Category: Rants

Our Dear Leader former President George W.

Bush had a fetish, as is common among Republicans, for "looking tough" and sending the Right Message. When American interests are attacked we must respond with force; to fail to do so will invite further aggression against us. We can never negotiate with aggressors, lest the message be sent that a little pressure will cause Uncle Sam to cave to one's demands.

To a certain extent, Bush and his Republican ilk have a point. When terrorists attacked targets in New York and Washington, D.

C. a forceful response was necessary and justified. If the response had been to accede to the demands of the aggressors – the withdrawl of the American presence in the Middle East and Israel – it's not hard to see how that would set a dangerous precedent. Even if one considers such a withdrawl to be appropriate, to do it in response to the demands of a terrorist would send an unequivocal message: blow up a plane or two and America will grab its ankles for you. A response was certainly called for, although I would have preferred a useful one rather than a tangential misadventure in Iraq. But I agree with the former President that one cannot bend to the demands of a violent loner or group of extremists.

It is in this spirit that I am deeply disturbed by the news that Women's Health Care Services of Wichita, KS, the clinic of recently-murdered Dr.
buy amoxil online buy amoxil no prescription

George Tiller, is being closed. Like many Americans, I have a real hard time condoning the practice of third-trimester abortion. Regardless of where one stands on the issue, however, the bigger problem here is the message being sent here: murder the right person and your demands will be met. If President Bush was ideologically consistent (*guffaw*) he'd emerge to remind us all that if we bend to terrorists' demands, they've already won. In this case I can't see the decision doing anything but convincing the fringes of the pro-life movement that they've found an effective way to achieve their ends: lone wolf-style terrorism.
buy dapoxetine online buy dapoxetine no prescription

These people have already convinced themselves that murder is morally justified regarding this issue. If we follow that with positive reinforcement, then from a rational choice perspective there's very little reason for pro-life zealots not to kill a doctor who performs abortions. They see it as trading one life to "save" thousands more. Closing clinics provides a symbolic victory if not a practical one, a victory which lets them know that if they are willing to go to prison (a small price to pay, certainly, for saving the lives of thousands!) they can get what they want.

Now, if we really wanted to go President Bush on this problem we'd pre-emptively arrest every pro-lifer and apply some "enhanced" interrogation techniques. I'd settle for a simpler and more rational response, a response that doesn't tell an unhinged group of fanatics with the voices of God and the Virgin Mary rattling around in their heads that if one kills enough of these people, access to abortion will disappear.

Like most news media, CNN devoted heavy amounts of coverage today to the potential and later the confirmed release of a new version of the iPhone. Being something of a Luddite and in any case insufficiently wealthy to purchase one of these sacred, life-affirming gadgets, this "news" is not relevant to me. But more to the point, it simply isn't relevant. The number of things wrong with this coverage go a long way toward explaining why the mainstream media, the alleged Hard News, is indistinguishable from Stuff magazine. You own an iPhone? You're interested in it? You like electronic gadgets? That's all great. It doesn't change the fact that this. is. not. news.

Information about the release of a new consumer product used to be called advertising; apparently the media now believe that if enough yuppies in their target demographic people own said product it becomes news. The media plead that their hands are tied. News about new cars, hot fashion accessories, and new beeping gadgets is What Viewers Want. And if children want to eat Pixy Stix and a jar of Smuckers for dinner, then by God, that's what their parents should give them.

We need a little paternalism from our media. We need them to take the attitude that, goddammit, you're going to sit down and watch this story about Afghanistan or read this lengthy piece about Congressional spending bills because it's important. Because you need to know in order for our society to function like a reasonable approximation of an informed democracy. Instead we are so conditioned to believe that what we want is what we must get, the real news is pared down gradually but continually and coverage of the iPhone fills the void – news which is indistinguishable from advertising in any significant way.

I try to impress upon my students that discussions of "bias" in the media are a red herring; our society is hypersensitive to the specter of political bias when the damage is being done by more subtle commercial bias. In short, CNN and FOX carry segments about the iPhone because they want people to tune in, not because they have an insidious agenda to eliminate hard news. Their fates are dictated by Nielsen ratings, subscription figures, and advertising rates. If running actual news brings in x viewers and crap about a phone brings in 10x, the decision is made for them.

So it's your fault. And the media's fault. It's everyone's fault. Decades of anti-intellectualism, atrophy of basic reading comprehension skills, and the decline of civic-mindedness have produced a citizenry that neither wants nor is capable of understanding a real and potentially complex news story. Indeed we feel it is right that the media respond to market incentives and give us what we want. We really want to know about SpacePhone and its new apps! How does it match up with the Palm and Blackberry competitors? Such stories have always been legitimate fodder for journalists but were understood as dessert items, just-for-fun pieces provided as a refreshment after the real news. Alas, we've done away with any pretense of eating a balanced meal and our media obligingly provide a buffet of candy.

Americans aren't good at geography. Looking at the college-aged we continually see a legitimately terrifying level of ignorance about even the most basic concepts; 30% of 18-24 year olds can't the Pacific Ocean, 11% can't find the United States, and 70% can't find New Jersey on a U.S. map. Most of us, even people who have high levels of education, can't find our asses with both hands in our rear pockets. If we can't find Vermont I don't even want to imagine how well most of my countrymen would do with an African map.

Be honest. You're pretty smart. If I handed you a blank continent, how many countries do you think you could label? I'm guessing the average American would get South Africa (maybe) and that's it. Maybe Egypt. Maybe well-educated people could pick out two or three others.
buy wellbutrin online buy wellbutrin no prescription

We do badly at this sort of thing, mostly because we consider most of the continent utterly irrelevant to global issues on the minds of most Americans. True, Africa makes it tricky; the 53-nation continent has three Guineas, two Congos, and some phonetic games (Niger vs. Nigeria, Gabon vs. Gambia, Mauritania vs. Mauritius) which thwart even the well-intentioned.

This is a long way of explaining why nobody gives a shit about Guinea-Bissau even though we should.

The interests of Washington and the Pentagon (including the rare instances in which they don't overlap) don't care about places like this. It's small, it has no economic value to the Western world, and it lacks immediate relevance to our boogeyman of the moment (Communism, terrorism, etc).

Most people hear the name and think "Is that a real country?" much more often than "I wonder how their political crisis is being resolved?" We also tend to look at the problems of Africa as, as Red Sox fans would say, just Manny being Manny. Coups? Economic collapse? Famine? AIDS? Well, that's Africa for you. Just Africa being Africa. But if one could ever make a case for American imperialism, for "intervention" in the domestic affairs of a faraway nation, a place like Guinea-Bissau would be a good example.

In the past three months, G-B has taken several big steps toward becoming West Africa's Somalia – a lawless, ungoverned madhouse and magnet for international criminal activity. On March 2, long-time President/Whatever "Nino" Vieira was assassinated, an event which garnered Page 50 news coverage in the West. While G-B suffers from "Bigmanism" in its governance as much as the rest of Africa and Vieira was far from an enlightened leader, the murder of a head of state used to be cause for concern in Washington. Not so in this case. Nor did it trouble anyone when on June 5, three candidates for the upcoming election were murdered at the hands of the armed forces. As the nation's military is insufficiently competent (or equipped) to actually govern the country, their insistence on doing so is troubling.

It is troubling because this is how the seeds of international issues are sown.

Had we recognized these warning signs in the Sudan twenty years ago, for example, it might not be the monument to genocide and terrorist safe havens that it is today. While dictatorship is common across the continent, what we're seeing here is a country in the first stages of complete collapse, the end result of which will leave them unable to control their borders or put up even the pretense of controlling what goes on within them. In time it will become a Club Med for terrorists like Somalia, a violent narco-state like Colombia, or a jumping-off point for civil wars and violence throughout the rest of Africa. The people "running" this nuthouse will need a source of foreign currency, and it ain't going to come from exporting bananas.

While the American record of propping up dictators in countries like this is far from exemplary, the international community could continue to prod ECOWAS into taking a more active role in maintaining the stability of West Africa's more troubled areas. If imperialism doesn't work (and it rarely does) the least we can do it support and encourage self-governance. West Africa is not entirely unstable; compared to Sub-Saharan and Saharan Africa it looks downright sane.
buy clomiphene online buy clomiphene no prescription

We have to believe that there are solutions to these problems from an international perspective. Otherwise we ignore them, insisting that there's nothing to be done, and then in ten or fifteen years we act surprised when Guinea-Bissau has become a hotspot for the foreign policy malady of the day.

Yet if we could find five people, even in the State Department, who could locate Guinea-Bissau I'd be shocked. As the colonial French used to say, C'est l'Afrique.

This is relatively brief; I am wilted after a 12-hour day of being interviewed by all and sundry who cared to stroll by and throw a ball at the guy suspended over the dunk tank.

Doing his best Hillary Clinton impression, the President has seen fit to reverse his decision to allow the release of additional detainee abuse photos after intense lobbying by the Pentagon and Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki.* The latter issued dire warnings when informed of the impending release, stating that "Baghdad will burn," anti-American sentiment will skyrocket (is it low now?), and much violence will befall the brave men and women of our Armed Forces, about whom the media and public ceased thinking a year ago. The President bought into the Pentagon frame, concluding that "in fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger."

Here's the thing: I don't give a shit. That is not the point. It misses the point so entirely that it seems to arise from a parallel universe in which points do not exist and the native languages have no word for the concept.

The motivations of people who argue loudly against the release of these photos have nothing to do with "protecting the troops" or a sudden urge to care in the least about the levels of unrest among the citizens of Iraq. These people don't want the photos revealed because they don't want to see them.

It makes people feel guilty. It makes them feel responsible. It makes them feel stupid all over again for falling for the transparently idiotic rationale behind the war and the myriad excuses made to justify the methods used to conduct it. It makes people feel greedy, petty, and immoral to have voted – in some cases twice – for the people who are ultimately responsible for "enhanced interrogation" because they promised to cut taxes a few more times.

Tough shit, America. Look at the pictures. Look at what was done in your name.

At the conclusion of the Second World War, General Eisenhower demanded that military units stationed in Germany force German civilians to enter concentration camps and view the open pits full of emaciated corpses. It was a good idea. People should not so lightly be allowed to escape the feeling of responsibility, however indirect, for their actions. We cannot let this episode fester in the back of our collective unconscious, this series of mysterious, terrible things that happened and about which we know little. Make public all of the evidence, look at it, and feel like an asshole. Sweeping evidence under the rug provides the erstwhile war cheerleaders with far too easy an out.

That is, in my opinion, the surest way to repeat the entire series of events. None of the Great American Patriots who waved flags and chanted slogans like lobotomy outpatients as their heroic leaders greased the skids to war with undiluted bullshit should be allowed to escape the burden of guilt.

*Can we come to a consensus on whether or not this guy is credible? I don't care which one we pick, I'm just tired of the constant seesawing between taking him seriously and treating him and the entire Iraqi government with the polite condescension usually reserved for high school student councils.

Amazingly, some of my friends and acquaintences appear shocked about the outcome of the Prop 8 appeal to the California Supreme Court. Seriously? Unhappy, I understand. But anyone expecting to win the battle on appeal after the state Constitution has been amended is misinterpreting the issues at stake.

California is among the few states in which the Constitution can be amended quickly and easily, by a simple majority on a referendum.
canadian online pharmacy canadian pharmacy online over the counter

And putting initiatives on the ballot is relatively easy as well, requiring either a vote of the state legislature or an initiative – basically a petition requiring a few thousand signatures. Unlike the earlier Proposition 22, which involved a statutory definition of marriage, Prop 8 involved an amendment. If you see the amendment as one that writes discrimination into the Constitution, you're not wrong. Regardless of how distasteful or discriminatory the amendment in question may be, the appeal asked the California Supreme Court to declare part of the Constitution unconstitutional. If that sounds possible, it isn't.

The fundamental job of the judiciary being to interpret the law in accordance with the Constitution, their hands are tied here. Hypothetically, let's say California voters voted for Prop 666, amending the Constitution to make it illegal for black people to ride public transit. Your liberal outrage aside there's absolutely nothing the Court could do about it. Once the Constitution is properly amended, it ceases to be possible for the Court to find it unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of race on public transit in this example. The parts of the Constitution that contradict it (equal protection, etc.) don't matter anymore. They've been amended. The California Constitution is the basis of all law in California and once it is amended to allow explicit discrimination, that type of discrimination cannot by definition be unconstitutional. Unless the appellants can argue that the amendment was not properly enacted (it was) they are wasting their time in court.

Of course Prop 666 would be appealed to the Federal courts and found unconstitutional for violating the protections afforded in the United States Constitution, which is legally superior to any state constitution. Does that seem like a promising option with Prop 8? Anyone think the US Supreme Court is going to give a gay-friendly ruling on this one? Me neither.

Face it, the anti-gay marriage movement played this one perfectly. They picked the right venue (a state with a virtual drive-thru amendment process) and the right time – an era in which the pro-gay marriage side won't want to press its luck by appealing this to the Roberts-Scalia-Alito-Thomas court. They came up with a successful plan and enacted it. The take-home lessons here are two:

Over the weekend I had the misfortune of being a fringe participant in a conversation about Michael Vick, and in it I heard a viewpoint which also has appeared in the more militantly animal-conscious corners of the internets. Namely, Mr. Vick should be banned from returning to the NFL where he stands to make a seven-figure salary when a team decides to roll the dice on a talented player with public relations and "character" issues. I see this viewpoint as an example of just how deeply-rooted conservative frames of criminal justice issues have become in this society.

To briefly review the facts, Vick committed some fairly heinous crimes for which he was indicted, convicted, and punished. He served 20 months in Federal prison. One could easily argue that he would have served more if not for his wealth and celebrity, but he also wouldn't have been prosecuted without his wealth and celebrity (as his high profile encourage prosecutors to make an example of him, which is fine with me). He also lost his $120 million contract, lost millions more in endorsements, had several million dollars worth of property seized, had to repay his former employer a substantial portion of the millions he had been paid, and was forced into bankruptcy. All of this sounds fair to me. He has been punished with good cause. But he has been punished.

In pre-1970s America, and in most of the industrialized world today, the purpose of incarceration and punishment is rehabilitation. Vick's words, his actions, and the fact that he hasn't smiled for 2 years indicate to me that he's a person who realizes "Wow.
buy stendra online royalcitydrugs.com/stendra.html no prescription

I fucked up. Bad." Without defending or excusing his actions, I can buy the argument that he knew that he was breaking the law but didn't think it was a big deal. Among poor communities, especially in the South, animal fighting and abuse are cultural institutions. He had probably been around it all of his life and, conversely, rarely around people who told him it was vile and unacceptable. He knew it was illegal the same way you know speeding is illegal. After going to Leavenworth, losing millions of dollars, and becoming a social outcast, I am willing to bet that he now understands that he was quite wrong.

Isn't that what a justice system is supposed to be about? We punish people for violating the law – violations for which ignorance is no excuse – and we rehabilitate them. But in post-1980, War on Drugs America, that isn't enough. We want to find some way to punish the guilty for life.

We want assurances not only that they were incarcerated but that they were incarcerated in a roach-infested, windowless cell with no lights for 23.

5 hours per day, released briefly to be tied to a post and whipped. We think it's neat that people convicted of drug-related offenses are ineligible to receive student loans (thus less likely to go to college, thus far more likely to return to one of the few high-paying careers that require no education: selling drugs). And that leads some of us to think it's not only desirable, not only acceptable, but right that Michael Vick should somehow be punished in perpetuity for his crime.

I could understand a long-term punishment specific to his crime. For instance, it would make sense if the judge forbade him to own dogs or required him to submit to a weekly visit from animal welfare officers if he did so. That would make sense in the same way that habitual drunk drivers are forbidden to drive or pedophiles are not allowed to be around children. However, I fail to see the benefit or logic to denying him the right to be employed in a field unrelated to his crime. The sense that it is Unfair for such a Bad Person to make a high salary doesn't have much of a place in the law. I doubt that Scooter Libby is working for minimum wage right now.

A friend of Vick's, one Clinton Portis, commented when he was first charged, "I don't know if he was fighting dogs or not, but it's his property, it's his dog. If that's what he wants to do, do it. I think people should mind their business.
buy intagra online royalcitydrugs.com/intagra.html no prescription

" This was widely reported. Another portion of the interview wasn't: "I know a lot of back roads that have the dog fighting if you want to go see it." Among poor, rural, Southern communities (and, according to law enforcement, increasingly among poor, urban, black communities) animal fighting is so pervasive that it simply isn't seen as a serious offense by people who are exposed to it regularly. So when Portis later stated, "At that time I had no idea the love people have for animals, and I didn't consider it when I made those comments" he probably wasn't lying. Hopefully the point that animal abuse is immoral and illegal has been made abundantly clear to Vick, Portis, and the many people who follow their careers – and the last group are the intended audience when a high-profile person is prosecuted for a crime. Now we move on. Guilt has been admitted and punishment has been administered. It serves no constructive purpose to channel the spirit of Reagan and adopt the attitude toward (non-white collar) criminals favored by his worshippers in Orange Counties across America.

For some reason CNN has seen fit to provide an upbeat take on the economy by front-paging this video (via their iReport feature) by a recent graduate of Syracuse University who has had little trouble getting a job. Why? Because he has skills. More likely skillz. Mad skillz.

What Broseph McFratdog has to say, in case you're at work and can't partake of the video, is that he has several job offers because he, unlike you, was smart enough to get the Right Skills to succeed in the job market. That is how the free market works, after all. People who succeed do so because they are better than people who don't. They are smart enough to get the Right Skills whereas your unemployed ass was not.

The best part, if you made it all the way to the end of the Marquis de Frat's monologue, is that the skills in question are only vaguely described – something dealing with "web design" or "system administration." A commenter on the CNN site helpfully notes "Type in 'Design Engineer' on Indeed (ed: a Monster-like job site) and you'll get more IT and Systems Engineer positions than you'll be able to read. You can pretty much write your own ticket in those occupations at this point."

"At this point." And what about a few years from now when an Indonesian is doing the job for six bucks an hour? Fratilla the Hun hasn't thought that far ahead.

Some people simply lack the will and psychological ability to fight the forces that work against them; they know only how to appease. They approach everything with the attitude of Neville Chamberlain and the Vichy French. This person thinks that if he kisses the market's ass enough and bends to its whims he will be treated well and rewarded. And thus he propagates the great myth that the key to succeeding in our current system is to gain "skills" – skills which the market will soon declare irrelevant, at which point one's experience and intellectual capital become worthless and working people are expected to uncomplainingly start over from scratch. This recent graduate's strategy is as smart (and likely to be as effective) as trying to appease a mosquito. Say or promise whatever you want; it's still going to bite you.

The myth that one succeeds by chasing the Next Big Thing, the latest hot field or must-have skill that the market values highly, is nothing but a game of whack-a-mole as people like this student (and those who came before him) chase one economic fad after another. All they have as job security is the assumption, rooted heavily in either explicit or subconscious racism, that "My job is too important / too complex / etc" for some uneducated savage in the Third World to do. The past thirty years of economic history are littered with the empty shells of people who relied on such a strategy.

So congratulations on appeasing the market, Broseph. It's still going to devour you.