination for those who wish to kill Americans.

* Gas is now at about $2.60 per gallon. (Remember all the talk about the urestricted flow of plentiful oil from Iraqi oil fields, and a boost to world supplies that would keep petroleum costs low?)

* Iran has moved decidedly to a more conservative stance, with a hard-liner now the elected president. It has now completely ignored UN seals on its nuclear plants, and has re-started a fuel enrichment program that could eventually lead to nuclear weapons.

* The rosiest Pentagon estimates now suggest that US troop deployments could remain at present levels for at least another 4 years. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has been quoted as saying that the US presence there could last for the next 10 years. Even with a substantial decrease in the rate of casualties, this period would likely see thousands of additional US military deaths.

* With 130,000 or more troops in Iraq, and more supporting their operations from outside Iraq, the US is severely limited in its ability to address other conflicts or security crises as they arise.

* President Bush now has an approval rating of 40%, the lowest of his presidency.

* Colin Powell, the Secretary of State who "made the case" for WMD to the United Nations, resigned and has retired from public life entirely.


I don't think that the above were the fondest hopes of the neoconservatives when they implemented the Iraqi war plan.

The greatest injustice is that the men and women of the armed forces, who put their lives on the line, are fighting and dying in a war that has far more negative consequences than the political leadership anticipated. They serve with honor, and our leaders have a responsibility to only ask them to risk their lives when it is necessary for the security of the United States. Sadly, I am not at all convinced that Iraq ever met that standard.

And it could become much, much worse.

If the shaky constitutional negotiations break down, we could very quickly see a collapse of the country into open conflict between Sunni and Shia, with the Kurds isolating themselves (and making Turkey and Iran nervous, as both of these countries have their own Kurdish minorities). Where will the US plant its flag if this happens? Which group do we support? Will there be enough of a central government to be propped up by US military power? How will we decide which groups are deserving of our assistance in a fragmented Iraq?

Thus far, the Bush Administration seems unwilling to admit that this is even possible. They have shut their eyes, plugged their ears with their fingers, and are rocking in a dark corner, desperately hoping to dissociate and find their "happy place." But it IS possible. With each passing day of failure to draft even a weak constitution, it slowly migrates from possible to probable.

And our troops will have a front-row seat for it. Perhaps it will appear to be a blessing to have Iraqis killing each other instead of focusing their anger at US soldiers, but it certainly won't square with the notion so frequently advanced now of a US military presence deployed to "help the Iraqi people." We will more likely stand back and watch it burn down, because we simply won't know which side to take.

Perhaps an open civil war is the only thing that would bring US troops home in the near term. If we have no idea which side to assist, we might just pull troops out and say, "let us know when you're done killing each other, and maybe we'll come back and help." Or maybe we'll just brand it all as "an internal Iraqi matter," and let them fight it out, and may the best faction win.

I hope I'm wrong about this one. I really do.

-PMOS

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Another Fatwa

On Monday, a fanatical religious leader issued an opinion that the elected leader of a country in the Western Hemisphere should be assassinated, to avoid another long and costly war. We have become used to such religious opinions or "fatwas" by radical Islamic leaders, venting their hate of US foreign policy by advocating murder. The difference with Monday's opinion is that it came from Pat Robertson, the founder of the Christian Coalition, and host of "The 700 Club," not to mention a former US presidential candidate.

Robertson stated flatly that the President of oil rich Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, was making his country "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent." Apparently, communism and Muslim extremism are now virtually synonymous (I guess we'll see Kim Jong Il of North Korea building mosques and opening madrasas in Pyongyang soon). Robertson reasoned that since Chavez has said some rather nasty things about the United States, we should "take him out" to avoid a long and costly war. News flash, Pat: the Pentagon isn't exactly mobilizing to invade Venezuela at the moment...

Maybe Robertson is feeling the bite at the pump when he fills up his Cadillac, and wants to ensure that Venezuela, which supplies 10% of US oil imports, keeps the spigot wide open. Of course, with typical myopia, he fails to consider that while the US imports 10% of its oil from Venezuela, we account for 59% of Venezuela's oil exports. Cutting us off would be a pyrrhic victory of monumental proportions for Chavez.

It would also seem that Mr. Robertson has not paid much attention to the history of attempted political assassinations by the United States. We did try to "take out" President Chavez's friend, Fidel Castro, in the 1960s, and the bearded one is alive and well and living in Havana. The failure, and attendant embarrassment, of that plot ultimately led to the policy now in place against the assassination of foreign political leaders (not to mention that during the Cold War, we didn't exactly want the Soviet Union bankrolling hit squads to take out the US President or leaders of our European allies).

Similarly, Mr. Robertson appears to have missed the 6th Commandment. Of course, the exact meaning of "thou shalt not kill" has been debated. Is it an absolute injunction? There is no penalty specified if this commandment is broken. On the other hand, we read in Ecclesiastes that there is "a time to kill and a time to heal." One must presume that the Old Testament saw killing as a necessary human activity, as long as you didn't kill the wrong people, or somebody who didn't deserve to die. The treatment of the Canaanites by the Israelites makes this abundantly clear.

Perhaps Mr. Robertson is converting to Judaism. If he were, it would at least explain his adherence to the Old Testament views on killing. Chavez is a bad man, and certainly not one of God's Chosen People (at least according to Robertson), so it must be acceptable to assassinate him. Yes, it all makes sense now! Mr. Robertson will, no doubt, be joining the protests at Israeli settlements in the West Bank against the withdrawal from Palestinian territories. Perhaps he will move there permanently. That would be welcome news for America.

On the other hand, he did found the CHRISTIAN Coalition. This might be a bit of a leap, but one might expect such a man to espouse a Christian outlook. Perhaps there are some parts of the New Testament that Mr. Robertson has discovered that the rest of us haven't read yet, but I don't remember many instances of Jesus telling the disciples to "lock and load" and waste the Romans. Let's see... "love one another" (nope, not there)..."Peter, put your sword back in its place" (nope, that won't work either). There isn't really much to support political assassination in the Gospels, even with the most creative reading.

Clearly, lots of killing has taken place in the name of Christianity. This is rather astounding in light of the message of love that Christ himself brought. However, human nature being what it is, a perversion of this message was inevitable. The hope is that Christianity has largely worked through this 'adolescence,' and that we Christians might actually consider the teachings of Jesus, rather than how scripture might be spun to support this or that political goal.

Finally, Mr. Robertson would do well to consider that the United States has a long (and perhaps today endangered) history of the separation of church and state. Advocating the assassination of a foreign leader by agents of the US government in the context of a "religious" television show with many thousands, if not millions, of viewers is a colossal act of irresponsibility at best. I certainly hope that this blunder exposes the true nature of Robertson to his viewers.

At least he's not our President. If he were, he might have arbitrarily invaded a country, citing unsubstantiated charges of WMD development before UN inspections could verify those same allegations, made on shaky, conclusion-selective intelligence. Hm. Wait a minute...

-PMOS

Monday, August 22, 2005

Ex Libris

Heraldry has always held a fascination for me. Perhaps it is the atmosphere of aristocracy that it creates. Perhaps it is the fact that true heraldry follows a set of rules and employs specific terminology (with most terms in Norman French), ensuring that the "common folk" don't quite understand its intricacies. Or perhaps it is the aesthetic appeal of a symbolic language that is at once beautiful and capable of transmitting a considerable amount of genealogical and other familial information.

My early fascination with heraldry led me to the American College of Heraldry, and its then-president, the late Dr. David P. Johnson, who had been involved with this non-profit organization since its founding in 1972. The ACH, filling the vacuum left by the lack of an official heraldic authority in the United States, has done much over the years to help those wishing to assume arms in America, avoiding many errors and poor design. The ACH continues today, and I am now most honored to serve on its Board of Governors.

What is the point of a personal coat of arms? Well, obviously, I'm not about to ride out with a shield and lance in hand, so there isn't much need to identify myself in spite of a suit of chain mail or plate armor. However, the value of a symbolic identification system such as heraldry has proven extraordinarily consistent, with stationery, silver, and many other personal items. Establishing or reinstating a familial heraldic tradition remains attractive for aesthetic as well as pragmatic reasons, as evidenced by the continued upsurge in registrations of new arms by the ACH, under the capable leadership of its present Executive Director, David Wooten.

As an academic and avowed book pack rat, I must admit that one of my favorite uses of heraldry is the heraldic bookplate. Bookplates date to the Middle Ages, when hand-copied books were items of considerable value. Often, these were commissioned by wealthy noblemen, and the coats of arms of the patron in question were lavishly illustrated at the beginning of the volume.

As printing made books more available, the expanding middle class sought to acquire the marks of nobility, and these included both books and coats of arms. The marriage of the two was thus inevitable among commoners as well as nobles, and the precedent set has continued to the present, producing countless works of identifying heraldic art for the libraries of those bearing arms.

Frequently, bookplates employ the Latin formula, "ex libris" or "from the library of" plus the name of the owner. Of course, they might also have this formula in the vernacular, or omit it and simply use the name of the armiger. Historically, black and white versions are most common (often employing the common system of "hatching" or the use of lined or dotted patterns to indicate coloration). However, with the cost of color printing decreasing in recent times, color bookplates are increasingly common.

The present version of my own bookplate (above) is a recent revision of some earlier designs. Central to the bookplate are the arms and crest (gold harp) registered by the American College of Heraldry for my great-grandfather, Michael Joseph O'Shea (1889-1971), and thus pertaining to all of his descendants. These are depicted on a simple knot work background, with knot work borders to lend a Celtic flavor to the plate.

I chose to omit the motto, which is a less permanent feature of armorial achievements, and which may be changed by branches of families. In the case of this particular branch of O'Sheas, the motto recorded is QUAERITE VERITATEM (Seek Ye The Truth), a variation on the historic motto of the 1381 grant of arms to Odoneus O'Shee of Tipperary, VINCIT VERITAS (Truth Conquers). The O'Sheas, as a clan, are also said to have the motto, in Irish, Eala Dubh Uibh Rathach Abu! (Victory to the Black Swan of Iveragh!). The black swan was the totem animal of the O'Sheas.

Along the top edge are arms connected to my paternal ancestry, from left to right: (De) Wayland, Burgh (Burke), Smithwick, White, Maunsell, and Gabbett. Similarly, the bottom edge features arms from my maternal ancestry: Bilodeau, Gamache, d'Aillebout, Menteith of Kerse, De Marle, and Hotman.

Thanks to modern technology, these are conveniently printed on inkjet shipping labels (4" x 3.3"), and easily applied to the inside covers or blank front pages of books. And while this is certainly less impressive than a hand-painted armorial achievement on a vellum page of a hand-copied manuscript, it is a direct descendant of that ancient tradition.

Admittedly, not everybody will want to become a "heraldry geek." And, there are those who connect an interest in heraldry with role-playing and assumed fictional personas (the Society for Creative Anachronism). But I honestly believe that heraldry retains a value in the real, modern world. Yes, there are perhaps more efficient ways of identifying ownership of something, and there are modes of information storage and transmission that carry exponentially more data. And yet, there is an intrinsic value in a thing of beauty, particularly if it serves a function in addition to its aesthetic worth.

And besides, how many other hobbies can you have where you get to use Norman French?

-PMOS

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Rocking the Ordination Boat

Floating on a boat in international waters on the St. Lawrence Seaway, nine women were recently "ordained" by two female Roman Catholic 'bishops' from Germany. This none-too-subtle event certainly brings to the fore the issue of ordination for women in the Catholic Church. Of course, the female bishops had been excommunicated, and the Vatican has not made any comment on the recent ordinations, but one can assume that the validity of this will not be accepted in Rome:

http://www.tandemnews.com/viewstory.php?storyid=5462

But forcing the issue is probably the only way that any discussion will occur, at least in the near future. Certainly, the debate has been polarized. On the one hand, the traditionalists insist that as Christ was male, the priesthood must be entirely male. On the other side, advocates for the ordination of women assert that being "Christ-like" does not necessarily involve gender, but rather the following of Christ's example of selflessness and love, and that all Christians are called upon to do this. Sadly, some of the rhetoric on both sides has been decidedly un-Christian, with traditionalists berating "uppity women" for wanting to ruin the Church, and with women's ordination advocates asserting that the Church establishment is simply misogynistic and preoccupied with preserving a status quo from which they benefit.

Unfortunately, these ad hominem attacks (ironic word usage intended) do little to shed light, or the Christian spirit, on the matter. An examination of Christian history is in order…

The existence of female leaders in the early church cannot really be debated, but their exact role has been obscured. One might suggest that the Romanization of the Church in the 4th century had much to do with this, as Roman society was entirely paternalistic. Indeed, the head of a Roman household, the “pater familias,” wielded absolute authority within the household – even to the point of being empowered to kill his wife and children if they disobeyed him, or dishonored the family. Women had no legal rights in Roman society whatsoever (another cultural idiosyncracy borrowed from the Greeks, along with most of their gods).

It is not surprising, then, that when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, it took on aspects of this highly paternalistic culture. Women continued to play a role in the Church, but it was virtually invisible unless one was a considerable distance from Rome.

We have some indication of this in the early Irish Church, where figures such as St. Brigid of Kildare (5th-6th century) were regarded as equal to male abbots and other ecclesiastical leaders. In fact, the Life of Brigid (Bethu Brigte) states that the bishop who made Brigid an Abess was so impressed with the sanctity of Brigid that he consecrated her with the orders of a bishop. However, she was not, it seems, empowered to administer the sacrament of communion. Of course, this provides ammunition for both sides of the argument.

It should also be noted that clerical celibacy has never been considered to be among the infallible dogmas of the Catholic Church, and has been considered more than once, with rules being altered by various Popes. Indeed, there are different rules in different traditions. For example, in the Eastern Rite (under Eastern patriarchs, but in full communion with Rome), married men may become deacons or priests. However, they may not marry after ordination.

But the ordination of women has seemingly always been forbidden by the Catholic Church. Indeed, it has been advanced as a dogmatic (i.e., infallible) principle as recently as 1995 by the Vatican, and since the person clarifying the matter was Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), there is little chance of any re-examination of the issue for the moment.

But there are those who challenge the view on theological grounds. The Old Catholic Church, a loosely-knit community of churches who split with the Vatican in 1870, following the First Vatican Council, takes issue with the entire principle of infallibility. It is thus not surprising that the Old Catholic Church has allowed the ordination of women. And there are certainly those within the Catholic Church itself who take issue with the dogmatic pronouncement on women’s ordination. Sister Kathleen Dolphin, of St. Mary’s College in Notre Dame, IN, has stated, “It's faulty theology and there's a growing consensus among theologians around the world that there is no theology against the ordination of women that is credible.”

It would seem that this opinion is shared by a majority of the Catholic faithful in America. In a poll taken shortly before the conclave that selected Pope Benedict XVI, some 60% of American Catholics indicated that they supported the ordination of women. Of course, the American Catholic Church has for years been considered more liberal than its counterparts in many other areas of the globe, but 60% is a number worth considering at least.

And yet, the Church does not make decisions based upon opinion polls. Indeed, the notion of something absolute with respect to moral pronouncements has been a strength of the Church. And, it might also be said that the younger generation of Catholics, the “John Paul II generation,” is considerably more conservative than their parents. Perhaps there really is a change in the outlook of young Catholics, or perhaps it is simply that absolutes are always appealing to the idealism of youth. But half of those young Catholics are female, and in America they live in a culture that tells them they can pursue any career, any ambition they might have, while the Church tells them something different.

Dogma or mutable policy? Clearly, this isn’t a debate that is going to go away, and the succession of a new Pope is always an occasion for renewed discussion on matters of faith and the practices of the Church. What the nine new female priests and deacons ordained on July 25th have done is to move the debate squarely to the North American continent. Is this a brave move, an act of “ecclesiastical disobedience” akin to civil rights activities in the U.S. south in the 1960s, or is it an example of misguided women poking their fingers in the eye of the Vatican with a publicity stunt?

Regardless of one’s view on the matter, it is clear that there really has been no dialog on the issue, since “no” generally has been the extent of any conversation. It would be refreshing to see the argument framed in theological and historical terms, rather than cut off with the apostolic “nuclear option” of dogmatic pronouncement. If a dialog is not entered, we may indeed be sure that at least one side will continue speaking. The boat is not going to stop rocking now, and the waters are unlikely to become calmer.

-PMOS

Saturday, August 13, 2005

V-J Day Plus 60 Years

It was, paradoxically, called "The Good War." It's difficult to understand what, exactly, was good about it. It was, in the opinion of most, a just struggle against aggressors who would dominate the globe, imposing totalitarian rule. Clearly, had the Third Reich, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan triumphed, the world would be a far different place, and it is reasonable to say that we would have lost a measure of our humanity in the subsequent sweeping under the rug of the atrocities of the death camps, death marches, diabolical medical experiments, and outright genocide. Opposing this depravity was the only ethical choice.

But it was not a "good" war. War, on any scale, and particularly on the all-pervasive, global scale of World War II, is a poison. Even those who survive without physical wounds are damaged by it - some with a malaise that eventually passes, and others with an illness of soul from which they never recover. I am not a wide-eyed pacifist who believes that we can all embrace in a global "group hug" and avoid conflict entirely. We are human, and human nature includes things like greed, jealousy, and sometimes-wanton cruelty. Even the most altruistic among us must not doubt the fact that others may not similarly wish us well, and that they might seek to do us harm. Still, the decision to engage in armed struggle leads not only to the sacrifice of life and limb, but also to the sacrifice of mind and soul, individually and collectively as a nation. We must consider well the cost of war beyond the "blood and treasure" that is so often cited.

My grandparents' generation, those who fought and suffered through the Second World War, were reluctant warriors. It took the bombing of Pearl Harbor to turn the tide of opinion in support of entering the conflict, but once attacked, that generation enlisted, volunteered, sacrificed, and died without hesitation. I pray that we who have come after them never experience firsthand the anguish they faced. Indeed, what they have given us is a world in which the likelihood of such a war has been reduced almost to the point of elimination. If you have a grandparent, or parent, or another relative who served in that war, or who sacrificed at home in so many ways, you should thank them this week for the relative security and prosperity of a world that they created for us.

And we should silently thank and remember those who have died, especially those who gave their lives in combat. It is difficult to think about what they gave - and I don't mean just the pain and terror of a death far from home. I am moved even more by the 40 or 50 or 60 years' worth of tomorrows that were traded for our freedom and comfort. The thought is devastating: 60 years of time with family and friends, with lovers and children; 60 years of sunshine, and rain, and fishing trips, and lazy Sunday afternoons like tomorrow's. They gave away everything they had, and everything they ever would have, and we owe them at least our thanks and remembrance.

But as they pass away, a few more each day, we seem to forget. And as they can no longer remind us of the poison that war always is, we fall into the trap of ascribing glory to it, and cloak it in myth and slogans, while hiding the flag-draped coffins from view. 60 years later, we seem not to have learned the lessons of war's awful cost, and we seem too willing to spend what the brave men and women of our armed forces offer for the protection of their beloved country.

A world without armed conflict is, perhaps, a utopia we will never see. And we cannot build a high wall around "Fortress America" and post guards in the towers to keep all of "them" out, whoever "they" might be. World War II taught us that lesson. We must be engaged with the world economically, diplomatically, and culturally. But when the dark hour comes and military force must be considered, we should understand that, for all our technology, war is never quick or easy, and that all consequences cannot be foreseen. We will pay a price whenever we choose the sword, and that price will always be more than we can project.

So, this week, offer your thanks to "The Greatest Generation." Say the words aloud to those who are still with us, and say them in your heart to those who have passed on, whether in recent years, or long ago on a beach, in a trench, in a jungle, or under the waves. Tomorrow, and every tomorrow, is a day that they gave us. In return, we should honor them by living well with each other, supporting our families and communities, helping those in need, and taking to heart the lessons taught by their determined example.

Salus populi est suprema lex.

-PMOS

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Musical Memory Lane

The iTunes Music Store is dangerous. Even though I'm a long-time computer user, I've never succumbed to the siren call of music downloading. Until now.

For those who have a recent version of iTunes, the iTunes Music Store is seamlessly integrated into the application, allowing you to download (at $0.99 a pop) from a virtually inexhaustible library of music of all genres, styles, artists, and periods. Everything from "Nessun dorma" to "Back in Black" are readily available (yes, fans, both of these are in my iTunes library).

So what did I rediscover today in my musical memory lane romp? Well, I snagged a couple of songs by Rush from the album MOVING PICTURES ("Limelight" and "Tom Sawyer"), and a few Earth Wind and Fire tunes ("Getaway" and "Shining Star" among them). Add to that some David Bowie, Journey, a dash of Steppenwolf, and a dose of Toto, and you get some idea of the years in which I spent my adolescence. Oh, and I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that I did indeed download Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Free Bird."

These files, no doubt, found their new neighborhood in my iTunes library somewhat odd, as they are nestled in among the likes of Palestrina, Barber, Debussy, Tallis, Bach, Mozart, and assorted other things. There are even a few of my own compositions, both from performance recordings and from MIDI demo files, and a growing contingent of Celtic/Irish traditional music. There were, of course, some 70s and 80s rock favorites already in the library, such as the entire 1976 debut album of my fellow Bay Staters, Boston.

Many of my students will be surprised that I delight in Van Halen equally with The Chieftains and William Byrd, but I believe that one maintains a special place in one's heart for the soundtrack to one's own adolescent hormone rage. AC/DC's BACK IN BLACK was the first album (vinyl, I should point out) that I bought with my own money when it was released in 1980. I suppose I also absorbed some of my mom's musical tastes (the Earth Wind and Fire interest no doubt comes from her several albums from that 70s powerhouse).

Without getting too deeply into the "what's the matter with kids today" vein, I really do think that most of the music on the Top 40 charts now is, in a word, insipid. This is not to say that there is nothing of quality being produced now, but perhaps "produced" is the key word. Unlike bands of the 70s, where the technology was limited and the sound of the band was actually made by (suprise) the band, today's "hits" frequently suffer from so much electronic plastic surgery that the original performance is nearly unrecognizable. All in all, I prefer musicians (people who actually play their instruments, sing, and even WRITE music) to "recording artists" (creatures of the record labels, often created based on their potential to look good in a video).

So, my dear students, if you are reading this, do not expect my enjoyment of Bachman-Turner Overdrive or Pink Floyd to extend to Eminem or Jessica Simpson. I have, on occasion, heard new popular music that I've enjoyed, but those occasions are increasingly rare as time goes on. Is it that the drop in testosterone that comes in one's 30s has dulled my desire to hear what is "cool," or is it that the musical nutritional value of the Top 40 is leading to our eventual aesthetic starvation? Maybe it's both.

But today, at least, I reveled in the guilty pleasure of cranking up Boston and Rush, David Bowie and Yes on my respectable computer speaker/subwoofer system, and singing along with Billy Joel and Elton John. Is that cool? I don't know. It sure was fun, though.

-PMOS

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Angry Skies

Finally, rain today! My brown and crispy lawn was very appreciative, and I was glad to miss the hail, which was as big as 2 inches in some of the surrounding areas here.

There is something about coming through a storm, especially a summer thunderstorm. You are mired in a thick, hazy, lethargic day, and then the wind picks up, the sky darkens, and then rain, hail, thunder and lightning. There's complete chaos, and even danger. And yet, there is also exhilaration, perhaps because of the danger – a sense that you are caught up in something far grander and more powerful than yourself. The air is charged with negative ions – the very atmosphere is electric.

And then it subsides. The sky lightens, perhaps the sun even returns. The air is cooler, and the danger of thunder and lighting, once withstood, yields life-giving water, and everything is thankful for the storm.

I know many people who are afraid of storms, including my grandmother, who is 92 and not exactly a shrinking violet. I don’t think it is the danger that bothers them. I think it is the chaos of storms that offends their sense of order. Order is good, generally, and we need people who resist chaos in this world. But once in a while, the stagnation of the air of daily living and the sweltering repetition of our same patterns must be swept away by something intense, even something alarming.

As I look back to storms both recent and remote in my past, I know that I am stronger for having endured them, and have learned from each far more about myself than routine could ever teach. And no matter how frightening the lightning strikes or how loud the thunder, when you walk out into the fresh, energized air, you are much more alive than before the rains came.

-PMOS

Two Poems

ISOLATION

I cannot speak to you
For while you hear my words
Meaning finds no entry.

I cannot learn from you
For while your soul burns
Light finds no exit.

I cannot be with you
For while you do no injury
Happiness finds no nourishment.



RESIGNATION

Your heart
A glass forest
Enchanting.

I move
Breaking boughs
Stumbling,
A blizzard of shards.

Not belonging,
I must, I know,
Bind my wounds
And go.

Monday, August 08, 2005

Pro Macintosh Rant du jure

So, what is the deal with Hewlett-Packard? The other day, a friend gave me a scanner that he isn't using any longer - a pretty nice one. I went to the HP web site expecting to download a driver, and what do I find? For this (and a few other models), they are not supporting Mac OS X. What gives? And why support it on the other gazillion scanners and not four or five models? Of course, these are supported for Windows XP. Sheesh.

And, to make things more annoying, an organization to which I belong wants to use a particular form of conferencing software called Sonork. And, you guessed it, the don't make a Mac client. They have been saying for about two years that they are "working on one," but nothing yet. Of course, they gave me the standard answer, "well, you can run it if you have Windows emulation software."

Let's get something straight: I don't like Windows. Why in the world would I want to run almost-Windows on my Mac? I explained this to another officer of the organization this way: Asking somebody to emulate Windows on a Mac is a bit like asking an airplane pilot to "emulate" a Buick. You can drive it down the taxiway like a car, but you aren't exactly taking full advantage of its capabilities.

As for Mac OS X "Tiger" (10.4.x), it is wonderful. Excellent functionality and stability are coupled with some very good applications. Not everything is 100% worked out (problems with iChat and the Mail app, for example), but it is very good, and quite fast on my new eMac.

I guess I wouldn't have been so miffed with HP if they had not initially supported the scanner as a dual-platform device, and then abandoned the poor Mac users who bought it (suckers!). Thanks, guys. Cutbacks? Did the company just fire the guys who can write Mac code before they wrote the driver to boost the corporate bottom line? It is a mystery...

Well, enough vitriol for HP. On a very positive front for Macheads, I recommend Adium, a multiple-protocol chat program that is excellent. Check it out: http://www.adiumx.com/

It supports AIM, Jabber, MSN, Yahoo, IRC, and others. Download it and try it out. Res ipsa loquitur.

Most of my posts won't be technical in nature, I'm sure. Don't despair.

-PMOS

Brave New World

So, this is the Blogosphere, eh? I suppose it is reasonable to stake out a little corner of Cyberspace where one can confine his inconsequential ranting. Actually, I'm not really expecting anybody to read this. It's more of a catalyst to spur me to write more often, and perhaps to also post some things I've already written. If others derive some pleasure or insight from it, so much the better.

Back later with something worth reading (perhaps).

-PMOS