Lord Katsumoto

So Hattori Hanzo wouldn't be lonely all day, we got a kitten. The fiesty little guy is trying to claim some territory for his own.



Hattori wins most disputes.



But in time, Katsumoto will rise up and become a great Samurai Lord.

Friday night notes

Tonight I've just been sitting around, watching the cats (yeah we got another - I should probably do an official introductory blog post sometime soon) play and watching ball. I also ate some sushi, which continues to be glorious.

I submit the following notes for your consideration:

• So far my favorite sushi roll is the spicy crunchy salmon, slightly beating out the spicy crunchy tuna. California roll is ok, but not as good as the raw fish ones, although I don't really like a yellow-fin roll. I've only had an eel roll once, so I'll have to try that one again.
  
• Ray Allen is smooth as butter. That isn't sufficiently superlative, so make it super-duper butter. There is nobody smoother in the league, and the only other name that I think deserves consideration in the pantheon of smoothness is Tracy McGrady. Other top-tier players who exhibit smoothness include Iverson, Nash, Dirk, and Redd, but in lesser quantities than Ray-Ray and T-Mac.
  
• Kittens are insane. By all rights Katsumoto should have 8 concussions already, just from running full speed into solid objects like glass shower panes and metal bed frames. Not to mention the numerous beat-downs Hattori delivers when Katsumoto mistakenly thinks he can sneak-attack with impunity. Meanwhile Hattori seems to be adjusting awkwardly to his new status as the alpha-cat. He's definitely dominating the kitten in direct confrontations, but he seems confused and generally pouty about the invasion of the new dark-haired whirling dervish.
  
• I'm all about Leffe Blonde Belgian Ale. Try some.
• I'm watching Chris Wilcox play significant minutes for the first time since back in the day, and he pretty much plays exactly like everyone who knew him then would expect. He's unbelievably athletic, which can carry him at times, but he clearly just doesn't care. His head isn't in the game, and he absolutely cannot be trusted to make the right cut or pass out of a double team, or properly defend a high screen. He can get a double-double whenever he puts his mind to it, but his low numbers of blocks for a 6-10 guy with unreal hops give you an indication that he's his head isn't in the game.
  

Iraq --> Iran, somebody do something?

Time Has Run out -- and the Choice is Yours:

If, several months or a year from now, we are in the middle of a catastrophic and ever-widening war triggered by an attack on Iran (by either the U.S. or Israel), let no Democrat be heard to say: "But there wasn't anything we could do! We didn't want this to happen, but there wasn't anything we could do to stop it!"

It's absolutely not true. If this nightmare should come to pass, they will be its co-equal creators together with the executive branch. I don't think people are willing to face just how disastrous the consequences of an attack on Iran would be. Again, read my earlier essay for further details. But people had better face it now, if they want to have a chance of stopping it.

Issuing statements of strong disapproval and generally deploring what the administration does are not remotely close to sufficient at this point. Undo both authorization of force resolutions, pass a resolution regarding impeachment, draft articles of impeachment now, and talk about the great dangers that face us every single day. And do it right now.

Stop the Iran War Before it Starts:

Until American politicians from either party show that they care more about the lives of the men and women in the armed forces who operate in harm's way than they do about their own political fortunes, we will remain in Iraq. It takes courage to stand up against this war when the tide of public opinion continues to hold out hope for victory. "Doing the right thing" is a thing of the past, it seems. "Doing the politically expedient thing" is the current trend. The American public may have articulated frustration with the course of events in Iraq, but this feeling is derived more from a frustration at being defeated than from any moral outrage over getting involved in a war that didn't need to be fought in the first place. Congress takes its cues from the American people, and until the American people are as outraged over the mere fact we are in Iraq as they are over the rising costs of the conflict--human, moral and financial--then Congress will continue to dither.

Republicans fucked everything up, and now Democrats don't seem willing to 1) fix it*, by doing absolutely everything they can to get troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, and 2) stop it from happening again, by containing President Bush's insane provoking of Iran.



* as later noted in comments, "fix it" wasn't the phrase I should have used

Bush is a liar

On the new Iraq strategy:

WSJ: Was there a moment in the war when you said we have to make a major change in the way we're doing things in Iraq?

GWB: Yes, there was.

WSJ: When was that?

GWB: September/October.

Bush 10/25/06:

This is a tough war in Iraq. I mean, it's a hard fight, no question about it. All you've got to do is turn on your TV. But I believe that the military strategy we have is going to work. That's what I believe

more

addictive diversions interrupted by ever-sharper episodes of anxiety

From a post in July 2006:

The fraud of primitive authenticity
by Spengler

adspar's quick summary:
This sprawling commentary in the Asia Times Online is presumably inspired by Nicholas Wade's Before the Dawn. Spengler wonders why it is that popular culture typically portrays primitive people as "peace-loving folk living in harmony with nature" and not the nasty, violent savages they really were. He concludes that as Americans move beyond Christianity, we're left without inspiration, so we'll take whatever we can get.

why you should read it:
The 2nd to last paragraph ends with one of the most incisive comments I've ever read. I truly felt shocked when I read it. You need to read the rest of the article to understand the quote properly, so I don't want to post it here yet. (Now I've built it up too much and you'll be disappointed. Sorry.) There's also a criticism of Jared Diamond that I don't really agree with, but I'll admit that could be my politically biased brain at work. Maybe I'll write more about that later.

My quick summary contained an idea that I’m very familiar with from my musings on the irrationality of religious faith, which is the idea that people are inclined towards believing comfortable lies. Spengler’s observation is that Americans are easing their transition away from one comfortable lie (the supernatural mythology of Christianity) by propping themselves up with another (the noble savage).

As I said at the time, I’m a bit perplexed by his criticism of Jared Diamond. While I’m certainly no expert, I would think that if Diamond had defended the noble savage idea too strongly I would have noticed, having read Stephen Pinker’s demolishing of the noble savage in The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature shortly before I read Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, New Edition. I suppose I’d have to reread both books (I’ve been meaning to go back and read Pinker again anyway) to make an actual argument, so for now I’ll again just note my objection and move on.

Dave has recently criticized me for being overly critical of an America that he thinks is a much better place than the rest of the world. While he didn’t especially articulate his complaint well in those comments, I sympathize with (what I think are) his aims, at least to some extent. I think putting America’s shortcomings into a broader context of humanity can be interesting and enlightening (though I continue to assert that the vast majority of my criticisms stand on their own, and that context could only make the complaints look less severe, which doesn't erase those criticisms, and which could even dull our motivation to correct them), and likely quite helpful when trying to solve those problems. He emphasized a modern global political perspective as the means of putting America in context, which certainly has merit. But perhaps he’s overlooked that I’m often trying to put my observations into another broad context, an understanding of human nature.

So all that that being said, I'm going to discuss Spengler's criticism of America, and I'm going to attempt to draw from a broader understanding of human nature supplied by psychology and anthropology and history (eventually - the purpose of this post is more to elaborate and explain the problems I see). I want to do this because half a year after first reading it, I'm still kind of blown away by that powerful paragraph I mentioned in my "why you should read it":

An overpowering nostalgia afflicts the American post-Christian, for whom the American journey has neither goal nor purpose. He seeks authenticity in nature and in the dead customs of peoples who were subject to nature, that is, peoples who never learned from the Book of Genesis that the heavenly bodies were lamps and clocks hung in the sky for the benefit of man. Even more: in their mortality, the post-Christian senses his own mortality, for without the Kingdom of God as a goal, American life offers only addictive diversions interrupted by ever-sharper episodes of anxiety.

I get chills just reading "American life offers only addictive diversions interrupted by ever-sharper episodes of anxiety." Holy shit! I’ll preemptively note that I of course think that American life offers more than JUST that. My strong reaction though is because I think he’s cutting through to a truth that resonates pretty deeply, at least to me and 4 other people.

Another reasonable complaint is that this bleak view of modern life isn’t limited to America, but Spengler’s observation is that many other nations have a deep cultural heritage to fall back on as religion’s influence wanes. I’m not convinced that in reality the line is as clearly drawn as that, but there’s still a power to the general observation, whether it applies exclusively to Americans or not.

I never gave a great deal of thought about why religion still has its teeth more deeply into America than to most other first-world nations, but this shallow culture hypothesis is an intriguing alternative to the more popular explanation that we were founded as a nation of religious outcasts. I haven’t failed to note how completely our gatekeepers fail us: American education is getting worse and worse, our politicians are overwhelmingly incompetent, and our press uncritically parrots anything they hear.

We have our fingers plugged into our ears up to the second knuckle and we refuse to acknowledge reality whenever it conflicts with our ideology, or whenever it makes us the slightest bit uncomfortable.

Global warming? I’m not listening...

Torturing and killing people, spying on Americans, silencing critics in the name of freedom? I can’t hear you...

Reality is more complicated that “Jesus will make it all ok”? Not getting through…


There's a fascinating connection between this American emptiness and the NeoCon agenda, which is laid out in compelling fashion by the British documentary The Power of Nightmares (available for free legal download), which lays out the history of the neocon movement, and its core philosophy that America needs to fill its empty void with intense patriotism (preferably inspired by opposition to and war against an evil enemy) and conservative religion (preferably evangelical Christianity). Throw in some authoritarian submission and a pinch of anti-intellectualism to stifle any rational objection ("hey, this all sounds nice but it is flatly contradicted by reality" .. "DO NOT QUESTION THE LEADER!! WHAT ARE YOU, SOME KIND OF HIPPIE KNOW-IT-ALL PROFESSOR?!?") and you've got a pretty fucked up country.

I'm feeling pretty disturbed. I better go watch American Idol.

girth

I'm close to a post of original content that is longer than 2 paragraphs, but I've been close for several days. I'm slow to pull the trigger.

Can a Guinea Pig be a Man Beard?

How does anyone take this channel seriously?

What an astonishing asshole this anchor is. Tremondous "interview" technique.

Hanzo

We adopted a cat today.



Growing up, my family always had a dog, but never a cat. I kind of want to get a puppy, but we aren't home enough during the day to take care of one yet, so we decided to get a pet that wouldn't require as much attention.



Kira has declared him "the most attractive male in this household." He's certainly quite a handsome fellow, and very curious and playful.

We shall call him Hattori Hanzo.

Chuck

I love Barkley on TNT, probably because I love people who have no filter. Has anyone else noticed that he uses "first of all" and "numba one" as a verbal crutch constantly? I was thinking about keeping track of every time I heard him say it but I'm too lazy. He literally said "first of all" 4 times in the last 2 minutes, including twice within 10 seconds of each other.

the top 3 bearded groups

1. The Amish
2. Al Qaeda
3. Hasidic Jews
   

Read the full report at MAN BEARD BLOG

20 questions

I'm thinking of a person...

Top Hybrid Comedies

Recent changes - I finally saw LMS and loved it.

My favorite movies that combine comedy and other stuff. As the list changes, I'll bump it up.

1. American Beauty
2. The Royal Tenenbaums
3. Little Miss Sunshine
4. Ocean's 11, 12
5. O Brother, Where Art Thou?
6. The Princess Bride
7. Rushmore
8. Three Kings
9. Boondock Saints
10. The Truman Show

Honorable Mention: Snatch, Orange County, The Hunted, The Last Waltz, Ravenous

Amazing impromptu essay

Wow, this is an awesome blog post. I'm impressed beyond words.

Cliff Notes:

Mother describes a lame writing task a teacher irresponsibly assigned to her daughter's class, then prints the absolutely brilliant essay her daughter submitted. To top it off, she includes the teacher's mind-numbingly stupid response. The comments under the post are good too.

This followup, in response to some hateful bullshit from a commenter (shocker, the hateful commenter is a Baptist minister), is also worth reading.

[UPDATE: Holy shit I hadn't read the comments on this followup when I first posted. Definitely read those too

UPDATE 2: More.].

(I got these links from Pharyngula)

Dr. Dino, Alice's hero, sentenced to 10 years

Check it out. Any comments from Alice Benbow on the matter? She's previously mentioned how he was her favorite bullshit artist.

SARSGAARD!

Let's just see where this takes me. Here I am blogging at 10pm on a Saturday night. My wife just told me to blog about how pathetic it is that I'm always blogging. Well you know what? She's right and yet she's wrong, and yet she's right.

Anderson Cooper is 39 years old and he's making at least $4 million per year, and he used to be on Channel 1, and I don't even know how many people know what Channel 1 is. Raleigh Valverde, Tracy Smith, Craig Something. Those guys filled my mornings with ambivalence in high school. (I was in the marching band. Does this help my patheticness? The only thing that would be more pathetic is if I was the drum major.)

Hillary Clinton might be the next President. I used to hate her. Now I don't really like her, but if she wins the Democratic nomination I'll pretty much have to vote for her unless George Clooney runs as a Republican because I'd totally vote for him. I used to say I'd never vote for a woman for President, but that was mostly just to piss off my sister.

Speaking of drum majors and marching bands, do you remember this classic post? Guess who made me go to that? Oh yeah, my wife, the former drum major. YOU'RE FINISHED!

There's no point to this post, unless of course the point is for me to get all stream-of-conscious(ness?)y on your ass, in which case there is a point. And I think there is a point. Don't you?

She just came over and read what I wrote so far and feigned like she was pissed off but really she loves it. Then she said "yawn" like it was boring, but that's bullshit. Is this boring? Yeah I know, it is awesome. Now she's telling me what a great drum major she was. Yeah blogging on a Saturday night is what's pathetic.

I don't know a lot about pirate culture, but Arby's is a good food chain that specializes in roast beef sandwiches. Have you caught on yet?

Two things are going on in this post. First, I'm making fun of Kira in real time. And second, I'm watching the Peter Sarsgaard SNL episode and using it to seed random commentary. Anderson Cooper, Hillary Clinton, pirates, Arby's... these are all straight out of the episode... the episode that Kira is watching... while pretending to lead a marching band.

PUNISH THEM! KILL THE GAY!

What is so terrible about two people of the same gender rubbing their parts together? Why is this such an offensive thing?

Nigeria is preparing to pass laws that makes it a crime, punishable by 5 years of hard labor, for two gay people to be in the same place, or for someone to express gay love in a letter. What the fuck? Actually I guess they're getting off light, considering that under Islamic law, gay sex requires the offenders be stoned to death, which also happens in lovely Nigeria.

But it isn't just the asshole Muslims that are behind this. Jesus is all in favor of it too:

The new bill has the support of Nigeria's Anglican Church, and its leader Archbishop Peter Akinola who has been at the forefront of opposing gay clergy in the denomination. Conservative Anglican churches in the US have aligned themselves with Akinola.

This gigantic bigotard, who is some kind of Christian leader in the United States, calls Akinola "a shining example of one brave man" for his inflamation of hatred.

(I saw this story at Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

changes

comment here on the new format

read if you want

political/psychology

zero self-awareness

Going through some old posts, I just remembered that "chez" and "check my ip" were the same person. I stumbled upon this comment in July 2005 from chez:

youre not unlike howard stern. when someone catches you on a point. you just hang up on them (or in this case, throw rocks from a perch) since this is your site, you have this luxury. i scoff at you

Note that after I started calling him out on the bullshit in his initial rants, "check my ip" disappeared and never responded to any of my points or questions.

Alice Benbow and Jim R. Schwiesow

This is in response to the latest comment on links adspar likes 7, presumably posted by Alice Benbow. If you don't remember the background with Alice, read that link and the comments, the latest of which is copied and responded to here (the full article is available here).

OF MEN AND APES
By Jim R. Schwiesow
January 15, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

There are those, thanks to our educational hierarchy and many of the educated morons of our scientific community, who believe that the human species has a direct lineal connection to a lovesick amoeba, which oozed from a primordial soup and morphed from its primitive one-cell state into a series of ever ascending species of creatures, until at last it came into that wonderfully bipedal human form of being with a brain of capabilities, which far surpass our most sophisticated computers. The wonder here is how supposedly intelligent people could embrace such an absolutely ignorant supposition, while at the same time rejecting the Biblical account of creation.

Note that Mr. Schwiesow in no way offers any rebuttal of evolution whatsoever. He simply insults it and maybe offers some kind of argument from incredulity. He basically says, "since I can't imagine how complex life like humans evolved from one-celled life, it cannot have happened." Sorry dude, but your scientific ignorance doesn't refute hundreds of thousands of scientific articles that support evolution and the unlimited observations about the natural world that are perfectly explained by evolutionary theory.

And then of course he holds up the Genesis myths as the default winner in his (imaginary) defeat of evolution. Why is it any more believable than the God of Abraham created the world than the Flying Spaghetti Monster? His explanation...

These people seem to be living proof that Darwin’s hypothesis was reversed; it is men who turn into monkeys. That can be the only explanation for such convoluted rationally incomprehensible thinking. Or could it be that the thinking is not irrational at all, and that this is a part of a master plan for the complete subjugation of the people by a new world order?

Ah yes. After Darwin's theory was reversed, there was a master plan to use his work against us. Normally I'd stop reading here, but since Alice is so dear to me I kept reading. For Alice's benefit, I'll note that up to this point, Schwiesow has proven nothing but his own ignorance. He's mocked and insulted and huffed and puffed, but he has not yet offered any argument at all.

That the foundation of this nation was based upon Biblical principles cannot be denied. This contention can be argued against, it can be attacked by demogogues, and the unknowledgeable, misinformed, and uniformed can deny it, but the cold hard fact is that it is supported incontrovertibly. Even a cursery reading of the Declaration of Independence, the preamble to the Constitution, and the Constitution itself contradicts any other argument or conclusion. The great majority of our founding fathers understood God’s Word, and believed in God’s Word. And they put His word to practice in their lives.

Sigh. This is such hackneyed garbage. I'd refer you to Ed Brayton's writing, as he often deals with this kind of claim. As a short response, yes some of the ideas that are dear to this country are in the Bible, but that's because the Bible is a huge book with lots of ideas in it. The Bible also lends support to slavery, murdering disobedient children, and countless other offensive ideas, along with some good ideas too. But this nation was founded on Enlightenment principles, by men who wanted to keep religion out of government. That some of the founders were Christians is in no way evidence that the nation was founded on Biblical principles. So this whole paragraph of Schwiesow's is, at best, meaningless.

We have come to the most critical times in the history of our nation. We are witnessing a carefully planned program of social engineering, which is being carried out by an increasingly despotic government and the interntionalists thereof. The nation is rapidly being immersed in a depraved satanic system. For the government to carry out this program for the total subjugation of a once free people it is necessary to dull the senses of the people and instill in them a totally false system of beliefs. They must be dumbed down and made compliant.

Except for the satanic part, this guy is starting to speak my language. There is definitely some nasty stuff going on in government these days. I wonder how he thinks people are being dumbed down? I say it is with beer and television and Paris Hilton. Let's see what else Mr. Schwiesow has to say about it...

One of the key elements of the program to bring about a slavery to a socialistic system is to destroy the peoples faith and belief in a sovereign God. It is infinitely easier to control one who believes that his existence is the result of a biological mutational accident and that it is the ancestral blood of apes that courses through his veins, than it is to bring under subjection one who has an absolute faith that he was wonderfully created in the image of his creator, Almighty God.

Woah woah woah. It is "infinitely easier" to control an atheist than a Christian? Wow, I've heard some funny shit from creationists before but this is right up there. What possible basis for this does he have? I'm guessing, based on what I've read so far, that he won't back it up in any way, but let's keep reading.

Certainly one who believes that he owes his very existence to the great God who breathed into him life and that his spirit is of God and by God, and that he was created as a free agent with an ability to chart his own course in life is not easily controlled.

Wha???? Not easily controlled? Let's see if we can more easily get a group of atheists or Christians to load into a hot, boring Church on Sunday, giving up valuable weekend time to recite empty words to an imaginary friend. Wow, I could just keep listing endless ways that theists are controlled by their religious leaders. In the comments are some other good examples. I can't even imagine how someone could possibly claim that atheists are more easily controlled than religious people.

That Satan has succeeded wildly with his platform for disinformation and control is evident when we look at our nation today and assess the extent to which we have been deprived of our liberties and subjugated to a despotic ruling elite. We are being controlled by corporatists, fascists, internationalists and communists, all birds of a feather and brothers under the skin who share to a great extent the same ideology and the same goal, which is a new world order.

Wow, he's starting to speak my language again. And again, the Satan talk is the only exception. He's managed to see through all the government bullshit, but he can't let go of the religious bullshit. Very weird.

The Tower of Babel is well on the way to re-construction, and this time God is not going to come to earth and disrupt the process. We see today in many of the world’s leaders an incarnation of Nimrod. And we are also witnessing much success in the perversion of the human soul by human agents who promote the agenda of the powers and principalities of the air. This success in corrupting the people has to be gratifying to those who lead the way to that new world order. That they have suceeded in dumbing down the people cannot be denied. And that they have corrupted and desenitized the human psyche likewise cannot be denied. The national conscience has been seared.

Uh... ok....

Jay Leno has, with great success and hilarity, pointed up the stupidity of our new generation with his famous man on the street segments, during which he randomly selects individuals of both sexes and asks them relatively simple questions. The answers are uproarious, and at the same time pathetic. The people that he selects cannot answer the most simple of questions, and their improvisations often times cause convulsive laughter, which dissipates into dismay at the ignorance displayed. That the segment is a comedic success for Mr. Leno cannot be questioned, but what it says about the nation is profoundly pathetic.

Wow, pop culture references coming out of nowhere. I didn't see this coming. But I agree with him. It doesn't disprove evolution, demonstrate that our nation is founded on biblical values, show that Satan is commanding our government, or that the Tower of Babel is being rebuilt, but I agree that "man on the street" reveals how pathetic Americans can be.

This domestic ignorance is the product of the social engineering of the one world elites, who occupy stragic positions in our educational heirachy, which enables them to ensure that our youngsters will move into society without the ability to understand even the most basic of concepts. If they cannot reason, they cannot question. They simply take up space and follow blindly the direction provided by the elites who direct them along paths, which lead in the wrong direction. Real knowledge had been replaced by superstition, myth, and occultic tripe. Too many of our young cannot read, they cannot write, and they cannot think. They walk through life like programed zombies contributing only to the collective ignorance of the nation.

It totally blows my mind that this guy is saying this. It is beyond funny that the same guy who laughs at evolution and promotes biblical creationism is criticizing anyone else's reasoning skills. He sees how people blindly follow leaders, and yet he doesn't see how he is blindly following a leader. The level of self-awareness here is disturbing.

What has happened to the soul of this nation? If our values and our morals are a reflection of that soul we have progressed to a most exacrable state of being. Over the course of the last thirty-two years, forty-seven million three hundred thousand babies have been cold-bloodedly murdered. They were delivered into the hands of medical executioners, who murdered many of them in the most heinious of ways. Living babies fully developed with beating hearts were stabbed in the head and their brains were suctioned by mentally diseased sociopaths. How were these murders justified by the women who delivered them up to the executioners? If your answer is that it was done to save a mother’s life you are miles away from the truth.The truth is, as verified, by those who sought a medical abortion of their babies, that these murders were done for expedience or convenience. Seventy-five percent of those who were queried said that a baby would interfere with their work, school, or other responsibilities. If their mothers had felt likewise, these women wouldn’t be around to worry about work or the responsibilities of life.

The sanctity of human life means nothing to the social engineers who are guiding our destiny in the most depraved way. Their perspective on a human being is strictly from a biological viewpoint. They have no more regard for a human life than they have for the life of an animal. In fact it has been proven time and time again that they exhibit more compassion for animals than they do for human beings. To them a human being is just another primate of limited value. If a person’s parts are showing some wear get rid of the person to make way for another. This kind of thinking has had a profound affect on medical ethics in our nation. A new breed of cats called bioethicists has come upon our national scene. They have undermined the Hippocratic oath and have re-defined life and death. They have made great strides in making forced euthanasia a part of our new national culture. Their guiding light is Darwinism. They embrace this half-baked hypothesis in the same manner that Hitler embraced it, to justify the killing of the infirm and the disabled.

Even if you don't like abortion (abortion make me sad), and even if you think abortion should be illegal (the prospect of banning abortions makes me sadder), and even if you somehow buy into his link between abortion and Darwinism and Hitler (which is profoundly ignorant), this doesn't disprove evolution. It just artificially links a few things you don't like.

Also, who has made "forced euthanasia" a part of our culture? Who has redefined life and death? As usual he doesn't back up any of his absurd claims.

And their methods are most horrible to contemplate. They kill their victims slowly and with great suffering and pain. Their work was highlighted nationally with the recent legal medical murder of Terri Schiavo. If a dog were to be put to death by starvation and dehydration, the perpetrator of that act would be prosecuted and incarcerated. When a human being is put to death in such a horrifying manner it is with the approval of the courts and with the blessing of the system. The fact that medical practitioners can be found to carry out so inhumanely the taking of a helpless human life is a commentary on the depths to which this nation has fallen.

What the flying fuck is this guy talking about. Who intentionally kills people with great suffering and pain? What is he talking about? More unfounded bullshit.

If the putrescence that we are witnessing today in society is just a small sample of things to come in a new world order, we have to contemplate the future of our children and grandchildren with great anguish. But, such is the future that we build for them with our complacence and failure to deal with those who lead us down the path to destruction.

I’m through, and I‘m sick.

© 2007 - Jim R. Schwiesow - All Rights Reserved
Jim Schwiesow is a retired sheriff with 46 years of law enforcement service. He served with the Unites States Army with the occupation forces in post war Berlin, Germany, and has a total of nine years of military service, which includes six years in the U.S. Army Reserve.
His law enforcement service includes: three years in the military police, fifteen years as an Iowa municipal police officer, and twenty-eight years as the duly elected sheriff of Sioux County, Iowa.
Jim has written a number of articles, which have been published in various professional law enforcement journals.

Wow. I have to wonder what is going on with Alice Benbow that she thought it would be helpful to send this to me. Maybe she just wanted to take up an hour of my time. This is some worthless bullshit.

(I should also note that his original is peppered with numerous spelling errors. They weren't my mistake. )

New blogger finally

I finally got it. Now I have to figure out what to do with it. I've started adding labels to my posts. I'm giddy.

flip a switch

In never stops bothering me how when you try to talk to otherwise normal and intelligent people about certain things, they instantly flip a switch and become irrational, unreasonable, dishonest, abusive, combative, defensive, evasive and generally ridiculous.

Bush's detachment from reality should be disturbing to everyone, but no, you're just anti-Bush and you love to bash him. You're such an asshole, criticizing the man. Do you think it is easy being President? He's trying his best! I can't fault a man for trying, can I? Huh? Huh? CAN I?!!

We're on the brink of a war that would be even more of an unmitigated disaster than Iraq, which is difficult to imagine, but what else can we do? We can't trust that crazy person over there, so we should attack, otherwise he might attack us! What are you, some kind of terrorist sympathizer?! When another 9/11 happens you'll be saying Bush should have done more!!!!

And while they're pouring money into a black hole halfway around the world, they aren't even making corporations pay their taxes. Uh... double taxation, right? uh... ... umm... I gotta go... I'm not running away though, don't think that. I just don't want to talk about it.

Back home, pretty much every government organization is spying on United States citizens whenever they want, but we have to disrupt the terrorists! Besides, why do you care unless you have something to hide?!!

"This exposes the right's total intellectual bankruptcy as nothing else has, in my opinion. They are nothing more than rich authoritarian thugs whose only real mission is to maintain their prerogatives. One of these days somebody is going to find a reason to think they are unamerican too --- and they are probably going to use that very same police state power against them. Then they'll screaming too --- but it will be too late."
- Digby

Total intellectual bankrupcy indeed. Somehow they think these responses of theirs are meaningful when every one of them is just empty rhetoric. Who are you to say what is right? You think you're so smart and everyone else is so stupid! Listen up, boy, there's more to this world than being right all the time. Have some respect, you pompous asshole.

Idiots in charge

How it is possible that we could have a brand new Secretary of Defense, appointed in the middle of a military campaign in Iraq, say the following? How is this even conceivable?

At one point Gates, just three weeks on the job, told lawmakers, "I would confess I'm no expert on Iraq." Later, asked about reaching the right balance between American and Iraqi forces, he told the panel he was "no expert on military matters."

My eyes are bleeding.

KILL KILL KILL RAPE BURN (yay America!)

The Iraqi people love us and greet us as liberators

Punish the right, Reward the wrong: YAY AMERICA

Our media sucks. People who got everything wrong about Iraq are still regarded as expert pundits and get even better jobs than before. Shouldn't major media be seeking out people who got everything right with their Iraq predictions?

We're so fucking backwards.

everything is totally fucked parts 4 through 17,438

Iraq has been a complete disaster, and it is basically inevitable that now we're going to war with Iran too, which will be much much worse. I don't even know what to say.

Iraq is going so well, why not Iran too!

Greenwald full article today (go to his site and read everything else he's ever written):

The President's intentions towards Iran need much more attention

Iraq continues to receive the overwhelming bulk of attention in the media and among political analysts. But the fate of Iraq, tragically, is all but sealed -- the President will send more troops and order them to be increasingly brutal and indiscriminate, and they will stay through at least the end of his presidency. That is just a fact. The far more attention-demanding issue now is what the President's intentions are with regard to Iran.

As Think Progress notes, the White House took multiple steps yesterday to elevate dramatically the threat rhetoric against Iran. Bush included what The New York Times described as “some of his sharpest words of warning to Iran” yet. But those words could really be described more accurately not as “threats” but as a declaration of war.

He accused the Iranian government of “providing material support for attacks on American troops” and vowed to “seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies.” But those networks are located in Iran, which means that search and destroy missions on such networks would necessarily include some incursion into Iranian territory, whether by air or ground.

Hours before the speech, the White House released a Powerpoint presentation with details about the president’s new policy. “Increase operations against Iranian actors” was listed in the “Key Tactical Shifts” section. As The New York Times reported: “One senior administration official said this evening that the omission of the usual wording about seeking a diplomatic solution [to the Iranian nuclear stand-off] ‘was not accidental.’”

But these were merely the latest in a series of plainly significant events over the last several weeks that, taken alone, are each noteworthy themselves, but when viewed as a whole unmistakably signal a deliberate escalation of tensions with Iran by both the U.S. and Israel:

• Israel's Prime Minister "accidentally" ending decades of nuclear ambiguity by unambiguously acknowledging Israel's nuclear arsenal;

• New Defense Secretary Robert Gates's extraordinary departure -- the very same week -- from long-standing protocol by explicitly describing Israel as a nuclear power;

• The arrest by the U.S. military of senior Iranian military officials in Iraq;

• The announced build-up of forces in the Persian Gulf back in December, the purpose of which -- according to Bush officials -- "is to make clear that the focus on ground troops in Iraq has not made it impossible for the United States and its allies to maintain a military watch on Iran";

• The leaking by the Israeli military that Israel was developing plans for an attack on Iran using small-grade, limited tactical nuclear weapons. Though the leak was done in such a way as to create plausible deniability as to its significance -- the leak was to a discredited newspaper and leaks that a country has "planned" for a certain type of attack are commonplace and do not mean they are actually going to attack -- the leak was nonetheless deliberate and caused the phrases "Israeli nuclear attack" and "Iran" to be placed into the public dialogue, at exactly the time that tensions have been deliberately heightened between the U.S./Israel and Iran -- the purpose of which is almost certainly not a planned nuclear attack by Israel on Iran, but a ratchering up of the war rhetoric;

• Increasingly explicit advocacy by neoconservatives in the U.S. for a war with Iran, as reflected by the recent Washington Post Op-Ed by Joe Lieberman in which he really did declare that the U.S. is already at war with Iran ("While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran");

• in the later stages of 2006, the President's most prominent neoconservative supporters becoming increasingly explicit about their advocacy of war with Iran;

• The transparent and deliberate use by the President throughout the last several months of 2006 of highly threatening and accusatory language towards Iran that is identical in content and tone to the language he used towards Iraq in the months immediately preceding the U.S. invasion -- often verbatim identical.

I think there is a tendency to dismiss the possibility of some type of war with Iran because it is so transparently destructive and detached from reality that it seems unfathomable. But if there is one lesson that everyone should have learned over the last six years, it is that there is no action too extreme or detached from reality to be placed off limits to this administration. The President is a True Believer and the moral imperative of his crusade trumps the constraints of reality.

The AEI/Weekly Standard/National Review/Fox News neonconservative warmongers are mocked because of how extremist and deranged their endless war desires are, but the President is, more or less, one of them. He thinks the way they think. The war in Iraq has collapsed and the last election made unmistakably clear that Americans have turned against the war, and the President's response, like their response, was to escalate. How much more proof do we need of how extremist and unconstrained by public opinion and basic reality he is?

For anyone with ongoing doubts, here is how the President thinks, as expressed in an October, 2006 interview with his with his ideological soulmate, Fox's Sean Hannity:

Hannity: Is this a struggle literally between good and evil?

Bush: I think it is.

Hannity: This is what it is? Do you think most people understand that? I mean, when you see the vacillating poll numbers, does it discourage you in that sense?

Bush: Well, first of all, you can't make decisions on polls, Sean. You've got to do what you think is right. The reason I say it's good versus evil is that evil people kill innocent life to achieve political objectives. And that's what Al Qaeda and people like Al Qaeda do.

Bush means all of that. That's really what he believes. And he isn't constrained by the things that constrain rational people because his mission, in his mind, transcends all of those mundane limitations. Is there anyone who still doubts that?

More importantly, a war with Iran can happen in many ways other than by some grand announcement by the President that he wants to start a war, followed by a debate in Congress as to whether such a war should be authorized. That is the least likely way for such a confrontation to occur.

We have 140,000 troops (soon to be 20,000 more) sitting in a country that borders Iran and where Iran is operating, with an announced military build-up in the Persian Gulf imminent, increased war rhetoric from all sides, the beginning of actual skirmishes already, a reduction (if not elimination) on the existing constraints with which our military operates in Iraq, and a declaration by the President that Iran is our enemy in the current war.

That makes unplanned -- or seemingly unplanned -- confrontations highly likely, whether through miscalculation, miscommunication, misperception, or affirmative deceit. Whatever else is true, given the stakes involved -- the unimaginable, impossible-to-overstate stakes -- and the fact that we are unquestionably moving forward on this confrontational path quite deliberately, this issue is receiving nowhere near the attention in our political discussions and media reports that it so urgently demands.

For all the pious talk about the need to be "seriously concerned" and give "thoughtful consideration" to what will happen if we leave Iraq, there is a very compelling -- and neglected -- need to ponder what will happen if we stay and if we escalate. And the need for "serious concern" and "thoughtful consideration" extends to consequences not just in Iraq but beyond.

Philippines trip

I meant to post this link a long time ago, but here are a bunch of pictures from our trip to the Philippines.

anyone?

Did anyone read this yet, as per my pathetic request?

Oh how funny and clever!

Oh how funny and clever!

ADELAIDE, Australia, Jan 9 (Reuters Life!) - An Australian zoo has put a group of humans on display to raise awareness about primate conservation -- with the proviso that they don't get up to any monkey business.

Over a month, the humans will be locked in an unused orang-utan cage at Adelaide zoo, braving the searing heat and snacking on bananas. They will be monitored by a psychologist who hopes to use the findings to improve conditions for real apes in captivity.

100 years earlier...

Oh how funny and clever!

The first day of the "exhibit", September 8, 1906, visitors found Benga in the Monkey House.^[2] A sign on the exhibit soon read:

The African Pigmy, "Ota Benga."
Age, 23 years. Height, 4 feet 11 inches.
Weight, 103 pounds. Brought from the
Kasai River, Congo Free State, South Cen-
tral Africa, by Dr. Samuel P. Verner. Ex-
hibited each afternoon during September. ^[3]

Bronx Zoo director William Hornaday saw the exhibit as a valuable spectacle for his visitors, and was encouraged by Madison Grant, a prominent scientific racist and eugenicist.

I'm like a Ninja Turtle

I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free.

-Michelangelo

I get giddy about every new post at Man Beard Blog. My wife says that's because I have ridiculous self-love, but I have a different explanation. I really don't think of Man Beard Blog as my creation, even though by any standard of objective reality it is. I really think of Man Beard Blog as something I'm discovering. Every post there has flowed out of me effortlessly, in contrast to posts here which routinely take hours to put together. Hell, the first week of Man Beard Blog I put up like 12 posts with all kinds of self-references and themes and metaphors and whatnot. I'm more like Columbus than DaVinci. Instead of sailing, I just start writing, and Man Beard Blog is my New World. It is like I have some direct cosmic connection to a higher comedic power; all I can do is serve as a conduit from the humor gods to the blogosphere. I can't help feeling giddy and laughing hysterically at my own work my discovery, because it is fucking awesome.

My wife also says I'm insane.

Outrageous

Outrageous

Great Presidential Moments, #25

From Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States (emphasis added):

In December of 1898, the peace treaty was signed with Spain, officially turning over to the United States Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, for a payment of $20 million.

There was heated argument in the United States about whether or not to take the Philippines. As one story has it, President McKinley told a group of ministers visiting the White House how he came to his decision:

Before you go I would like to say just a word about the Philippine business… The truth is I didn’t want the Philippines, and when they came to us as a gift from the gods, I did not know what to do with them… I sought counsel from all sides – Democrats as well as Republicans – but got little help.

I thought first we would only take Manila; then Luzon, then other islands, perhaps, also.

I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight; and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentleman, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almight God for light and guidance more than one night. And on night late it came to me this way – I don’t know how it was, but it came:

1. That we could not give them back to Spain – that would be cowardly and dishonorable.
2. That we could not turn them over to France or Germany, our commercial rivals in the Orient – that would be bad business and discreditable.
3. That we could not leave them to themselves – the were unfit for self-government – and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain’s was; and
4. That there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God’s grace to the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed and went to sleep and slept soundly.

The Filipinos did not get the same message from God.

Perhaps as many as 1,000,000 Filipinos died as a consequence of their resulting revolution for independence, and countless attrocities were committed.

I guess I'm making progress

I read Sam Shulman's empty critique of "the new atheists" (posted here on Richard Dawkins' site). I used to get pretty fired up when I read stupid shit like that, but this time I just laughed and knew that it would be properly shredded soon enough.

Shulman's entire point seems to be that modern atheists are terrible people because they aren't ashamed of and reluctant about their atheism the way nonbelievers used to be back in the good-old days. Plus he throws in the same old meaningless accusations about close-mindedness and failure to appreciate the finer points of moderate religiousness.

But I saw through all of that right away and didn't feel compelled to rush out and do something about it. I guess that's progress.

It almost seems like the WSJ is actively promoting atheism by running criticism as empty as this. "Without God, Gall is Permitted." HOW DARE THEY HAVE SO MUCH GALL! If that is the best they can throw at us, we're in pretty good shape.

food for fuel and hungry eating delicious

I used to be a very picky eater, but over the years I've become more open to trying new dietary options. Foods that I never would have touched 6 years ago that are a major part of my diet now:

1. Chipotle (~2001)
   
2. Chinese food (~2003)
   
3. Sushi (~2007)
   

I first tried Chipotle some time in my junior year of college. I remember that it was a deal with Erm that I'd eat a burrito if he would listen to some kind of goofy music, but I can't remember what it was. Maybe Wesley Willis or Tenacious D. Whatever it was, in retrospect it is obvious that we both were ridiculous in our prior refusals.

I don't remember exactly when I first started eating Chinese food, but now I couldn't live without Kung Pao. It might have had something to do with living with Jeff when his mother and aunt bought a Chinese restaurant. Actually it might have been randomly meeting up with people at Panda Express before seeing The Two Towers in Bethesda.

Sushi is my new obsession. I don't exactly know how it started, but it was within the last month and now I can't stop eating it. I still know very little about it, and I'm not even sure exactly what I'm eating, but I do know that raw fish wrapped up with rice in a sloppy cylinder is damn tasty.

Other prominent food items that I still avoid:

• coffee (although I recently drank some kind of frozen sweet beverage from Starbucks that was tasty)
• fungus
• beans
  

Saddam for Science!

I've had some discussion about the execution of Saddam Hussein, but this is the first time I've heard this idea: Saddam should have been kept alive to be studied. I love Richard Dawkins.

Dennett

I just read the first 25 pages of Darwin's Dangerous Idea, and found it quite inspiring. Maybe that's because I'm acutely aware that I'm in desperate need of some inspiration right now, or maybe Daniel Dennett's book is just that good on its own regardless of the mental state of its reader. Anyway, I keep thinking that going back to school and getting a PhD and being some kind of career academic is the most appropriate career path for me, but I'm still not sure exactly what to study. Richard Dawkins calls Dennett "that scientifically savvy philosopher" and after 25 pages I'm optimistic that his brilliantly articulated insights into philosophy and science will help me sort things out a bit.

Dennett summarizes Aristotle's four basic "causes" of human curiosity:

(1) We may be curious about what something is made of, its matter or material cause.
(2) We may be curious about the form (or structure or shape) that that matter takes, its formal cause.
(3) We may be curious about its beginning, how it got started, or its efficient cause.
(4) We may be curious about its purpose or goal or end (as in "Do the ends justify the means?"), which Aristotle called its telos, sometimes translated in English, awkwardly, as "final cause."

The fourth, telos, is most associated with the question "why?" Concern with the telos of things seems to me (and to Dennett) to be a common feature of humanity. We want to know "why." Dennett relates the question of "why?" to Darwinism:

Whenever Darwinism is the topic, the temperature rises, because more is at stake than just the empirical facts about how life on Earth evolved, or the correct logic of the theory that accounts for those facts. One of the precious things that is at stake is a vision of what it means to ask, and answer, the question "Why?" Darwin's new perspective turns several traditional assumptions upside down, undermining our standard ideas about what ought to count as satisfying answers to this ancient and inescapable question. Here science and philosophy get completely intertwined. Scientists sometimes deceive themselves into thinking that philosophical ideas are only, at best, decorations or parasitic commentaries on the hard, objective triumphs of science, and that they themselves are immune to the confusions that philosophers devote their lives to dissolving. But there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.

I'm very impressed with this insight (and so are others). This idea is similar to Dawkins' notion that understanding Darwinism is a consciousness raiser, a powerful example of how the appearance of design can be misleading. I think why Dennett's phrasing seems so brilliant to me is that it specifically distinguishes the science and the philosophy, the philosophical implications of Darwin's idea being that there is a good way to answer a repeated chain of "why" questions instead of the resignation of ending with "because of god."

So, I'm inspired for two main reasons I think. First, I'm hoping to clear up some of my muddled thinking about academic options, and Dennett already seems like he'll be a hot knife through muddled butter. And second, I like how he's is explaining how an extremely powerful idea is commonly underappreciated, because I have a list of ideas that I think are underappreciated.

Not that I expect anyone to understand based on this disorganized gushing how one thing leads to another, but this kind of helped me realize that more important than picking the right thing to study is to just get back in school and studying anything and let it all work itself out. Philosophy and science, psychology and anthropology and whatever else, they're all connected. I should just get in somewhere, and just go wherever it takes me.

Plagiarism?

I'm working on another post about Daniel Dennett's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea. In that post I'm going to quote the following paragraph from page 21 (of the edition I own anyway):

Whenever Darwinism is the topic, the temperature rises, because more is at stake than just the empirical facts about how life on Earth evolved, or the correct logic of the theory that accounts for those facts. One of the precious things that is at stake is a vision of what it means to ask, and answer, the question "Why?" Darwin's new perspective turns several traditional assumptions upside down, undermining our standard ideas about what ought to count as satisfying answers to this ancient and inescapable question. Here science and philosophy get completely intertwined. Scientists sometimes deceive themselves into thinking that philosophical ideas are only, at best, decorations or parasitic commentaries on the hard, objective triumphs of science, and that they themselves are immune to the confusions that philosophers devote their lives to dissolving. But there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.

Look at this link, specifically the second paragraph under the heading "What are the implications of evolution?" Look familiar? Am I missing something or is this just blatant plagiarism? If it is, what, if anything, should I do about it?

Shape-shifters

Do these people not realize that their words are permanently recorded somewhere, and that people will point out when they contradict themselves? What is going on their heads that they just think they can change everything they've said without anyone noticing?

Senator John McCain, considered a leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, seems oblivious to this. Today he claimed that he knew the Iraq war would be long and tough, after having made numerous quotes before the war about how quick and easy it would be.

I used to reflexively support every candidate from that party, basically because my parents did. I wonder if I would have supported this shape-shifting asshat. I wonder if my parents will.

[By the way, as I'm gearing up for the exciting new blogger upgrade that I'll probably never actually get, I'm starting to think about what exciting new categories I'll be able to tag my entries with. So some obvious categories I'll be using will be "poker" and "atheism" and "movies." But I could go for cooler tags like "life-sucking cards" and "god-slaying" and "life-sucking media." In this case I'm experimenting with "shape-shift" as a tag for liars or dishonesty or inconsistency or whatever. How do we feel about "shape-shift"? Or any of those others that I just made up off the top of my head. Clearly "everything is totally fucked" is a lock for its own tag.]


UPDATE: Another shape-shifter.

UPDATE 2: More McCain dishonesty

UPDATE 3: Sweet, a whole boatload of shape-shifters.

Virgil Goode keeps on rolling in stupid

Here's elected representative, Virginia Republican Congressman Virgil Goode, in USA Today (via Dispatches):

I believe that if we do not stop illegal immigration totally, reduce legal immigration and end diversity visas, we are leaving ourselves vulnerable to infiltration by those who want to mold the United States into the image of their religion, rather than working within the Judeo-Christian principles that have made us a beacon for freedom-loving persons around the world.

This is beyond satire but I'll try anyway:

We need to promote Judeo-Christian principles to protect our country from religious takeover!

We need to restrict rights in order to be free!

JESUS SAVE US FROM BROWN PEOPLE AND THEIR EVIL WAYS!!!!!

Yeah that's not really satire since it is exactly what he said, except he was dead serious and not trying to be ironic.

(Everything is totally fucked.)

More evidence that everything is totally fucked

Look at this list of complete wrongness. Everything he says is completely and undeniably wrong. Every single word. He's never gotten a pronoun right even. And his career has never been better. He's shooting straight to the top. This is the country we live in. We eat this shit up and ask for seconds. Another huge heaping pile of steaming shitty wrongness please! Only the most ridiculous wrongness will do!

Also, I feel like I've been pretty profane lately. That is what happens when I get pissed off. I should hire another intern to track my profanity per 100 words over time and see if it correlates with my blood pressure or something.

Am I insane or is everything totally fucked?

I read this yesterday and it made me feel insane. Please read it. Seriously, I just don't want to be the only insane person. I want you to read it at my recommendation and comment here that now you feel insane too. It is long. If you print it out, it takes 24 pages. It probably takes about 45 minutes to read. You should really read it though. Please someone read it and help me feel better. This is the most pathetic request, I fully acknowledge.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19720


I have a few scattered thoughts now that I've given my brain 24 hours to recover.


[RWA Bush]

If you want insight directly into the mind of George W. Bush, read everything you can about Right Wing Authoritarianism. Read the "significant correlations" section. Pretty much the entire list jumps out at you as describing our President. Highlights from the RWA wikipedia that the opening link include:

• Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs.
• Uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear.
• Use many double standards in their thinking and judgments.
• Weaken constitutional guarantees of liberty such as the Bill of Rights.
• Be prejudiced against racial, ethnic, nationalistic, and linguistic minorities.
• Be bullies when they have power over others.
• Help cause and inflame intergroup conflict.
• Be highly self-righteous.
• Use religion to erase guilt over their acts and to maintain their self-righteousness.

I just don't understand why this research isn't more popular, because it explains so much about American politics. (There is an outstanding series by Sara Robinson called Tunnels and Bridges that first exposed me to the concept.)


[Incompetence in Charge]

I'm just dumbfounded by how incompetent Bush is on every level. It literally is like everything he touches turns to shit. And not only is he totally inept, he surrounded himself with more complete ineptitude. His entire administration is full to the brim with unqualified yes-men who are incapable of performing in their jobs. There are endless stories about how political loyalty interview questions were more important than insignificant details like education or experience. The shit in that article is just mind-blowing; not only are his key players morons, they're morons who hate each other and are constantly squabbling. How the hell did this happen??

This leads to my next thought.


[Most of this country doesn't really give a shit about politics, and this is what we've let happen]

Nobody really pays attention. A huge percentage of voters just vote with their feelings, not with any actual analysis of the issues. We're just too fat and addicted to television to engage in complex thought about these kinds of issues. A central theme of Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present (which deserves 5 blog entries worth of heaping praise based on the half of it that I've read so far) is that a large middle class buffers the controlling elites from rebellion by the repressed poor. I'm sure I'm grossly simplifying it, but America just doesn't give a fuck what our leaders do as long as we're well-fed and comfortable.

And like John Wilkins, I have to wonder what will ever come of this. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and all the other neocon bastards are never going to be held accountable for their misdeeds. Yes, Rumsfeld got fired, but I'm sure he can get any kind of high-paying consulting job he wants. But all of these guys are just going to get away with it.

It reminds me of how the recently late Gerald Ford decided to spit on the face of justice and pardon Richard Nixon. How does that make any sense at all? This quote from the link is how I feel about Bush and company:

"The tragedy is not that those who rose so high should fall so low. The tragedy is that those who had so low an appreciation for our government should have risen to such high positions in it."

How did anyone stand for Ford's pardon of Nixon? I just have to conclude that they were too fat and comfortable to care about justice. How can we stand for what Bush has done to our country?


[Poorly Educated Public]

Another reason we, the American public, let this all happen is because we're terribly undereducated. In most of the 5 tributes that I owe Howard Zinn, I'll be mentioning that it is a national disgrace that we don't learn Zinn's kind of history in our schools. I think most of the 7 people who read this far will already realize that the American public is terrible at math and doesn't understand the scientific method, and has terrible reasoning skills. But we are also ignorant of all but the most self-serving home-team pseudohistory that is peddled to us in middle school.

PZ Myers points out a list of disgusting shit our country has done (a link to the same site that hosts Sara Robinson's work that I mentioned earlier), and rightly laments that "we are a nation of monsters." We are monsters, but we think we're noble. If we learned real history, Zinn's history, we'd know what monsters we are, and maybe we'd be a little more humble and take a little more care than to elect a monster like Bush.

The more poorly educated we are, the more it fuels this anti-intellectual streak we have in us. We make fun of the smart kids in elementary school, then in high school, and then when they run for President (this is another long read that I'd strongly urge). Instead we elect a simple fella who seems like he'd be fun to hang out with, and had no clue what the difference was between a Sunni and a Shia. We want a high school class president for a national President, a guy we can party with on the weekends and who doesn't make us feel like the dumbasses we are by using big words and fancy-schmancy scientificizing.


[Denial of Reality]

Maybe this last one brings it all together, or maybe it should have come first. Or maybe I'm the one missing reality. I just feel insane because nobody acknowledges basic reality. Its like absolutely no facts of the natural world register with Bush, with America. Bush just doesn't realize that we can't "win" in Iraq. Bush, like the rest of America, just doesn't understand that we're incapable of simply accomplishing anything we want with the sheer force of our will.

I mean, I already knew this, having read The Republican War on Science and seen the way the public and politicians can just deny global warming or evolution despite mountains of indisputable evidence, but it is just infuriating to see that denial of reality costing thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis their lives. And a million other ways it messes everything up.

All for what?

So, am I insane or is everything totally fucked?

Keith Ellison is the winner

Virgil Goode constituent bequeaths Koran to be used by Ellison

Ellison To Be Photographed With Koran Owned By Thomas Jefferson

Virgil Goode and Dennis Prager, you lose.

So uh... eh then, eh?

I'm thinking of moving to Canada. Thoughts?

Mega super bonus points for anyone who can tell me where the post title came from. Good luck using google even.

Martynas Andriuskevicius and his Deputy God

About a week ago, an awkward 7-2 prospect in the Chicago Bull organization named Martynas Andriuskevicius was knocked unconscious with a brutal sucker-punch by a teammate on his NBADL team the Dakota Wizards. He sustained a concussion and some of his doctors are telling him he might never play basketball again.

ESPN reports today that Andriuskevicius will not press charges against his attacker because Ares, the Greek God of Bloodlust, will handle the situation for him:

"It's not going to help me anyway," Andriuskevicius said, according to the Tribune. "Ares is going to take care of it."

Maybe he isn't fully recovered from that punch. What does he think Ares is going to do, send a vulture after the guy?

Oh wait, I got my deities mixed up. He actually said that "God is going to take care of it." Clearly this is a much more reasonable thing to say. Declining to involve the police because you believe that Ares will avenge you is bat-shit crazy, but believing that the God of Abraham is going to settle scores in a life-after-death is perfectly fucking normal.

Imaginary friends aside, young Martynas says the reason he doesn't want to press charges is because he won't benefit from them. What about the rest of us? I want him to press charges. I don't want thugs like Awvee Storey to be able to criminally attack people without facing legal consequences.

Perhaps the kid is worried that he'd be violating some implied locker room code where you don't betray your teammates no matter what. I'd somewhat understand if that was a reason (and in that case this rant would be about how stupid such a culture value is), but he didn't say he was worried that pressing charges would reflect negatively on him, he just said there's nothing in it for him.

What about the satisfaction of doing the right thing? Of standing up for yourself against a fucking asshole who attacked you when your back was turned? What about providing a high-profile example to deter future sports-related assaults? What about justice? Maybe we should disband all police forces and the entire criminal justice system, since today's fashionable deity is going to take care of everything.

Nope, there's nothing in it for Martynas and Ares will take care of it. What a selfish prick.

Virgil Goode update: still an asshole

The more he says the stupider he sounds.

I liked this

20 brilliant of 2006