join the resistance: fall in love

i read this on crimethinc.com (thanks jenny) and it's profoundly affecting me, i think:

Join the Resistance: Fall in Love

Falling in love is the ultimate act of revolution, of resistance to today's tedious, socially restrictive, culturally constrictive, humanly meaningless world.

Love transforms the world. Where the lover formerly felt boredom, he now feels passion. Where she once was complacent, she now is excited and compelled to self-asserting action. The world which once seemed empty and tiresome becomes filled with meaning, filled with risks and rewards, with majesty and danger. Life for the lover is a gift, an adventure with the highest possible stakes; every moment is memorable, heartbreaking in its fleeting beauty. When he falls in love, a man who once felt disoriented, alienated, and confused will know exactly what he wants. Suddenly his existence will make sense to him; suddenly it becomes valuable, even glorious and noble, to him. Burning passion is an antidote that will cure the worst cases of despair and resigned obedience.

Love makes it possible for individuals to connect to others in a meaningful way—it impels them to leave their shells and risk being honest and spontaneous together, to come to know each other in profound ways. Thus love makes it possible for them to care about each other genuinely, rather than at the end of the gun of Christian doctrine. But at the same time, it plucks the lover out of the routines of everyday life and separates her from other human beings. She will feel a million miles away from the herd of humanity, living as she is in a world entirely different from theirs.

In this sense love is subversive, because it poses a threat to the established order of our modern lives. The boring rituals of workday productivity and socialized etiquette will no longer mean anything to a man who has fallen in love, for there are more important forces guiding him than mere inertia and deference to tradition. Marketing strategies that depend upon apathy or insecurity to sell the products that keep the economy running as it does will have no effect upon him. Entertainment designed for passive consumption, which depends upon exhaustion or cynicism in the viewer, will not interest him.

There is no place for the passionate, romantic lover in today's world, business or private. For he can see that it might be more worthwhile to hitchhike to Alaska (or to sit in the park and watch the clouds sail by) with his sweetheart than to study for his calculus exam or sell real estate, and if he decides that it is, he will have the courage to do it rather than be tormented by unsatisfied longing. He knows that breaking into a cemetery and making love under the stars will make for a much more memorable night than watching television ever could. So love poses a threat to our consumer-driven economy, which depends upon consumption of (largely useless) products and the labor that this consumption necessitates to perpetuate itself.

Similarly, love poses a threat to our political system, for it is difficult to convince a man who has a lot to live for in his personal relationships to be willing to fight and die for an abstraction such as the state; for that matter, it may be difficult to convince him to even pay taxes. It poses a threat to cultures of all kinds, for when human beings are given wisdom and valor by true love they will not be held back by traditions or customs which are irrelevant to the feelings that guide them.

Love even poses a threat to our society itself. Passionate love is ignored and feared by the bourgeoisie, for it poses a great danger to the stability and pretense they covet. Love permits no lies, no falsehoods, not even any polite half-truths, but lays all emotions bare and reveals secrets which domesticated men and women cannot bear. You cannot lie with your emotional and sexual response; situations or ideas will excite or repel you whether you like it or not, whether it is polite or not, whether it is advisable or not. One cannot be a lover and a (dreadfully) responsible, (dreadfully) respectable member of today's society at the same time; for love will impel you to do things which are not "responsible" or "respectable." True love is irresponsible, irrepressible, rebellious, scornful of cowardice, dangerous to the lover and everyone around her, for it serves one master alone: the passion that makes the human heart beat faster. It disdains anything else, be it self-preservation, obedience, or shame. Love urges men and women to heroism, and to antiheroism—to indefensible acts that need no defense for the one who loves.

For the lover speaks a different moral and emotional language than the typical bourgeois man does. The average bourgeois man has no overwhelming, smoldering desires. Sadly, all he knows is the silent despair that comes of spending his life pursuing goals set for him by his family, his educators, his employers, his nation, and his culture, without ever being able to even consider what needs and wants he might have of his own. Without the burning fire of desire to guide him, he has no criteria upon which to choose what is right and wrong for himself. Consequently he is forced to adopt some dogma or doctrine to direct him through his life. There are a wide variety of moralities to choose from in the marketplace of ideas, but which morality a man buys into is immaterial so long as he chooses one because he is at a loss otherwise as to what he should do with himself and his life. How many men and women, having never realized that they had the option to choose their own destinies, wander through life in a dull haze thinking and acting in accordance with the laws that have been taught to them, merely because they no longer have any other idea of what to do? But the lover needs no prefabricated principles to direct her; her desires identify what is right and wrong for her, for her heart guides her through life. She sees beauty and meaning in the world, because her desires paint the world in these colors. She has no need for dogmas, for moral systems, for commandments and imperatives, for she knows what to do without instructions.

Thus she does indeed pose quite a threat to our society. What if everyone decided right and wrong for themselves, without any regard for conventional morality? What if everyone did whatever they wanted to, with the courage to face any consequences? What if everyone feared loveless, lifeless monotony more than they fear taking risks, more than they fear being hungry or cold or in danger? What if everyone set down their "responsibilities" and "common sense," and dared to pursue their wildest dreams, to set the stakes high and live each day as if it were the last? Think what a place the world would be! Certainly it would be different than it is now—and it is quite a truism that people from the "mainstream," the simultaneous keepers and victims of the status quo, fear change.

And so, despite the stereotyped images used in the media to sell toothpaste and honeymoon suites, genuine passionate love is discouraged in our culture. Being "carried away by your emotions" is frowned upon; instead we are raised to always be on our guard lest our hearts lead us astray. Rather than being encouraged to have the courage to face the consequences of risks taken in pursuit of our hearts' desires, we are counseled not to take risks at all, to be "responsible." And love itself is regulated. Men must not fall in love with other men, nor women with other women, nor individuals from different ethnic backgrounds with each other, or else the usual bigots who form the front-line offensive in the assault of modern Western culture upon the individual will step in. Men and women who have already entered into a legal/religious contract with each other are not to fall in love with anyone else, even if they no longer feel any passion for their marital partner. Love as most of us know it today is a carefully prescribed and preordained ritual, something that happens on Friday nights in expensive movie theaters and restaurants, something that fills the pockets of the shareholders in the entertainment industries without preventing workers from showing up to the office on time and ready to reroute phone calls all day long. This regulated, commercial "love" is nothing like the passionate, burning love that consumes the genuine lover. These restrictions, expectations, and regulations smother true love; for love is a wild flower that can never grow within the confines prepared for it but only appears where it is least expected.

We must fight against these cultural restraints that would cripple and smother our desires. For it is love that gives meaning to life, desire that makes it possible for us to make sense of our existence and find purpose in our lives. Without these, there is no way for us to determine how to live our lives, except to submit to some authority, to some god, master or doctrine that will tell us what to do and how to do it without ever giving us the satisfaction that self-determination does. So fall in love today, with men, with women, with music, with ambition, with yourself. . . with life!

One might say that it is ridiculous to implore others to fall in love—one either falls in love or one does not, it is not a choice that can be made consciously. Emotions do not follow the instructions of the rational mind. But the environment in which we must live out our lives has a great influence on our emotions, and we can make rational decisions that will affect this environment. It should be possible to work to change an environment that is hostile to love into an environment that will encourage it. Our task must be to engineer our world so that it is a world in which people can and do fall in love, and thus to reconstitute human beings so that we will be ready for the "revolution" spoken of in these pages—so that we will be able to find meaning and happiness in our lives.

What if everyone decided right and wrong for themselves, without any regard for conventional morality? What if everyone did whatever they wanted to, with the courage to face any consequences? What if everyone feared loveless, lifeless monotony more than they fear taking risks, more than they fear being hungry or cold or in danger? What if everyone set down their "responsibilities" and "common sense," and dared to pursue their wildest dreams, to set the stakes high and live each day as if it were the last? Think what a place the world would be!

letter to the editor

If Cindy Sheehan could camp outside Bush's ranch to protest the Iraq war, then I can set a camp outside the White House to support the pre-emptive strike policy of our national security strategy?

Pre-emptive strike policy is not only our superdoctrine but also a military strategy to save lives, time and a great many of our resources.

The White House has reaffirmed the pre-emptive strike policy. Whether you are white, black, brown or yellow, you should support our national goal, which assures you the right to pre-emptively attack any enemy states or terrorist groups seeking weapons of mass destruction.
We cannot stand and watch dangers coming to us. If other measures fail, pre-emptive attack is our first choice to deal with our enemies.

Iran tops the list of nations threatening the U.S.

The North Korea weapons program is a serious nuclear proliferation challenge.
Syria harbors terrorists and sponsors terrorist activities.

Pre-emptive attack is what we use to avert a war. We don't like war, but when needed, pre-emptive attack could calm down our enemies, make them frustrated and offer them a right motive to their retreats.

Our adversaries' schemes cannot be overlooked. Pre-emptive attack surely affects their aggressive policy and stubborn attitude. In short, enemies should be subjected to being friendly with us, living in harmony with neighbors and making their regions better off.
I'm very proud to be an American. Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims can live together in peace in the United States.

Let's fully support the pre-emptive strike policy to keep America beautiful, more secure and safe.

Quang Dao
Lafayette

cultivate the doubt, susan

republican unity, democrat in-fighting? "plan" versus "no plan?"

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

Bertrand Russell
1872-1970
British Philosopher, Mathematician, Essayist

we're alone?

"coalition of the willing" is a ludicrous, jackassed coinage. why not "coalition of the coaliters" or "group of the group members?" fuck almighty. has there ever been a coalition of dissenters? if not we should form one. why is this on my mind.

i wear no green today, but god bless the catholic faith, that celebrates the day recognizing a saint by getting piss-drunk and beating up each other. mmmmmmm that's good religion.

"he teaches us how to love! shut up before i kill you!"

ima go home and eat xanbars and doritos and spend quality face time with my pillow. i'll buy a six-pack and pour it on the ground in front of a homeless person and/or a catholic.

my comfortable couch has fleas all over it thanks to cat. ladies' home journal online told me to sprinkle salt on it to get rid of the fleas. the fleas are gone, but now when i wake up from a nap i'm really thirsty.

---

currently listening to:
the high violets

to where you are (2006)

---

fuck democrats too

why russ feingold is the only person i'd feel good about voting for in 2008:

I’m amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president’s numbers so low. The administration just has to raise the specter of the war and the Democrats run and hide…too many Democrats are going to do the same thing they did in 2000 and 2004. In the face of this, they’ll say we’d better just focus on domestic issues…[Democrats shouldn’t] cower to the argument, that whatever you do, if you question administration, you’re helping the terrorists.

it seems like democrats sieze every opportunity to miss an opportunity. the dash paul hackett and they'll do the same to feingold.

welcome to the occupation

my job is not horrible. it's easy like sunday morning. i'm fortunate and blessed (by on-star) that i even have one, much less one in which i have a fair boss, pleasant co-workers, a relatively stress-free environment, little supervision and vacation time.

so why do i LOATHE it? i constantly remind myself that the job facilitates my lifestyle and enjoyment when not working, but incessantly i'm thinking "FUCK i would be so happy if i could stay home all the damn time doing diggedy-damn nothing and shove this job."

it's a great paradox: you can't enjoy time in your life without dedicating 40 hours a week to contributing something to the marketplace. sure, some people (claim to) like their job. but i bet if you asked them if they'd rather be home the answer would be resounding in the affirmative.

i just hate having to be productive some of the time to be completely unproductive the rest. it seems like such a waste of life, this temporary speck of time we are afforded on earth. i tend toward ahteism more with each passing day so i'm doubting that little else exists beyond this planar existence.

so what sense does it make to spend 40 hours, roughly 25%, of the week (consider that another third -- or what i like to call 33% -- goes towards sleep) NOT experiencing some ethereal joi de vivre?

unless you put more value into being a cog of civilization and a functional global society, but at the moment our society doesn't seem to be very civilized OR functional, so i wonder what the hell i'm doing. what we're all doing.

life has become this massive imbroglio of injustice, futility, commercialism, murder, moral superiority, moral relativity, nihilism, antipathy, semantics, capitalism, corporate crime, triangulation, mad cow, bird flu, mardi gras, aspartame, short sight, american idol, wal-mart, nazi popes, the death of fact, desperate housewives, child labor, free trade, insurance, melting icecaps, taxidermy, money, power, greed, paris hilton, the ninth ward, prejudice, orwell, censorship, lunch breaks, fox news, bad drivers, poverty, southern strategies, eavesdropping, despotism, nascar, and unrestrained id stinking and premeating every human action.

intellectual curiosity abandoned this ship many moons ago.

obviously my glass is 3/4 empty, not necessarily about my own station in life but that of the world. what's the real kicker is that even those who are aware of the above, you included, will read this and think "god this all really is shitty," and immediately start wondering what to wear tomorrow or where to get drunk this weekend.

joaquin phoenix's character had a line in "hotel rwanda": "If people see this footage, they'll say, 'oh my god, that's terrible,' and they'll go on eating their dinners."

i can't quit the job, and if everyone did there would be chaos. my point is just that even with this mundane "order," we don't seem far from chaos anyway.

bareback mount him

jesus man, what a complete chuckle-fuck i've been with the blogging. i don't feel bad about the lack of motivation but lament not writing regularly. it's exercise for the brain and i'm turning into a fat sack of crap.

i had a noteworthy thought about the oscars last weekend but forgot what it was. i'm liking george clooney more and more, always liked phil-sey-hoff, pregnant rachel weisz is still so hot want to touch the hiney, "crash" was decent but not the best. find me a more comprehensive conglomeration of b-list actors in one movie. double dog dare.

doesn't "ang lee" sound like an asian trying to say "angry?" that's not very p.c. of me. i imagine that his mom was really pissed about having a baby.

it's strange that "six shooter" won best live action short film. i had money one "the last farm."

months ago i loaned my copy of "arrested development" season 1 to a friend (a friend no longer, no sir) who has since been incommunicado. so bad is my jones for some un-wholesome bluth family fun that i just ordered another copy. it's the closest thing to a bible i currently have, which sounds ridiculous, but it really does give me solace to watch episodes over and over. it's right up there with gandhi.
no touching!

Come, waste time reading an inane quiz I wasted time answering

70 THINGS YOU PROBABLY DON'T DO KNOW ABOUT ME:

1. DO YOU SNORE?
I love s'mores but haven't had any in forever.

2. ARE YOU A LOVER OR A FIGHTER?
Neither really

3. WHAT ARE YOUR WORST FEARS?
The unknown and the bomb.

4. AS A KID, WERE YOU A LEGO MANIAC?
Not a "maniac," but definitely avid.

6. DO YOU CHEW ON YOUR STRAWS?
No.

7. WERE YOU A CUTE BABY
I was never a baby. I'm one of the pod people.

8. IS THE SINGLE LIFE FOR YOU?
At the moment, it seems.

9. WHAT COLOR IS YOUR KEYBOARD?
Black. And white.

10. DO YOU SING IN THE SHOWER?
Shower?

11. HAVE YOU EVER BUNGEE JUMPED?
No.

12. ANY SECRET TALENT?
Witty quiz responses.

13. WHAT'S YOUR IDEAL VACATION SPOT?
My bed.

14. IS JAY LENO FUNNY?
Not. At. All.

15. CAN YOU SWIM?
Yes.

16. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THE MOVIE "DONNIE DARKO"?
Yes.

17. DO YOU CARE ABOUT THE OZONE?
Very much.

18. HOW MANY LICKS DOES IT TAKE TO GET TO THE CENTER OF A TOOTSIE POP?
116.

19. CAN YOU SING THE ALPHABET BACKWARDS?
Only if I'm drunk and have to do it in front of a cop.

20. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ON AN AIRPLANE?
Mostly "in" it, not "on" it.

21. ARE YOU AN ONLY CHILD?
No. One-and-a-half brothers.

22. DO YOU PREFER ELECTRIC OR MANUAL PENCIL SHARPENERS?
Electric because you can stick other stuff in there to see what happens.

23. WHAT'S YOUR STAND ON HUNTING?
It is abominable, unless you rely on it for life.

24. IS MARRIAGE IN YOUR FUTURE?
No -- marriage is a hinderance on monogamy.

25. DO YOU LIKE YOUR HANDWRITING
I'm in love with my handwriting.

26. WHAT ARE YOU ALLERGIC TO?
Nothing, although I get really uncomfortable around people in hospitals.

27. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU SAID, "I LOVE YOU "?
1992.

28. IS ELVIS STILL ALIVE?
Elvis... I'm sure there are plenty of Elvises alive out there.

30. HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR EGGS?
Either fertilized or used for stem cell research.

31. ARE BLONDES DUMB?
Janeane Garofalo died her hair blonde once and she was still very smart.

32. WHERE DOES THE OTHER SOCK END UP?
In the other shoe when it falls.

33. WHAT TIME IS IT?
Peanut butter jelly time!

34. DO YOU HAVE A NICKNAME(s)?
Several.

35. IS MCDONALD'S DISGUSTING?
Yes.

36. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU WERE IN A CAR?
1992 -- I said "I love you" to someone and they threw me out of while it was moving. I can't bring myself to ride in a car ever since.

37. DO YOU PREFER BATHS OR SHOWERS?
Neither. (Showers)

38. IS SANTA CLAUS REAL?
As real as William Gee.

39. DO YOU LIKE TO HAVE YOUR NECK KISSED?
I'll take what I can get.

40. ARE YOU AFRAID OF THE DARK?
The dark? No. The light? A resounding yes.

41. WHAT ARE YOU ADDICTED TO?
Sleep and oxygen.

42. CRUNCHY OR CREAMY PEANUT BUTTER?
Crunchy. Peanut butter jelly time!

43. CAN YOU CRACK YOUR NECK?
Let's hope not.

44. HAVE YOU EVER RIDDEN IN AN AMBULANCE?
No.

45. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU BRUSHED YOUR TEETH TODAY?
13.

46. IS DRUG FREE THE WAY TO BE?
Not in this world.
47. ARE YOU A HEAVY SLEEPER
Yes, thanks to drugs.

48. WHAT COLOR ARE YOUR EYES?
Hazel.

50. DO YOU LIKE YOUR LIFE?
It has its moments.

51. WHOSE LIFE IS BETTER?
What nard-garbler wrote these questions?

52. ARE YOU PSYCHIC?
Obviously not or I never would have started this quiz.

54. DO YOU PLAY ANY INSTRUMENTS?
Piano, saxomaphone, some guitar, clitoris.

55. HAVE YOU EVER STOLEN MONEY?
Technically? Yes.

56. DO YOU LOVE SOMEBODY?
Several people.

57. DO YOU LIKE SOMEONE YOU KNOW YOU SHOULDNT?
Someone I shouldn't know or shouldn't like? Fuck you quiz-writer!

58. DO U SNORT WHEN U LAUGH?
I don't laugh.

59. DO YOU BELIEVE IN MAGIC?
Nah.

60. ARE DOGS A MAN'S BEST FRIEND?
I'd rather have a human female, but greasing up a dog's ass may work for some. Different strokes, whatever.

61. YOU BELIEVE IN DIVORCE?
Well, I don't believe in marriage so divorce is pretty irrelevant. Actually scratch that, it's because I believe in divorce that I don't believe in marriage.

62. CAN YOU DO THE MOONWALK?
I'd rather not imitate Michael Jackson in any way. Maybe his bank account.

63. DO YOU MAKE A LOT OF MISTAKES?
Nope, nevr.

64. IS IT COLD OUTSIDE TODAY?
Fuck you.

65. WHAT WAS THE LAST THING YOU ATE
A baby.

66. DO YOU WEAR NAIL POLISH?
Not on my nails.

67. HAVE YOU EVER STAYED UP ALL NIGHT
Are we talking priaprism? (Look it up)

68. WHAT'S THE MOST ANNOYING TV COMMERCIALS?
Generally all of them.

69. DO YOU SHOP AT AMERICAN EAGLE?
I don't even know what that is.

70. FAVORITE BAND AT THE MOMENT?
Unfair question. Also, fuck you.

a post you probably won't read until monday because you have lives

words hover above meaninglessness. we use them to communicate and assign what are at best loose definitions to the abstract and not-so-abstract (all things), but essentially they mean nothing. you are not what you say, you are not what you write, you are not your own self-image. all you are is what you do and what you love. tell me what you love and i'll know everything relevant about you.

as i age i notice that my circle of friends acquaintences changes consistently. how this happens i can't say, or whether it's a phenomenon specific to me or not. my own theory is that i get bored with people, who were probably bored with me from the get-go. i get bored, and annoyed, and feel taken for granted, and at some point cease to put up with it. i subsequently go through a social hiatus wherein i communicate very little with the outside world, recharge the chi, and get back to it. sunrise, sunset.

it's possible i'm too intolerant of others' bugaboos, which shouldn't be such big deals. fuck it, they're not really bugaboos so much as character flaws and emotional immaturity. to hell with them. at least to elsewhere with them.

but also i forget to pay more attention to the actions of friends than the words. i need to get a placard or something and hang it up in my bathroom to remind myself. no more piss down my back disguised as rain.

34%!

who are the minus-minds who STILL approve of this through-and-through douchelicker? it's like saying that you enjoy sandblasting your genitals in a swimming pool of salty lemon juice. i can wonder the same about that 23o approved of nixon right before he left the white house.

of course there's always a certain percentage who won't disapprove of bush regardless of what he does.

he raped a puppy? well, yes... because.. 9-11!

we now get news that he had another biking accident in scotland. oh how this tickles me:

US President George W Bush was waving to police when he fell off his bike at the G8 summit in Scotland last July, newly published police papers reveal.

The smash left Mr Bush with scrapes on his hands and arms, and the policeman needing crutches for an ankle injury.

At the time, Mr Bush laughed off the crash as a sign "I should act my age".

The police report confirms that Mr Bush later telephoned the injured policeman to ask how he was and to apologise.

The cause of the officer's injury was officially recorded as being "hit by a moving/falling object".

a falling object? so... many... jokes...

it's not a bad metaphor for his entire presidency. get this man some training wheels, or at least get h.w. running behind him with his hand on junior's seat.

---

currently listening to:
feist

let it die (2005)

---

flat bluesday

as much as i bash mardi gras i do enjoy the day off. it's also the day before lent begins, and oh how i relish wholesome christian fasting. i have decided to give up alcohol/cigarettes for the month of march. not lent-related at all, just a coincidence. also i can eat only meat on fridays.

it's a good reality check to occasionally go an extended period of time without drinking just to make sure i'm not an -aholic, and to replenish my chi.

i live close enough to the parade routes to hear people celebrating good times from my bedroom. a past version of myself could easily wallow in depression as a result; "woe is me for being alone and not amongst the revelers," but now i couldn't be more grateful for the solitude.

here's hoping this is my last mardi gras in louisiana.

this specific day -- february 28, 2006 -- will hereby be known as the day of auditory slings and arrows. i should have known better than to think i would be immune, holed up in my apartment. but no. big hefty stinking NOOOOOOOOOO. the people who live behind me went the full nine: speakers bigger than a volkswagon, zydeco thumping and permeating my usually stolwart powers of ostriching. ultimately i've decided to just drink. tomorrow is the first of march and begins my month-long sobriety stint, so why not. laissez les blah blah rouler.

the port authority

the neon-con chagrin at the uae taking over port operations at six of our ports is, imo, two-fold:

1. general racism directed at anything with the word "arab" in it (also muslim, islaam, middle-easterner, persian, and the prefixes "al-" and "bin-".
2. the word "port" is nautical for "left" and nothing left-related ever flies with neon-cons. if a foreign government took over our "starboards" instead then they would say it's only "right."

personally i'm experiencing a little inner dichotomy over the issue. instinctually i was eager to pile on the bush-bash bandwagon -- the man is always wrong, sue me for jumping the gun occasionally -- and chalk another one up to incompetance and complete disregard for actual security. now i'm wondering if my reaction isn't because i'm a little prejudiced myself at the thought of a mid-east nation controlling our ports.

so i prolonged my conclusions. the british formerly operated these ports so why should a different nation doing it be so horrible? just because they're an islaamic country? consider that the uae:

• is one of three countries that recognizes the taliban as the ruling government of afghanistan (i-heart-saudi arabia and libya being the other two)
• has historically been an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of 7-11
• has laundered money for al quaeda and other terrorist outfits
• has been very uncooperative with u.s. efforts to find osama

okay, so maybe i'm not exactly behind this.

even so, i have little concern for port security lessening (partially because it's so fuck-poor as it is). in truth the vetting process for foreign investments, especially for seaports, seems rigorous. you can read about it here. informative stuff.

all port owners (including the uae-owned dubai ports world) must abide by the maritime transportation security act passed by congress in 2002 and international ship and port facility security codes enacted in 2004. both sets of security measures are enforced by the coast guard.

and were it not THIS administration in office, i may have been peseudo-psatisfied with the psale.

but (i won't write something someone else has already written better):

Another secret deal cooked up behind closed doors? Another series of prior relationships between Bush crony appointees and thebenefiting business? Another request from the same crew that brought us WMDs, 'mushroom clouds', and Michael Brown to trust them? And now another claim the whole thing wasn't their fault?

As Bush and his cronies stumbled Tres Stoogian like from one self inflicted cluster-fuck to another, the next set of excuses to come out of their PR pie-holes has been "No one could have predicted it" or "Everyone agreed with us at the time". And today we've already gone from "This is a good deal that we've checked out" to "The President
didn't know" about it: Except they're still going to push it on Congress. Funny thing about that modus operandi; It tends to erode trust.

it's a rare instance in which the face value of what's being done is representative through and through.

---

currently listening to:
kudu

death of the party (2006)

---

deadeye dick

how i love mardi gras, let me count the ways:

hmph

this is a post about corporate misdeeds. if you don't care then fuck off. and fuck your yankee bluejeans.

last night i rented a documentary called the corporation. it scared the bejeezus out of me. if you strive to be a conscientious global citizen and are not a completely crazed nihilst or laissez-faire in regards to capitalism, you need to watch it.

the only true legal mandate for a corporation is to act in a way that increase profits, that they operate only to satisfy shareholders. meager government regulations regarding public health and safety, the environment, worker rights, discrimination and a host of other human rights issues are only parts of an equation.

none of this is particularly novel; corporations are rightfully stereotyped as big, evil monsters trampling the rights of the (mythic) "little guy," and the environment.

frankly i've always been sort of a passive environmentalist. i'll recycle cans when i remember to, reuse my wal-mart bags, whatever doesn't excessively require work on my part. i can't feel satisfied with this anymore.

i'm never using paper plates or plastic silverware again. i love them dearly, lazy creature that i am, but i'll always see images of a five-legged frog or a boy born without eyes when i act in an environmentally reckless way.

people who advocate total privatization are nihilists. the movie reminded me of why a republican philosophy is so dangerous to the planet and the majority of its inhabitants (animals and vegetables). unbridled capitalism, or any system, is hazardous. a corporation is legally defined as a person with all the rights thereof, but only limited liability.

ford opted not to recall its pinto model in the 70's when it learned the gas tank easliy explodes on rear-end collisions because it would have cost $11.00 more per car to fix the defect than simply paying court fees for lawsuits brought on behalf of dead consumers. if you or i committed several murders we would be jailed for life or executed. not so for the inc.'s.

fuck, just watch the movie. this isn't good for my blood pressure.

how i hate you, let me count the ways...

i decided to celebrate bloodlust day by taking the day off of work. i claimed stomach cramps and nausea -- not completely false.

i've put a relevant video on my myspace profile. it's one of the greatest songs ever from one of the greatest albums ever by one of the greatest bands ever. guess (spaine you're excluded; i know you know).

also, here's a list of good albums to listen to on this day for the bitter among us who need to nurture our bitter bitterness. happy quirkyalone.

• tegan and sara - this business of art
• filter - title of record
• cave in - antenna
• kidneythieves - zerospace
• peaches - the teaches of peaches
• burning brides - fall of the plastic empire
• holly golightly - serial girlfriend
• the kills - no wow
• nirvana - in utero
• the stone roses - second coming

pass along any albums that you think are appropriate. peaches.

fore!

my own contribution to the hunting brick-a-brack:

• cheney comes out of the vegetarian closet
• dick cheney hunts R greatest game: man
• vice president makes a stand for animal rights
• satan swings and misses
• cheney blasts old man in face with shotgun*
• veep finally gets combat experience
• cheney git-r-done
• dick shoots first, evades questions later

*personal favorite

the shooting itself seems purely accidental, and frankly i don't really care. the man is direcly responsible for tens of thousands of deaths as it stands; what's one more.

here's the rub as i see it, garnered from the limited info i've read/heard thus far:

on washington journal ths morning people were mentioning that he may have been drinking at the time (hence the 18-hour delay in reporting the story), which, if true, has serious legal consequences. it's not that far-fetched, since g.o.p. g.o.b. (good ol' boy) s.o.b.'s love their guns n' ammo n' hooch.

out of the million or so licensed hunters in texas only 29 accidental shootings occur each year. cheney may not even have had a hunting license at the time, although i'm sure he does now. a nice pre-dated one.

there is a GREAT post on dailykos about the true significance of this story (i encourage anyone and everyone to read it). an excerpt:

It's a perfect analogy for the way they have conducted their entire administration--and all the biggest flaws of this presidency are on display in one little vividly portrayed story.

A little story that has tremendous sway because, let's face it: THE VICE PRESIDENT JUST ACTUALLY SHOT ANOTHEHUMAN BEING. The imagery is clear and potent--and not subject to the typical political "he said, she said."

There is no way to play the usual equivocating politics with a story about the vice president ACTUALLY SHOOTING SOMEONE.

And that's why I guarantee you this story isn't going away: It's a perfect way for the press to indict the entire Administration through the perfect metaphor. And they'll be able to do it without retribution, or accusations that both sides aren't being fairly presented.

also i wonder how charlton heston feels about all this.

---

currently listening to:
the mendoza line

full of light and full of stars (2006)

---

things i would rather do than watch the winter olympics

• drink paint
• scar myself with a (lit) cigarette
• watch "american idol"
• eat KFC
• attend a high school football game
• lick a frozen flag pole (ala flick)
• shave my nether regions while blidnfolded and drunk
• get a bikini wax
• fuck an unconscious homeless person
• buy enron stock
• vote republican
• go to a monster truck rally
• join the army national guard
• go to the keg on sorority night (local thing)
• rent and watch "the dukes of hazzard"
• listen to fm radio
• watch mtv, vh1, etc.
• subscribe to "sports illustrated"
• join the nra
• wipe my ass with a brillo pad
• tattoo "mother" across my chest
• be an elementary school janitor, or lunchlady
• change my name to sunshine and spend a month in prison
• go hunting
• attend a cockight
• be locked in a room with steven cojocaru for one hour

i don't like the olympic games.

---

currently listening to:
dios malos

dios (malos) (2005)

---

yet another inane questionnaire

1. How tall are you barefoot? - 5' 10"

2. Have you ever smoked heroin? - no

3. Do you own a gun? - about the biggest one you've ever seen dingleberry

4. Rehab? - for what? i can quit when i want.

5. Do you get nervous before "meeting the parents"? - never met any parents ever, including my own

6. What do you think of hot dogs? - try not to

7. What's your favorite Christmas song? - either run dmc's "christmas in hollis" or mr. garrison singing "merry fucking christmas"

8. What do you prefer to drink in the morning? - water, coffee, diet coke

9. Do you do push-ups? - occasionally

10. Have you ever done ecstacy? - yes

11. Are you vegan? - i don't eat poultry or red meat, whatever that makes me

12. Do you like painkillers? - of course

13. What is your secret weapon to lure in the opposite sex? - get them drunk

14. Do you own a knife? - butter

15. Do you have A.D.D. - jello

16. Date Of Birth ? - october 24

17. Top 3 thoughts at this exact moment:
1. i buy too many cd's when i'm drinking
2. it's a beautiful day to stay in bed with the blinds drawn
3. where have all the cowboys gone

18. Name the last 3 things you have bought.
1. cd's
2. martini
3. potato chips

19. Name five drinks you regularly drink:
1. water
2. coffee
3. diet soda
4. beer
5. gin

20. What time did you wake up today? - 11:40 a.m.

21. Current hair? - wake-up style

22. Current worry? - southerners

23. Current hate? - buddha says not to hate

24. Favorite place to be? - my room, my bed, my imagination

25. Least favorite place to be? - wal-mart

26. Where would you like to go? - minnesota!

27. Do you own slippers? - no

28. Where do you think you'll be in 10 years? - right here and/or dead

29. Do you burn or tan? - yes

30. Last thing you ate? - delicious triscuit crackers

31. Would you be a pirate? - absolutely

32. Last time you had an alcoholic drink? - this morning

33. What 3 songs do you sing in the shower?
1. "i swear" by all-4-one
2. "afternoon delight" by starland vocal band
3. "i feel like a woman" by shania twain

34. What did you fear was going to get you at night as as a child? - kaiser wilhelm ii

35. What's in your pockets right now? - one hand, the other one is typing a stupid quiz

36. Last thing that made you laugh? - just went to the bathroom and looked at my penis

37. Best bed sheets you had as a child? - voltron, bitch

38. Worst injury you've ever had? - never really been injured. i'm timid.

40. How many TVs do you have in your house? - 2

41. Who is your loudest friend? - my surround sound system

42. Who is your most silent friend? - my cat

43. Does someone have a crush on you? - my great aunt

45. What is your favorite book? - "he's just not that into you"

46. What is your favorite candy? - never met one i didn't like

47. What song do/did you want played at your wedding? - taps

48. What song do you want played at your funeral? twisted sister - "i wanna rock"

49. What were you doing 12AM last night? - drinking alcoholic beverages

50. Do you love the pain a tattoo brings? - when it's inflicted on others, yes

---

currently listening to:
suffrajett

suffrajett (2003)

---

friday crunk

a nice mind-wrench on a soggy friday -- kick off the weekend with a kick to the head i always say.

from usatoday:

The federal government levied a larger fine — $550,000 — for the 2004 Super Bowl showing of Janet Jackson's breast than it did for the 2001 deaths of 13 Alabama miners in one of the deadliest mine disasters in a quarter-century. And the $435,000 fine against mine operator Jim Walter Resources was cut by a judge to $3,000.

that's over half a million for a two-second titty shot (from which probably half a million "money shots" ensued), and three grand for 13 lives. i'd like to call the fcc and find out how much for both titties.

off-topic quickly: an ad on the radio yesterday for lasik eye surgery boasted prices as low as $299 per eye. is it possible to just get one? eyepatches are kickass but you'd think "eye surgery" would arbitrarily encompass both eyes. it seems like a package deal. do plastic surgeons base ther breast augmentation prices on a per-breast basis? pa-diddle.

oh me... always with the boobies.

back to mining safety (sexy isn't it?): it's of course troubling that industry regulations have become so lax in the past five years. is it surprising? not to me. it is but a harbinger of the blatant class warfare being waged on the lower and middle classes by the "haves," the "hawks."

claim the moral high ground (whereupon no bare boobie is allowed!), force seniors to choose between medicine and heat, corporations are kings, miners' lives cost $230 apiece, and all... is... right... with the world (in best howard kosel imitation).

a lovely bunch of coconuts.

---

currently listening to:
mates of state

bring it back (2006)

---

gee isn't love great? it sure is!

it's time again to launch into my trademark bitter diatribe about valentine's day (bitter diatribe about mardi gras to ensue). i'll submit the usual disclaimer:

if any of you blog or e-mail me about how lovely and romantic and wonderfully wonderful of a time you and your significant bother had on that unholiest of unholies then you are dead to me. that may or may not be of concern to you; i don't like certain people, certain people don't like me.

remember -- you're only flaunting your shit. i don't like public displays of annoyance or the virtual variety. don't make other people's lonely misery worse by showcasing your success in interpersonal relationships. i've grown quite fond of my loneliness and if you make me question my love for it then words will be had. also i'il shave my #$%!@, put !@#$% on my @%#!#, and *#@!#$% you in the @#$%.

fuck commercially fabricated "holidays". rover red rover let russel stover bend over while i shove a chocolade-covered boot up his ass. it's not called the hershey highway for nothing russ.

the scarecrow and mrs. king

i didn't watch george w. deliver his address at coretta scott king's funeral, because i never listen to anything the man says. nothing new. but he was seated within frame behind the podium so his face, obviously bored and out of place, was in view while maya angelou spoke.

an awkward juxtaposition, to say the least.

you could see him grimace when the word "peace" was uttered, and "justice". i wanted to feel bad for him, since the entire event was as much an attack on his principles and policies as a tribute to mrs. king.

and how could it not be? the two are as different as night and day. championing progression in the face of impractical and often unjust tradition can be nothing but a vilification of modern-day conservatism.

african-americans have had a tragic history, like many peoples, and justice has not remotely been realized. as president carter mentioned at the funeral, recall the faces on television of the people stranded, left homeless, in new orleans after the hurricane, then try to aver that racial inequality no longer exists.

it is a struggle for human rights. conservatives value some unspoken qualitative hierarchy of people based on biology and inherent traits; the heterosexual, white, christian male occupying the pinnacle. noone else is equal.

women's rights, gay rights, minority rights, the rights of muslims and of the poor are all human rights. our republican leadership constantly wraps itself in religion but opportunistically forgets that we are supposedly all endowed by some creator with inalienable rights.

on an intrinsic level it seemed like examples of right and wrong were on display, to compare and contrast, during the coretta scott king funeral.

if anyone can find maya angelou's address from the funeral online please let me know. i don't know if the full text is available anywhere yet.

superbowl non sequiturs

the pre-game was more exciting than the game itself. even the commercials sucked something awful.

i've always been cognizant of a latent (or not-so-latent) misogyny in our media and national conscience. watching the superbowl commercials though it struck me just how much worse the bias is than i thought. granted, football game commercials aren't going to target the same market as commercials on lifetime, but the objectification of women in male-oriented advertising is astonishing.

of course, we are the bread-winners, we have the big swinging dicks, we know what's best for women. remember gals that it's "uterUS" not "uterYOU".

cleavage sells beer, and domain names? godaddy.com somehow applied sex and sex acts to domains. i have no idea what one has to do with the other, unless you're registering babysbigboobies.com.

i don't like being taunted when i watch television. ultimately that's all commercials are -- a company flaunting something in front of you that you can own at an unreasonable price. it's the way the ad business goes, i get it. my objection comes in when sex enters the equation. i can always buy a fucking domain name, so pimping out your company's product/service is alright. but don't tempt me with a large-brested slut, something i can't just order out for. it's cruel.

a one-second shot of janet jackson's titty is abhorrent, but a "titty suggestion" every other second is acceptable. cleavage cool, nipple not. who decides where these lines (or in this case circles) get drawn?

the rolling stones... looked like they needed to be rolled around in wheelchairs or hospital beds. how about just rolling off into the sunset gracefully?

controversial cartoon?

this cartoon was in reaction to rumsfeld's statements last week in response to a pentagon study saying that the war in iraq is "breaking" the u.s. army. the defense secretary responded by saying that the army is "battle hardened".

the joint chiefs of staff sent a letter to the washington post chiding the paper for publishing material detrimental to troop morale: "While you or some of your readers may not agree with the war or its conduct, we believe you owe the men and women and their families who so selflessly serve our country the decency to not make light of their tremendous physical sacrifices."

it's become standard operating procedure in this government to not respond to the substance of criticism, but the source of it. tom toles' caricature is obviously not meant to deride the quadripalegic soldier but the manner in which the defense secretary seems to be oblivious to this and all soldiers' plight.

i'll say it again: what else is new. try to question the administration in their mishandling of the war and you aren't supporting the troops. democratic veterans like jack murtha, john kerry, and max cleland who criticize only the civilian "leadership" are labelled "unpatriotic".

fuck them in their asses. this cartoon is my new wallpaper. the joint chiefs can lick my fruit bowl. rumsfeld... not worthy of licking my fruit bowl.

addendum

i read this in a post article:

Dave Autry, deputy communications director for Disabled American Veterans, said he was "certainly not" offended by the cartoon.

"It was graphic, no doubt about it," he said. "But it drove home a point, that there are critically ill patients that certainly need to be attended to."

get in someone's grill

last night the house passed an entitlement reduction bill that will reduce the deficit by $40 billion over the next five years. this bill cuts assistance to welfare programs, medicaid and medicaire recipients, student lenders and thereby students, and child support.

$40 billion will reduce the $14.3 trillion deficit by less than one-half of one percent. the house and senate are negotiating extending expiring tax cuts and adding new cuts (to whom, i wonder?) that would cost $60 billion, in maybe a month or so.

"deficit reduction" that actually increases the deficit, while pathetic, is not surprising. consider that the "healthy skies initiative" relaxed regulations on fossil fuel emissions, the "no child left behind" act placed extra burdens on teachers, "liberating" iraq required that we kill tens of thousands of iraqis, and the "healthy forests" initiative made it easier for companies to clear land for development.

i truly wish i was more susceptible to doublethink, as the rest of the country seems to be. maybe i wouldn't be so ired all the time that our leaders are allowed to say one thing while doing the opposite.

more than likely the populous at large is completely unaware of what goes on. even those who try to be diligent by watching the "news" get a completely inaccurate view of what is and is not relevant.

runaway bride: supremely important. osama bin laden alive, well, and plotting: meh.

the substance of sammy alito's judicial purview: bleh. his wife crying: fuck yeah!

the american citizenry is like a child (in more ways than one), and the media like a parent. what we are fed is what we'll eat, i.e. what they tell us is what we believe. i don't give a free pass to the public for not actively seeking information and just blindly accepting what the television gods tell us, but the press should know better.

true journalism has gone by the wayside it seems, with "journalists" serving as stenographers (judith miller), lazy reporting, irrelevant interviews, pandering and the lofting of softball questions, bowing to ratings before truth and an obsession with being inoffensive. noone gets in anyone's face anymore.

isn't the media supposed to be the fourth branch of government? i heard that somewhere. no more balances, no more checks. unless they're being written to pay for bridges to nowhere.

our "hopeful america"

title

here's the plan: we trash the environment through fossil fuel emissions and deregulating refineries, global warming causes temperatures to rise (at least initially), and increasing home heating costs are irrelevant because you don't need the heater anymore.

we render the medicaire and medicaid programs ineffective, the ill and infirm all die off, premiums go back down. ingenius.

we demonstrate the ineffectiveness of big government by inflating it ourselves, then cry "look! government doesn't work! we must privatize! down with regulation and oversight!"

the "juliana hatfield" concert

i was going to lie to the blogworld and proclaim that friday night's some girls concert in baton rouge was life-changing. i was front-and-center, juliana hatfield cooing for me and me alone, playing all my favorites. freda love gave me her drum sticks.

alas, the "some girls" playing at the bastard club, the spanish moon (henceforth boycotted), were not the indie pop trio comprised of two-thirds of the blake babies, but a lame and formulaic metal band. i'm assuming. we didn't bother going once we found out.

obviously i'm disappointed, but more than anything i'm pissed at the club for its obvious deception. several of my attempts to contact them to confirm that the band playing was that of juliana hatfield went unanswered. i have no doubt in my mind this was intentional.

i woke up saturday morning (afternoon) with two rocks in my coat pocket. i theorize that, in my drunken ire my intention was to hurl them at the club. i'm glad i didn't, but i WILL be hurling some scathing and ill-tempered e-mails to the club's owners. probably not wanting for expletives.

ado about nothing

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/nixon77b.wmv

we're spending upwards of $300 billion in iraq over a war that ultimately began when 3,000 americans were killed.

millions die of poverty in this country every year but we gut social services to finance tax cuts for people making over $300,000 and no-bid contracts to huge corporations.

it seems illogical doesn't it? this kind of thing happens when emotions trummp intellect.

people who support this war and this administration aren't stupid by any means, they're just emotionally immature. they lack the ability to reason and rationalize prior to letting their instincts dictate their behavior.

it's wrath and revenge that underlie support for a pointless war perceived as retribution for those 3,000 murders on seven-eleven.

but so few get irate about the millions dead from poverty in this country, the supposed greatest in the world.

our medical capabilites are beyond that of any other nation (i still believe), yet the only people who can afford them are the same ones who get the president's tax cut.

all this controversy and ire and back-and-forth over the war are so utterly needless, as is the war itself. our priorities are so misguided and myopic.

unitary executive?

i wake up early almost every day to watch washington journal on the 'span. this morning the issue was the warrantless spying on americans being conducted by the nsa, authorized by the president. more generally the debate was freedom versus security, and this quote from ben franklin: "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.".

republicans call in saying, among other things, "if new york was blowed up they wouldn't have any freedom", "if you have nothing to hide then what are you worried about", "clinton did it*, lincoln did it, xxxx democratic president did it" and also "derrrrp!".

all of these are completely false narratives. the REAL issue at stake is not liberty or security at all; we should have both and CAN have both. the problem here is that the president is doing something illegal. and why? there are legal ways in which to eavesdrop on americans, so why not do it legally? what's the difference? it's expediant and almost NEVER denied, so what possible reason could he have in circumventing the legislature?

(i know the answer to that, you probably know the answer to that)

what angers me every time political debate takes place is that republicans don't debate the actual topic when they know they're on the wrong side -- they find something parallel or close to said topic, something they can put on a bumpber sticker, or something that may in fact be worthy of debate.

in this instance they're making the argument that sacrificing a little liberty for security is acceptable (forget the fact that it's being done illegally. they conveniently ignore that tidbit). they're rallying for something that isn't in question.

they do the same thing when opposition to the iraq war arises. they say "you're demoralizing the troops! you're not supporting the troops! derrrrp!" when, in fact, the issue has nothing to do with the actions of our military. we question the civilian leadership, they counter by calling us un-american.

what else will the president be allowed to do in the name of national security if the illegal wire-tapping isn't ceased? we are on our way to a monarchy friends, or at least an oligarchy. how likely is it that samuel alito (he'll probably get confirmed) and a federalist-dominated supreme court will rule against this unitarian executive?

i called landrieu twice already.


*the default response to any bush wrong-doing shown to a republican is "but... bu bu bu bu... CLINTON!" also "derrrrp".

wire-tapping, jerking off

george says the former is necessary to protect americans. i agree. that's why f.i.s.a. exists, that's why you can obtain warrants posthumously within 72 hours, that's why virtually every request for a warrant has been approved by the f.i.s.a. court. where's the rub? why do it ILLEGALLY when measures are in place to do it legally and easily?

is it possible they're not just intercepting international calls as they claim? seriously, probably not. george is very trustworthy. sometimes quakers fly planes into buildings. sometimes i fuck a fresh can of crisco while listening to steve winwood.

---

jack abramoff's father chided george clooney for his remarks about abramoff at the golden globes. apparently abramoff's daughter was watching and was brought to tears (what is it with republican family members crying these days) as a result of the jerk-off joke.

yeah, the fact that her dad is an admitted criminal had nothing to do with it. grandpa says that "we have had to endure two years of unmitigated, outrageous falsehood directed at my son and his record of achievement on behalf of his clients and friends. the blood thirsty media, guilty of untold character assassinations during contemporary times, have even outdone themselves in their lust to create a cartoon which does not come close to resembling this fine man, my son."

does grandpa know that sonny plead guilty to these unmitigated falsehoods?

---

new osama bin laden tape: what we should glean from this is that osama and howard dean are the same. forget the fact that bin laden is still alive four years after all that "smoke 'em out" and "dead or alive" jive. bravo chris matthews, you are an inspiration.

molly ivins letter

I Will Not Support Hillary Clinton for President

by Molly Ivins

I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.

The recent death of Gene McCarthy reminded me of a lesson I spent a long, long time unlearning, so now I have to re-learn it. It's about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief.

If no one in conventional-wisdom politics has the courage to speak up and say what needs to be said, then you go out and find some obscure junior senator from Minnesota with the guts to do it. In 1968, Gene McCarthy was the little boy who said out loud, "Look, the emperor isn't wearing any clothes." Bobby Kennedy -- rough, tough Bobby Kennedy -- didn't do it. Just this quiet man trained by Benedictines who liked to quote poetry.

What kind of courage does it take, for mercy's sake? The majority of the American people (55 percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and that we should get out. The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The majority (86 percent) of the American people favor raising the minimum wage. The majority of the American people (60 percent) favor repealing Bush's tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. The majority (66 percent) wants to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

The majority (77 percent) thinks we should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment. The majority (87 percent) thinks big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax. That is the center, you fools. WHO ARE YOU AFRAID OF?

I listen to people like Rahm Emanuel superciliously explaining elementary politics to us clueless naifs outside the Beltway ("First, you have to win elections"). Can't you even read the damn polls?

Here's a prize example by someone named Barry Casselman, who writes, "There is an invisible civil war in the Democratic Party, and it is between those who are attempting to satisfy the defeatist and pacifist left base of the party and those who are attempting to prepare the party for successful elections in 2006 and 2008."

This supposedly pits Howard Dean, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, emboldened by "a string of bad news from the Middle East ... into calling for premature retreat from Iraq," versus those pragmatic folk like Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emmanuel, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman.

Oh come on, people -- get a grip on the concept of leadership. Look at this war -- from the lies that led us into it, to the lies they continue to dump on us daily.

You sit there in Washington so frightened of the big, bad Republican machine you have no idea what people are thinking. I'm telling you right now, Tom DeLay is going to lose in his district. If Democrats in Washington haven't got enough sense to OWN the issue of political reform, I give up on them entirely.

Do it all, go long, go for public campaign financing for Congress. I'm serious as a stroke about this -- that is the only reform that will work, and you know it, as well as everyone else who's ever studied this. Do all the goo-goo stuff everybody has made fun of all these years: embrace redistricting reform, electoral reform, House rules changes, the whole package. Put up, or shut up. Own this issue, or let Jack Abramoff politics continue to run your town.

Bush, Cheney and Co. will continue to play the patriotic bully card just as long as you let them. I've said it before: War brings out the patriotic bullies. In World War I, they went around kicking dachshunds on the grounds that dachshunds were "German dogs." They did not, however, go around kicking German shepherds. The MINUTE someone impugns your patriotism for opposing this war, turn on them like a snarling dog and explain what loving your country really means. That, or you could just piss on them elegantly, as Rep. John Murtha did. Or eviscerate them with wit (look up Mark Twain on the war in the Philippines). Or point out the latest in the endless "string of bad news."

Do not sit there cowering and pretending the only way to win is as Republican-lite. If the Washington-based party can't get up and fight, we'll find someone who can.

phillipses...

football sunday: i'm passively rooting for seattle because jake delhomme is from breaux bridge (re: i hate louisiana and take pleasure when the community at large is disappointed, especially in regard to sports). in the afc game i don't REALLY care, but i'm pulling for the steelers. i'm grateful to denver for beating the patriots (and tom brady, ass) but colorado is a red state, pennsylvania a blue. that's a good enough reason to take sides in a game for me.

yeah i changed my internet name again. i've diagnosed myself as a bipolar, schizophrenic scatterbrain so... there. a rose by any other name would still be snarky and misanthropic.

ha ha you have to eat it

the person who invented balogna (baloney) needs to be ground up, wrapped in red plastic, sliced and placed between two pieces of bread. i don't eat poultry or pork or beef of any kind, and sometimes it's hard to explain why to meat-eaters (my parents for instance). it occurred to me today though that the best argument or method of convincing someone to go off meat completely is to shove a slice of balogna in their face. you don't even need to do that -- just unwrap it within 50 feet of them, or put it in your office's fridge, then invest in peanut butter.

where does balogna come from? what animal is it? what part(s) of that animal are used? how is it processed? how and why did "baloney" become a euphemism for "shit"? am i brave enough to google it?

my theory is that it was invented during the depression. use your imagination after that.

m.l.k.

this post is a day late and as always a dollar short, but i got sidetracked yesterday. eat me.

generally i view martin luther king day as more of a day to recognize all current and historical figures who surrendered their lives in furtherance of societal good. who can say who the earliest of these people were. they're often referred to as "christ-like" figures, although jesus christ certainly wasn't the first persecuted for their beliefs. i'm a big fan of socrates (and plato, who was his student), who opted for death over exile in 399 b.c.

i love this painting ("the death of socrates" by jacques-louis david). i like to think of socrates, finger pointed in the air, shouting "shove it up your puckered assholes!"



martin luther king jr. of course fits the mold of a martyr. i'm not a great fan of u2, but there's a version of "pride" where quotes from martin luther king are overlayed sporadically and it honestly gets me emotional.

i also think of john and bobby kennedy, thomas more, abraham lincoln, and to a much lesser extent kurt cobain. there's something intangibly awe-inspiring about those who put principle above their own lives and that's the ideal we should all endeavour for.

if doubt exists that racism is alive and well here in 2006, yesterday during a meeting one of the other guys (the boss's son, actually) who works here said something to the effect that he was surprised that all schools in louisiana were off for a day recognizing martin luther king. i find it abhorrent, but i can't really say fie in front of the boss, his son, or his son-in-law (also working here). as soon as i find another job i'm going to encorporate "fucking ignorant racist" into my workplace vocabulary.

bye bye uteri

i'm not writing much more about say-anything strip search shoot first sloppy seconds sammy, i just wanted to use the alliteration.

thanks corporate media--way to make the story about his wife crying. the hearings have been portrayed as the "seinfeld" of congressional proceedings--a show about nothing.

forget that sammy okayed police shooting an unarmed 15-year old in the back of the head while he was fleeing. he'll get confirmed and we're effed in the A, yet again. i feel this way and i'm male, i can only imagine the terror women must (or should) feel right now at the notion that a (another) judge who believes roe v. wade isn't settled law and the right to privacy is not implied in the constitution (constructionist dickholes) is about to be on the supreme court.

sloppy seconds alito

i have little doubt that samuel alito has a.) little to no respect for personal privacy (abortion abortion abortion), b.) has a very narrow interpretation of the constitution, c.) believes in allotting the executive branch authoritative powers over practically everything, and most disturbingly d.) is a white supremecist.

this is an article from the nation concerning his membership in c.a.p. (concerned alumni for princeton), which is/was ostensibly an upper-class kkk.

Alito CAPs His Bid
Eyal Press

Campus newspapers aren't generally known for making waves inside the Beltway. Recently, however, the Daily Princetonian published a story that merits attention from senators gearing up for the confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito, George W. Bush's nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. As Chanakya Sethi reported in a November 18 article for the paper, in 1985 Princeton graduate and conservative Republican Alito sought to impress his colleagues in the Reagan Administration, where he was applying to become deputy assistant attorney general, by touting his membership in an organization called Concerned Alumni of Princeton.

Launched in 1972, the year Alito graduated, CAP had an innocuous-sounding name that disguised a less benign agenda, which included preventing women and minorities from entering an institution that had long been a bastion of white male privilege. In a 1973 article in Prospect, a magazine CAP published, Shelby Cullom Davis, one of its founders, harked back to the days when a gathering of Princeton alumni consisted of "a body of men, relatively homogeneous in interests and backgrounds." Lamented Cullom Davis: "I cannot envisage a similar happening in the future with an undergraduate student population of approximately 40% women and minorities, such as the Administration has proposed." Another article published that same year bemoaned the fact that "the makeup of the Princeton student body has changed drastically for the worse" in recent years--Princeton had begun admitting women in 1969--and wondered aloud what might happen if the university adopted a "sex-blind" policy "removing limits on the number of women." In an unsuccessful effort to forestall this frightening development, the executive committee of CAP published a statement in December 1973 that affirmed unequivocally, "Concerned Alumni of Princeton opposes adoption of a sex-blind admission policy."

By the time Alito was readying his 1985 job application with the Reagan Administration, the admission of women and minorities was well established at Nassau Hall, but this did not stop CAP from lamenting the consequences. "People nowadays just don't seem to know their place," fretted a 1983 Prospect essay titled "In Defense of Elitism." "Everywhere one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and hispanic, the physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children." By this point the editor of Prospect was Dinesh D'Souza, who brought to its pages a new level of coarseness aimed at those who did not know their place. "Here at Princeton homosexuals are on the rampage," complained a 1984 news item in Prospect--this after a gay student group had dared to protest being denied permission to hold a dance at a campus club. Another article poked fun at Sally Frank, a Princeton alumna who was suing the university for denying women access to all-male eating clubs. It noted that a Rhode Island woman who'd won a discrimination suit against a mining company had subsequently died in an on-the-job accident. "Sally Frank, take note," it quipped.

Some argue that Alito's membership in the organization hardly proves he shared such views. "It would be outrageously inaccurate to say Sam was deeply involved in the group, and he certainly wasn't in charge of choosing the articles," T. Harding Jones, who edited Prospect during the 1970s, told me, adding that CAP's main goals were strengthening the alumni's voice and championing a more ideologically balanced curriculum. Diane Weeks begs to differ. Weeks graduated from Princeton three years after Alito did and went on to work with him as an assistant US Attorney in New Jersey. In an interview she took pains to stress that she considers Alito "a man of integrity" with a first-rate legal mind. But, she added, "when I saw CAP on that 1985 job application, I was flabbergasted. I was totally stunned. I couldn't believe it." CAP, she said, "made it clear to women like me that we were not wanted on campus. And he is touting his membership in this group in 1985, thirteen years after he graduated. He's not a young man by this point, and I don't buy for a second that he was doing it just to get a job. Membership in CAP gives a good sense of what someone's personal beliefs are. I'm very troubled by this, and if I were on the Senate I would want some answers."

She is not alone. On the same day the article in the Daily Princetonian appeared, People for the American Way requested access to the records of CAP currently stored at the Library of Congress, in the archive of former National Review publisher William Rusher, so that the full story of its formation and, perhaps, of Alito's role in it can be learned. In the meantime, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee might take the time to leaf through some of Prospect's back issues and formulate questions for the candidate. Is the Princeton graduate slated to replace the first female Supreme Court Justice proud of his affiliation with an organization that attempted to prevent women and minorities from receiving the same education he did? If not, why did he flaunt his membership in it? What does this say about his character, and about the kind of place he would ultimately like America to be?

alito took advantage of his membership in c.a.p. in '85 when applying for a job in the reagan administration. why would that be?

ronald reagan chose a small town in mississippi called philadelphia to launch his 1980 presidential campaign. the only significance about this location is that three civil rights' workers were murdered there in 1964. reagan made reference to "states rights" in his speech, which everyone knows is a code word for southern racist sympathizers.

it was a gigantic wink-wink to white supremacists that he was sympatico.

alito has said that he only listed c.a.p. on his 1985 application to curry favor with his potential employer, and that the views expressed by the organization are not necessarily his. so, either alito is a supreme court nominee willing to lie to attain a job or a bigot wishing to roll back 50-plus years of civil rights progress.

either way i'm going to have to disapprove.

title

it's a trepidacious time when i'm bored and melancholy. when i'm in this state of mind i get about a halfstep away from blowing a wad on nothing but cd's i've never heard of from cd baby. it's tantamount to women eating ice cream after a breakup i guess.

buying cd's is one of the simple things i find contentment in (short of actual "happiness"). like the first diet pepsi (caffeine) of the morning, certain songs, watching tv in bed before going to sleep, going to sleep, xanax, coffee on saturday, the weekend edition of "the today show" (MUCH less annoying than the couric/lauer weekday abortions), george w. slaughtering the english language, my cat, crossword puzzles, heroin, copulation, copulation with heroin, and more that i can't call to mind presently.

i also used to love going to cd warehouse to fish through discount bins. there were times when i'd walk out with 10+ cd's. unfortunately, and like several things i enjoy, cd warehouse no longer has a retail store in lafayette (or the whole of louisiana, actually). now i'd have to go to the mall to physically buy cd's, and it'd be a cold day in lafayette before that happened.

monday? is it monday?

on occasion my personal contacts seem standoffish towards me. this may be actual or a complete fabrication of my mind given its default pessimistic nature. regardless, at such times i go into total recluse mode -- i.e. i make no attempts to communicate with the outside world. it's a semi-scientific method of evaluating my worth to people in my limited personal circle of acquaintences.

it's also somewhat belligerent pride, or prideful belligerence. i refuse to grovel for company and/or validation from people i know (or don't know). they can suck it. or maybe i'm just feigning anger to eschew loneliness and depression

a side effect is that i've actually grown very comfortable with solitude, perhaps to a fault. is talking to yourself in order to have stimulating conversation a harbinger that you maybe spend too much time alone? i don't actually talk to myself (unless you count inner monologue), but mine is essentially the same question.

i'm worried about becoming comfortably numb.

on the other hand friendship is (or should be) a two-way street. i don't think wanting to be met halfway is excessive.

they all love their petroleum

i'm genuinely starting to overtly dislike ALL evangelicals. i posted the whole wall street journal article below. i never read the wsj -- i read about this article on the huffington post. it's not long.

Ministers Say They Blessed Seats Ahead of Alito Hearing

By JUNE KRONHOLZ Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNALJanuary 5, 2006 7:20 p.m.

WASHINGTON -- Insisting that God "certainly needs to be involved" in the Supreme Court confirmation process, three Christian ministers today blessed the doors of the hearing room where Senate Judiciary Committee members will begin considering the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito on Monday.

Capitol Hill police barred them from entering the room to continue what they called a consecration service. But in a bit of one-upsmanship, the three announced that they had let themselves in a day earlier, touching holy oil to the seats where Judge Alito, the senators, witnesses, Senate staffers and the press will sit, and praying for each of the 13 committee members by name.

"We did adequately apply oil to all the seats," said the Rev. Rob Schenck, who identified himself as an evangelical Christian and as president of the National Clergy Council in Washington.

Rev. Schenck called the consecration service the kick-off in a series of prayer meetings that will continue throughout the confirmation hearing.

Capitol Hill police said they weren't aware that the three had entered the hearing room earlier, but added that hearing rooms typically aren't locked because "they're not of interest to anyone." Lt. Dominick Costa said the Judiciary Committee room will be swept for bombs and perhaps for electronic bugging equipment before the hearing begins.

The three ministers insisted they weren't taking sides in the Alito debate. "This is not a pro-Alito prayer," insisted the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition. With abortion, public prayer, gay marriage and right-to-life issues among those topping public debate, however, "God…is interested in what goes on" in the nomination hearing, Rev. Schenck said.

The two men, along with Grace Nwachukwu, general manager of a group called Faith and Action, read three Psalms outside the committee room, knelt to say the Lord's Prayer and marked a cross in oil on the committee door before leaving.

Rev. Schenck said he and Rev. Mahoney had blessed the same room before hearings for Chief Justice John Roberts last year. That hearing "went very well," Rev. Schenck said.

now when they say they anointed the seats with "oil", is that actual, flammable oil? couldn't that be construed as attempted arson (aside from just completely daffy)?

if islamic suicide bombers are considered religious extremists, how should we classify this evangelical voodoo? i can't call it religious moderation. moderates practice their faith and contentedly allow others to practice theirs unfettered.

obviously there are varying degrees of religious fundamentalism -- some involving dynamite vests, and some involving anointing inanimate objects (george bush, for example). frankly though i'm starting to think that even the moderates, all religions, are dangerous.

love enters through the nose

i'm struggling to understand the concept of "body spray". is it deodorant? is it cologne?
it seems like the valentine's day of hygiene products -- a fabricated, randomly-conjured method of bilking more money out of people for something they don't even remotely need (granted, some people smell awful and are in dire need of cleaning, but if they can't master the soap stage then an aerosol isn't going to do much but combine with the b.o., like spraying lysol after you leave a heinous triple-x shoot-down in the bathroom).

are soap, deodorant and cologne not enough? why do we need another step in there? i refuse to buy any. i hate commercialism. suck it axe.

for guys looking to bag women when they go out the spray-on stuff is only mitigating the odds, since pheromones naturally secreted by the body are attractants to the opposite sex, and masking them only reduces your chances. theoretically you'd be better off not even showering before going out.

that must be it -- i blame my responsible hygiene practices for rendering me sexless throughout high school.

okay, college.

the city on a hill

this is somewhat a continuance of my previous post.

the wire-tapping scandal made me think of how results-based this administration is. if the outcome is desireable or somehow noble in their view then the means are justified.

apply this to the torture issue, the war in iraq, tax cuts at the top (and supply-side economics), election fraud, and now our national security and privacy. if they have to cheat, sacrifice innocent lives or act otherwise nefariously to ensure what they perceive as national security and furtherence of the american ideal (good luck defining that) then the methods by which those goals are achieved are irrelevant.

but isn't the underlying american principle that a civliized and free society can be maintained through righteous means? aren't the measures by which we glean and maintain freedom the critical aspect of having that freedom? it would be easy to just nuke any country threatening us, kill anyone suspected of a crime, recess-appoint someone congress would not approve of, torture someone who may have pertinent information and lock up protesters, all in the name of maintaining "freedom".

but doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of the american principle?

we are supposed to be better. we are supposed to rise above the inhumane tactics of our enemies. "an eye for an eye" isn't good enough for us. in order to maintain that america is the greatest country on earth and preach morality we have to actually live morally and emphasize principle, regardless of circumstance or emotion.

the 2001 attacks were horrid (why do i even need to say that), but our actions since have been almost purely vengeful and paranoid and opportunistic.

revenge is not the same as justice. it is a weakness. it is failure. it is the inability to keep emotion from trumping reason. the desire to retaliate against someone or something regardless of their implicated responsibility is only blind, carpetbombing bloodlust, which has been an almost subconscious manipulator in our culture during this regime.

lie vs. lie

it turns out that i had the flu for the past several days and didn't even know it. i've never had the flu so i thought it was the usual congestion/cold bout i experience generally once a year.

i should call all the "ladies" i've "been with" over the past six days and advise them to get vaccinated but "unfortunately" my cell contact list was purged due to the wash/rinse/repeat cycle.

i am feeling better though. also since i worked on monday i'm going to have friday off. i may pretend that new year's eve is this weekend and celebrate appropriately. but meh, what does it matter. i need no occasion to imbibe.

---

the president is saying the illegal wire-tapping he's been authorizing -- i don't think he actually qualified it as "illegal" himself, but it is -- is warranted to ensure our security, but it's a completely moot rationale for eavesdropping. there are legal measures by which such spying can be conducted, with approval of the FISA (foreign intelligence surveillance act) court. so if legal means were and are readily available and completely viable for the purposes the president cited, why do it in the clandestine manner he did?

listening in on 500 people a day (according to the new york times) amounts to tens of thousands a year. plus this has been occurring since early 2002. with that volume of calls being intercepted how feasible is it, especially taking into account this administration's track record of rancor for the bill of rights, that they're only monitoring international calls with al quaeda suspects?

not. bloody.

here's the rub i find in all of this: the president and his parrots claim that we were attacked because certain people "hated our freedom". and, if i understand correctly, his plan to thwart future attacks is to whittle away at those freedoms? isn't that tantamount to preventing someone from killing you by committing suicide?

it's all about (or SHOULD be about) finding a balance between civil rights and security. frankly though that isn't even the issue here since this wire-tapping fiasco probably has very little to do with collecting data about actual al-quaeda operatives. and even if it were, there are legal measures in place for them to be conducted.

is the FISA court a big hinderance to the data mining? the bush administration submitted 1,758 applications to the FISA court in 2004 of which NONE were rejectd. his explanation that they had to be conducted in a timely manner doesn't hold water either, because FISA court aapproval can be obtained posthumously after the eavesdropping takes place, within 72 hours.

so i don't see any way in which this spying is defensible. of course they'll employ the usual false narratives and argue that it was necessary to protect the american people blah blah blah i-ran-into-a-tree-again NINE-ELEVEN, but i'll bet my right bloated testicle that the bulk of those intercepts were not of international terror suspects.

benjamin franklin said "those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither".

i'll also throw out a relevant hellen keller quote: "Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is a daring adventure or nothing at all."

citrus is the new cherry

in la-la it reached 81 degrees yesterday, and the temperature has been comparable for several days now. i have had my air conditioner on during the months of december and january for the first time that i can remember. couple the radical climate changes with being packed onto an airplane riddled with winter nose-blowers and allergy mongers, as i was last week, and it's not surprising that i'm downing robitussin and cough drops on tuesday the way i usually down tanqueray on friday.

yesterday was a federal holiday for everyone but me so i couldn't even go to my g.p. for a cortisone injection -- never have i wanted to overpay for a shot in the ass more than now. t'ain't no justice in this world.

it's not just cold weather that makes you sick, or just hot weather, it's the flip-flopping (additional 2006 resolution: never use the term "flip-flopping" again) between the two that throws my system into chaos. the fever comes and goes, my throat is inconsistently (thank god for small miracles) sore, my nostrils are fickle and i keep coughing to dislodge something that may not exist. i hunt the phantom loogie.

i'm greatful for hall's sugarfree citrus cough drops and tylenol pm (as always).

a little cold treatment/movie trivia for the kids -- name the movie the following quote is derived from (no cheating): "he snorts nasal spray? do you know where i can score some?"