Is it healthy to have these arguments in a public forum, in plain sight of our Conservative peers and political enemies on the left? The answer depends on your world view of politics and what we’re actually doing as we pundit away and offer commentary and analysis.

We see the exercise of politics and punditry differently. Some see it as total war, other see it as a game, others approach it as a careful balance between Washington and the States, others treat it as a livelihood. When we write about what we write, so few of us offer why we write.

I’ve been writing about politics for eight years now. I’ve been writing my thoughts for far longer than that. I’ve always believed in serving the truth first, my fellow human beings next, my party and ideology third, and I want to believe that I put my personal interests behind all those. Blogging hasn’t netted me a writing job, nor a think tank position, and besides, my strong politicking may have even turned away some design opportunities and even employment opportunities.

We argue, because we see our enemy and some of us would rather not be like them. We fight each other because we believe that truth is a cure to lies, that good is the cure to evil. Not the kind of good that martyrs, but the good that picks up its sword and shield and rides into battle.

We argue, because there are those among us for whom being good—nay, being at our best—is not just a good idea, but it’s the first requirement to play.

We argue, because there are those among us for whom the game of politics is a long-term activity that takes patience, skill and planning, and that we believe that the best way to change politics in Washington and in state governments is to promote an environment of the best beating out the worst. We commentators could never dream of running for office. Our public statements are aready laid bare for our opponents to hang on our necks. Our inconsistencies at times will sink us. But we work to find the best candidates from a fresh pool of willing public servants and the best way to attract them is to change the game so that not only the most hardened criminals against humanity would find it attractive to run.

We argue, because in the halcyon years of the Bush era, we spent too much time attacking the far left as if it were a cancer to be excised. We allowed moderates to bring in Leftist ideas and repackage them in ways attractive to us. We argue today because we don’t know how to reconcile the concepts of ideology, partisanship, and strategy, but we’re trying.

We argue, not for the approval of the Left, as some have accused us of doing, but because we want to win with clean consciences. Because we believe that it is only with a good heart will we be able to hold on to our turn at the helm as long as possible and help provide the best governance to our countrymen.

We argue, because victory at any cost is what we have today, and the combination of poor governance, a grossly mistaken president, a calculating, self-perpetuating Congress of vipers, is a result of that philosophy and it is crumbling long before their soothsayers predicted it would.

We argue, because we don’t want to be hypocrites. When Mitt Romney’s aides attacked Sarah Palin, my reaction was that this is exactly the hypocrisy that the Left accuses us of having. How can we attack the left for being disrespectful to women when we ourselves disrespect a woman?

We argue because we temper the steel of our ideas through conflict. It’s how we sleep at night. As long as we are aware of why we argue, and how to argue constructively, and how to try to strengthen our position, I wouldn’t worry so much about us arguing. We come out the better for it.

And then we have the overstayers, the ones who after success or failure just haven;t learned to go away for some reason. As time marches on, these movements and the organizations around them lose their way. They end up losing sight of the goal, branching beyond their original missions, sometimes into self-parody.

Advocacy groups need to know when to bow out or reassess their raison d’etre. Recently, some chapters of the Log Cabin Republicans (for whom I’ve done design work, just as a disclaimer) have engaged in actions that go beyond the stated mission of advancing gay rights. They’ve aligned with Liberals in promoting Liberal policies, instead of remembering that they are a Republican group, or even, a group of Republicans.

Today’s news is that a woman by the name of Shirley Sherrod, in a speech to members of the NAACP, recounts her experience in giving aid to a white farmer back in 1986. Her own words, as reported by Fox News, from a video by Andrew Breitbart:

“He had to come to me for help. What he didn’t know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him,” she said. “I was struggling with the fact that so many black people have lost their farmland and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land — so I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough.”

The discussion on Twitter has been going on all day. It’s gone from acrimonious to intellection and everything in between. One of the more…polite exchanges I’ve had was with Jim Keenan, who wrote a very thoughtful post. In it, among the many important points he makes, he notes that the NAACP has basically overstayed its purpose:

NAACP, your time is up. The enemy is no longer “the system.” It’s time to change your charter or shut down.

Jesse Jackson, Dan Gilbert was not being racist in expressing his feelings towards LeBron’s defection. Jesse you were, by assuming his comments were racially motivated on the sole data point that LeBron is a brother. Jesse, when the enemy was “the man,” when systematic racism was embedded in the fabric of this country, you were a leader, a deliverer of sorts and you did your job well. You pulled away “the mans” grip on the system and set the path for a black President, black CEO’s like Richard Parsons Ursula Burns and Kenneth Chenault and for that I thank you and we area all indebted to you. But, it is now time stop. Your approach is outdated. It is ineffective and misaligned. It could be argued, your outdated approaches are setting us back as they continue to operate from the fact the system is racist. This assumption is offensive to the millions of white Americans who aren’ racist, those who support diversity and have been part of the solution for years. Enough Jessee, the NAACP, and my fellow brothers and sisters who are still angry and are fighting yesterdays fight.

“Fighting yesterday’s fight.” I like that. I didn’t grow up in America, and bigotry in the Philippines is more fueled by social status, familial pedigree and regionalism. We studied the history of the USA, though, and I find the concept of race relations in this country both boggling, fascinating and annoying. Because of the constant flux between populations, people moving in and around the country, different values are shared amongst different groups of people.

Today’s race relations are different from those as recent as 1986, and the speed by which information exchanges will change race relations even more so, and faster. Back in 1984 (IIRC) my mother went on a trip to San Francisco with a friend and his family. When they entered a department store, a sales associate shadowed them at every turn, watching closely, making sure she and her friend didn’t steal anything. Never mind the fact that my mom’s friend happened to be the wife of a Philippine Member of Parliament. The reputation of my people at the time was that we’re far from trustworthy. When I moved to the States in 2001, I never experienced that, not even from the most insular “rednecks” in Maryland.

Groups still believe in, and exhibit, stereotypes and archetypes. I’ve personally observed Asians’ and Hispanics’ attitudes towards African Americans and I can say that the relationships between these many groups have a long way to go. That said, I believe that if there’s one thing that can help us get together, beyond groups and racial designations is that we are all Americans. It’s the whole point of being in America! We have immigration problems in Arizona and other states because (in part), legal or not, a large number of immigrants do not see themselves as American. We need to promote this value, and I think that the current trends on how we treat the concept of diversity needs reexamining.

Shirley Sherrod may very well be the victim of her own unfortunate verbiage. She may have openly admitted to racist thoughts, and a decision, twenty-four years ago, based on race. Take all that, and consider that Shirley Sherrod is no more a victimizer as she is a reminder that we have a long way to go to be at our best.

Aaron Brazell explains:

Matt suggests (I think accurately) that a theme that is provided for WordPress (it does not work without WordPress) is a derivative work and requires GPL compatibility. He also suggests (accurately, I think) that GPL compliance would only enhance DIYTheme’s business as evidenced by countless other proprietary software providers who have gone open source.

I agree with Aaron’s parenthetical opinions, but have to add that the GPL’s extension is towards the PHP code only and that images and CSS  that comprise front-end may be licensed under another license. I also have to add that the GPL is extended to themes that are released “for distribution,” which protects my work when I develop a custom theme for someone.

Of the very few non-GPL-licensed theme developers, the most notorious is Chris Pearson, developer of the Thesis theme. I missed the interview mentioned by Aaron, given that it happened during office hours and I was at work, but I saw tweets, and it seemed the conversation ended on a very open-ended, but acrimonious manner. Chris Coyier has a (mildly humorous) summary. It looks like we’ll be seeing a court case soon enough.

My opinion on this matter, just as about almost everyone’s opinions on this, does not matter. What matters is that WordPress is a community project, and that the rules of game theory apply. Isolation in this project is worse than death.

I’ve been a critic of the WordPress project’s leadership, but never personally, and always on matters which I considered material and I’ve always tried to suggest, no matter how mean I’ve become, a course of action. A lot of Matt’s critics, however, are nihilistic and have nothing to offer. They don’t even have an endgame. They just revel in the power and authority that notoriety affords.

I have made my peace about the GPL-ness of WordPress themes. The safeguards to protect my intellectual property with regards to design already exist. I really don’t have much else to add, except that I personally would rather get back to work and leave this conflict to the courts.

That said, I have to confess: more days than I do not, I hate going to the gym.

There, I said it. It’s a lot of work. I have an elbow issue that has hampered my progress with some lifts (including the bench press, the yardstick by which all manly strength is measured). I wake up sore the next day, and the DOMS is worse two days after a hard workout. I do a split routine that hits my entire body such that I barely recover until the rest days. On rest days, I do some cardio. I don’t burn out, but my body is never alloweed to fully rest. I have calluses on the palms that were at one time so soft, hands that were predestined by some to be a surgeon’s.

I spend at least two hours at the gym per visit, and I drive ten miles each way to get there. This is gas that commutes one way to work. This is time I could be spending doing a design project, or something useless all together. I’ve avoided athlete’s foot from the locker room by wisely using slippers, but I’m pretty sure I picked up the flu there at least once. I’m certain I’ve estranged friends by spending too much time at the gym.

That’s a lot of discomfort, and actual losses over two years. There’s much reason to hate going to the gym. But there’s so much that I hate more than that.

I hate being out of shape at thirty years old. I’ve sat on my ass for years living a life of the mind, working in a livelihood of the mind (sales, but still), and I’ve neglected my body and my health. Despite what popular culture might say about “acceptance” and “confidence,” our bodies reflect what we do to it, and we are judged by others about what we’ve done to our bodies.

I hate that the media has reached an irreconcilable point where one show on the same channel talks about dangerous body images, and yet another of their shows is littered with images of the very bodies we shouldn’t aspire to because we might hurt ourselves trying, or because it’s too frustrating and time-consuming. I hate that a news outlet would feature an “obesity epidemic” yet obligingly take advertising dollars from the very same companies whose subhuman ingredients and nutritional compositions are making so many of us sick and fat in the first place.

I could sit all day, blog and tweet and watch more TV in a week than what a household used to watch in a year. I could eat at each step of the way. But I hate being overweight: I hate that I have to wear what amounts to a man’s muumuu so I can hide my unsightly curves in public, while being bombarded with the reality that so few among us have taken the time and made the effort to stay healthy. I hate that despite my current weight and body composition, I am still ahead of the curve for most men in my age group, because my current state isn’t really all that. I hate the fact that jeans, those durable denim pants that were built to last practically a lifetime, would have to be replaced every year if I maintained a sedentary, overly consumptive lifestyle. I hate having to buy new shirts every year because the XL that I wore three times last year doesn’t fit right any more. I hate having to buy new pants, of all things, as I suffer the indignity of the fact that in 2007 I wore size 32 and now am finding size 34 a little too tight, but here I cling to the hope that the effort I make at least four days a week will pay off and I won’t have to go to Old Navy next year to buy another pair of pants, which by then would be size 36.

I hate that fat comes hand-in-hand with ugly, and that behind it closely rides its younger, bastard brother, apathy. There are very, very few truly zaft people. Most people who could lose a few pounds could also use a haircut, a better scrubbing in the shower, fuck it, a daily fucking shower, and some better-fitting clothes. I hate that we out-of-shape people come with all sorts of sterotypes that impugn our honor. Fat people are lazy, or neglectful of family, or “eat too much.” I hate that once you’re stuck in an apathetic rut, even getting dressed for the gym can be such a chore. I hate that the beautiful people could at least pass off as having perfect lives. I want that kind of ironic invisibility, that benefit of the doubt that a fit guy or sexy girl gets during a job interview.

I know I may never meet the standards that popular culture might impose, I want my body to reflect the respect and care I give it. I may hate going to the gym, but what I will go through when I choose to quit the gym all together is something I hate more.

The facts are simple. Obama is still President and Commander-in-Chief, McChrystal is still a general. The CiC still calls the shots and grievances in the military are still carried through the chain of command. Talking to the press like this is a violation of this protocol. I dislike Obama, and have made it clear in the many posts I have written on my blog, but I dislike what’s going on with McChrystal even more. You’d think that after the lessons of history from Douglas McArthur’s tiff with Truman, a contemporary general would know better, but no.

To my Conservative friends: switch some names around, look at this issue broadly, and ask yourself whether you would react this way if it were any general and the President were George W. Bush? What if Petraeus’ aides were reported on being on the record as calling the VP names, and basically calling Bush incompetent? Would you cheer? If you’re Conservative, probably not. If you’re Liberal, you probably already cheered on a critical general in the form of General Shinseki.

Friends, it’s very simple. Our military and its dynamic with the civilian leadership has to maintain a high level of professionalism that wouldn’t be found in government alone, nor in corporate life. We don’t need McChrystal’s opinion, no matter how factual, no matter how much we dislike the current President, no matter how much it works to our advantage. We need our generals to be better than Shinseki and McChrystal, and we need ourselves to be at our best so as not to promote or encourage this kind of misbehavior.

…

…

…

…

…

…Okay. I got nothing. It’s just right past midnight anyway. I’ll be writing a more personal post later but tonight I’m just funning as usual.

After four years in the role, Tennant and Russell T. Davies’ team of writers had nowhere to go but formulaic: Tennant’s Doc—Doc10—had a habit of offering a way out for his enemies. Whether it was the the Daleks in Manhattan, the Family Of Blood or The Master himself, or Miss Foster, the stranded Pyrovilians, or Davros, not matter who Tennant-Doc was facing, you could expect The Offer. The Offer is a fixture in his role the way The Epiphany is to Hugh Laurie’s Doctor House. The problem is he offered the outs in such a way that they could never have appealed to the base personalities of his opponents, so much that they were mere traps, ways to assure Doc10 that his decision to mete out his brand of punishment was the right decision.

There are many things I can glaze over in evaluating his role—his madcap and slapstick antics, and his penchant for inspiring people to kill themselves over him—but predictability is not one. As such, Midnight remains my favorite episode of Doc10′s adventures: a situation where is was completely helpless and without the ability to offer anyone a second chance.

A few months later, the youngest man to ever play the role of The Doctor graced our screens and, coupled with the excellent writing of Steven Moffat, took the role to places I could never have seen Tennant would go.

Smith—Doc11—is perfect for the kind of writing Steven Moffat is good at. We’re no strangers to his storytelling, what with Eccleston’s WW2 double episode, and Tennant’s Blink and Library two-parter. Moffat engages the viewer in what Joshua Treviño calls an “intimate” kind of horror, as opposed to what he calls RTD‘s “Transformers-style” plot devices. I felt that tension even in the first episode, in the scene with the open door in the hallway, or when Amy was being stalked by Prisoner Zero. Doc11 does well in this medium because his execution is psychological and directed inward, whereas Doc10′s character projected outward. Smith has his flaws: he seems to lack a passion where needed. He can be stern, but he doesn’t do anger convincingly, nor can he voice objection without seeming comical.

Taking the good with the bad, I’m convinced that Smith and Moffat form an amazing artistic team. They need and deserve each other, and only good things lie ahead.

So, with just the two-part season finale left, I was amazed when I read the blurb for part two of the finale: The Doctor is gone, the TARDIS has been destroyed, and the universe is collapsing. The only hope for all reality is a little girl who still believes in stars.

Every season there is one episode each that is light on either the companion, or the Doctor. Blink was light on both, Midnight was light on Donna and Turn Left was light on the Doc. This season, The Lodger had very little of Amy. I think it’s a a great twist to have the doctor mostly absent for the finale, because, as much as it is a twist, it emphasizes the greatest difference between Doc11 and Doc10.

Doc11 hasn’t left a trail of sacrificial lambs who threw themselves in the way of whatever it is threatening him. (One exception is Rory.) He is the antithesis of Doc10′s parasitic streak, whose survival depended on the heroic sacrifices of those who’ve grown to admire him. Doc11 is not afraid to allow those who threaten him to self-destruct. While Doc10 was a “no second chances kind of guy” as established in The Christmas Invasion, Doc11 is a no-chances-at-all kind of guy.

So what does this season finale hold for us? With a teaser blurb like that, I’m convinced the Pandorica is a prison built to imprison the Doctor. When it opens, it will be empty and waiting for him. I’ve learned enough from watching Doctor Who to not speculate too deeply. Moffat is an amazing writer who can take a viewer in unpredictable directions. I hope this will be the case throughout all of Smith’s tenure.

Some have questioned the responsibility and judgment of her parents: what kind of parent would encourage a child to circumnavigate by sail at such an age? Have their critics considered the commonsensical assumption her parents trained her in sailing, and that her circumnavigation is not the first long-distance sailing trip she’s done? I can’t be certain the assumption is true, but it’s very likely. Others wanted to debate whether her parents should be charged with negligence for “allowing” Abby to sail around the world. These same people, without the benefit of hindsight, wouldn’t even pass judgment on them if she completed her voyage safely. The question remains: how young is too young?

Legally, there are three age-related milestones: birth, adulthood, and retirement. There’s plenty worth discussing on these three topics, but important to understanding the Abby Sunderland issue is that adulthood is much fuzzier a concept than the other two. Children in Maryland can start working at age sixteen, and new adults can vote but still can’t buy alcohol. Young girls in some states can get an abortion without parental consent in some states.”Children” can now enjoy being on their parents’ insurance plans until the age of twenty-six.

Laws have adjusted the priveleges of adulthood beyond the legal, clear-cut definition mainly because some groups have gotten burned due to tragedy and would like to make adjustments for everyone else as a result. Abby Sunderland could have been yet another case that could have added yet another adjustment to the definition of adulthood.

What a lot of people miss is that people like Abby Sunderland, and the other children who’ve done this, are intrepid people. Not only do they have the potential to do great things, they are already on their way to realizing it. Let’s not let Abby Sunderland’s near-unfortunate outcome be another excuse for overbearing parenting. There’s plenty of that to go around as it is.

Observant visitors would note that this is barely beyond a pallette and image swap for last year’s theme, Richmond, and they would be correct. There are a couple of improvements: the contrast is much more readable, and the typography to the best of my ability has been improved for readability. I’ve also fine-tuned the styles and made the site a little faster (by microseconds, but still).

The header font is Delicious, a free typeface from Ex Libris. I’ve chosen shades of purple as the accent colors, in keeping with my commitment to avoid shades of blue as a crutch color in design. This is also the first theme I placed in a production environment that doesn’t give a whit about compliance with Internet Explorer 6.

As for Memorial Day: in keeping with this holiday, don’t expect me to greet or wish anyone a “happy” Memorial Day. Yes, many of us use this long weekend to spend some time with family, to celebrate the unofficial start of the summer, or to do other stuff. Let’s not forget that this day is meant to commemorate those who have fallen in our military efforts, if but for a moment.