my tres centavos

tolja

2012-01-18T14:42:00.000-08:00

The link below is to a discussion on Metafilter, of Andrew Sullivan's recent Newsweak cover article. Hooray, I have prior art! Can I sue? Whaddaya think?

http://www.metafilter.com/111742/Obama-has-delivered-in-a-way-that-the-unhinged-right-and-purist-left-have-yet-to-understand-or-absorb

strange threadfellows

2012-01-17T14:05:00.000-08:00

Here's an incongruous congruency; #ows and the sovereign citizen movement. Both invite an erosion to the rule of law, #ows by advocating theft/occupation of bank repos, SC by tax protest and impersonation of officers. Poverty and disenfranchisement are the prime movers of both groups, and here's a suggestion- since social problems have social solutions, why not make a legal assault on the fiction of perpetual property? A law that reads something like, "if the bank can't sell the repo'd house in 3 months, it reverts to the defaulting buyer or is redistributed in some other way, for the common weal". Nonflowing dollars should definitely have finite shelf life.

San Francisco Values Voter (TM)

2012-01-11T12:23:00.001-08:00

...you heard it here first!

Is this a signifier?

2012-01-09T23:49:00.001-08:00

A certain republican presidential candidate mentions, offhand, the trio of Austrian economists upon whose philosophy his is evidently built. But in the news, we never get more than their names, or just one...the Wikipediatubes sez they're fascisti, how bout that?

hey, #occupy

2011-11-22T14:49:00.001-08:00

...lotta foreclosed empties in Richmond, yo. I'm just sayin'.

cityplan

2011-11-22T14:43:00.001-08:00

tax credit for publicly accessible buildings that let homeless people use the bathroom: 50 cents per person.

Politics For Today

2011-10-25T21:30:00.000-07:00

Here's the thing about President Obama: it's his attitude. Before I'd ever heard of him, I had already a mental picture of a very specific response to Bush, 9/11 etc. It was an attitude of adult relation, and of peace as a realizable goal in today's world. And now, thanks to Barack Obama's continued stance, we have some foreign policy success: Arab Spring, hopefully a normalizing Iraq and Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden et al. So, he has my vote in 2012. I thought for a while that maybe George W. Bush had fucked up the country beyond repair...but Obama's Administration brought us back from the brink. I do wish that he had slapped down the Republicans a little harder re: economic stimulus. "Small Government" is the stupidest of ideas; inescapably mean and ignorant. And the Tea Party is made of Tools. What humanity demands is humanity- a just and benevolent, and engaged, civic mechanism. When it works, it works for everyone- individuals, groups, across all lines that divide people. When people seek to curtail that impulse, they do so out of jealousy and spite, or religious idiocy, or plain ignorance. But this president brushes small ideas off of his shoulder, and only lets big ideas take up space in his brain. I see him continuing to push for his ideals every day, and I share those same goals; whether or not I can successfully articulate them.

Yeah, I get that a lot....

2011-10-24T14:20:00.000-07:00

....comments starting "you're the only person who..."
...such as:
"...has ever identified my instrument as a Lute, based on the shape of the case."
"...has ever asked for extra capers on their bagel with lox."
"...has ever guessed the meaning of my personalized license plate, KAR120C."
"...has ever scored 100% on my homebuilt VR lightsaber simulator."
"...has ever tied a bowline in less than a second."
...etc.
/selfaggrandizement

Dear Benetech

2011-03-26T09:03:00.000-07:00

redistribute wealth. Open bank accounts for all those people that are under the thumb of oppression.

What the fuque, Jon?

2010-07-27T13:20:00.000-07:00

The tell here is the phrase "you lefties": because it's a generalization, it sets up the following phrase about vitriol as invalid, in an attempt to invalidate the emotional truth of what people are feeling. Jon's initial comment is fake reasonableness. When he says "perfectly nice" in re: Tucker Carlson, most of us instinctively know that he's talking out of his ass, because Carlson is in fact the farthest thing from "perfectly nice". Carlson might not have the vehemence of some other right-wing assholes (not-so-Breitbart), but he's something even worse than most of those; a wannabe, much like Michelle Malkin is an Ann Coulter wannabe. Further, Carlson is the douche-iest of all wannabes....with his ham-handed stylistic cues (the bow tie, the limp hairlock) he signifies Richie Rich, the Berries-and-Cream Starburst guy, and a soupcon of antiEstablishment hippie longhair. The cross-purpose-dressing is supposed to let us know that there's an intellectual heavyweight under all that pampered neotony. But Jon Stewart pulled the curtain back for us on that- all Carlson could do, when Stewart handed him his ass on live TV, was grin stupidly.

Laura McLean Also too, Andrew Breitbart, Tucker Carlson, and Tom Vilsack are dicks. Horrble, shameful, tiny dicks.

July 20 at 7:53pm · Comment ·

You and 4 others like this.
- Jon Frugoli Tucker Carlson?...Why?...He strikes me as a perfectly nice person, and a respectful and moderate debater. Why the hate?
  July 20 at 8:00pm ·
- Jon Frugoli Who's Tom Valsack?....never heard of him.
  July 20 at 8:02pm ·
- Laura McLean Well, in fairness, Tucker's more of a douche.
  July 20 at 8:35pm ·
- Richard Beres he's a mothertucker!
  July 20 at 9:16pm ·
- Jon Frugoli What did he say that's got you all so upset?
  July 20 at 9:20pm ·
- Ob Askin http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/15/884657/-Tucker-Carlson-vs.-Keith-Olbermann:-Master-Of-Your-Domain
  
  Not nice, not respectful, not moderate.
  Just as much bile as others like Beck, just doesn't drool.
  July 20 at 10:08pm ·
- Jon Frugoli
  Gee, you lefties can dish out the vitriol like nobody's business, but you can't handle even the slightest speck criticism - or even a joke - without crying like babies.
  
  So Tucker Carlson owns KeithOlbermann.com?...I think that's pretty damn...See More
  July 20 at 10:20pm ·
- Jess Winfield
  I don't see any lefties crying like babies in this debate. But heeere's a rightie crying like baby when he realizes he's been wrong about gay marriage.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te5xIGu6FiQ
  
  Just proves that "crying like a baby" is a val...See More
  July 21 at 2:02am · · 1 person
- Laura McLean
  I was referring to the gleeful slandering and firing of a woman who not only had done nothing wrong, but whose life's work has been to move beyond racial bounderies and aid poor farmers.
  
  Breitbart apparently loves to call innocent people of ...See More
  July 21 at 8:25am · · 1 person
- Rand Stoller John just has a man crush on Carson. Live and let live.
  July 22 at 1:28am ·

2010-07-13T12:40:00.001-07:00

Lemme lay it out for you- if your revolution doesn't hurt or kill anyone, then you haven't committed any crimes. If your revolution is bloody, then obeying the law is the last thing on your mind. Either way, there's no need for a "Right to Revolution", and little chance that The Founders had one in mind when crafting the 2nd amendment.

Not that it matters what The Founders had in mind. Great recent opinion by Justice Stevens on why "strict constructivism" is a sham, y'all have probably read it. Nonetheless, I think we can infer that what they were talking about was maintaining the legality of a way of life (huntin', collectin'), and maintaining readiness for national defense (vs. Redcoats). Preserving a right to delegitimize The State probably wasn't on the table, especially since they had just gone to so much trouble to create It...and since they had already included so many paths for legitimate dissent.

So why do we need this brand-new right, regardless of its provenance? I mean, revolution is something that people do, without referent to the Constitution or code or anything else...when The People have had enough, they tend to rise up and overthrow, and they usually don't stop to consult the local law library. The only thing that comes to mind is, its a way for the desperate contrarians among us to justify their paranoia about the gummint takin' away their guns. Don't let this happen to you! If you're a proud American gun-nut, console yourself with the fact that a lot of legislation has been passed regarding guns, and our glorious 2nd is still here. If you're a shrinking American violet when it comes to guns, take comfort in the fact that despite our glorious 2nd amendment, we still have the legal ability to make some places gun-free. In either case, don't be fooled- those who yammer about a "right of revolution" are making stuff up. These yammerers (!) are of a type- they fashion themselves "shit-disturbers", and will attach themselves to a number of causes that are diametrically opposed. All arguments made in bad faith; a hallmark of your typical Randian/Objectivist.

And it's no accident that Objectivism rears its ugly head here. Only those who subscribe to something as shockingly immoral as Ayn Rand's "philosophy" would feel the need to gin up a "right of revolution".

my first, and last, dailykos diary

2010-07-13T11:51:00.001-07:00

So, I've been banned- I admit it, I broke the rules.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/12/183119/227

here's a little tete-a-tete

2010-07-08T14:43:00.000-07:00

So, Kaili is running her mouth over at DailyKos, and here are two or three of my cents:

I really wanted to let this one go. (4+ / 0-)

Recommended by:: AaronInSanDiego, dsb, Futuristic Dreamer, Its the Supreme Court Stupid

I even started writing a comment, got up, walked away, and got pulled back because there was just too much idiocy in this post to let stand without objecting.

First, you have a really facile interpretation of the Constitution if you think the plural term "the people" is always going to convey an individual right, or that liberals shouldn't vociferously defend collective rights. Not only is it facile, but it's illogical. Look at the example you picked: the right of assembly. When one person assembles,there is no assembly, there's just one person exercising his or her right to express a view, which is freedom of speech. For the right of assembly to be an individual right means that you've compressed it into the right of speech--in other words, you've actually taken away one distinct, collective right and folded it into another one. That turns the right of assembly into a dead-letter, and that's simply foolish.

Second, restrictive gun laws aren't inherently anti-Second Amendment. The 2nd is a narrow right, protecting very limited ranges of conduct, and not everything that touches on gun ownership, possession, sales, or transportation is a constitutional issue. The RKBA folks were nice enough to let me borrow their platform a few months ago to elaborate this point--feel free to read it.

Third, and this is the most important in my book, THERE IS NO RIGHT OF REVOLUTIONin the Constitution (unless you read it into the guarantee of the Ninth Amendment). There's a grant to Congress of the unchecked authority to punish treason, which pretty well flies in the face of the idea that the document enshrines our right to commit it. The 2nd may facilitate treason (I'm sure it made life easier for many in the Confederacy, for example), but to say that it's a right is asinine. And from a logical perspective, have you considered that at the point when a group is waging war on the United States it is no longer bound by the Constitution? If we wanted to raise an army to challenge the US military (which is fucking suicidal--the Iraqi insurgency fought a small proportion of our troops away from our homeland, which bears about as much resemblance to a home-grown revolution as a large turd does to the Sistine Chapel), why the bloody hell would we give two shits about the 2nd Amendment, if we're in a position where we don't recognize the authority of the state?

Your premises don't hold, your argument requires a type of constitutional textualism that's anathema to actual liberal goals, and your entire argument ignores the real harm that befalls our society because of unchecked weapons proliferation.

[And because this is somehow obligatory for me to note: I'm willing to bet that I'm one of the very few people on this goddamn thread who spent any part of today firing a weapon at a shooting range. For those in or near western Maryland, the Savage River State Forest's outdoor range is quite nice, though it does tend to get crowded on holidays.]

"Speaking for me only." -Armando

by JR on Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 04:07:03 PM PDT

[ Reply to This ]

Hear, Hear! (0 / 0)
I know Kaili pretty well- her recently deceased ex-husband was my best friend of 32 years. He shot himself a couple of months ago, just after Kaili served him with divorce papers. One thing I know about Kaili is that she desperately wants to be taken for an intellectual- thus her attraction to ideas that are guaranteed to be provocative (pro-gun, pro-Ayn Rand, etc.). Thanks, JR, for explicating and exposing her simplistic analysis of the 2nd amendment. I'm a former Marine, I've been in combat, I've used guns and actually (legally!) SHOT PEOPLE- and I think gun restrictions should be made a lot tighter. It makes me physically ill when I think of all the young people in this country that have been killed by guns, chief among them my best friend Scott. I think this overwhelming amount of violence is definitely facilitated by the fast and loose attitude we have with guns. I don't know if the laws about gun possession should be changed- I'm not a lawyer and never will be- but I do think that we should close whatever loopholes exist that allow most gun crimes to be anonymous. This, to me, is the core of the problem: there are so many guns available, and so cheaply, and with so few legal means to track their provenance, that prosecuting crimes becomes impossible. I don't think most of us are worried about "gun nuts", because with rare exceptions they aren't committing crimes. Gun nuts are having accidents, but it's gang violence that kills the poor, and the innocent bystanders who are in the wrong place at the wrong time. I think that arming ourselves with guns to combat gang violence is the wrong approach- as a Liberal, I support social solutions to social problems, so I would rather see programs that lift gang members out of poverty. I also think that arming ourselves against theoretical or possible tyranny, rather than actual tyranny, is completely nuts: thanks for making the point that revolution is not a right- it may be necessary from time to time, but the State is under no obligation to legitimize its own dissolution. Kaili's desire to voice new and original ideas has run up against her insufficient parsing of the real world, so she ends up as a de facto teabagger....too bad.

The Trap of Nihilism

2010-05-18T16:05:00.001-07:00

Scott is dead, by his own hand, and I've been struggling to make sense of it (against the impulse of my intellect, which knows there's no sense to be made...we have a natural, irrevocable tendency to search for meaning, even in an absurd universe. Now, why?). Scott once said to me (complaining), "But Steiny, you always see the good in every person." I guess that's true- I'm of a much sunnier disposition than he, don't know why, even though I've felt depression as black and absolute as his...I think I know something about the roots of his despair. Most of it was from unwarranted self-loathing, but there was a portion that happened like this: when you are a teenager, you are in a fight to establish your identity. This is existentially important, and if you grow up in a politically charged atmosphere your options will be limited. Por ejemplo- most develop a political consciousness based on the position of their parents. If you were in high school in the 1980s, you would find that nearly every rational position had been co-opted by some group or other with major negatives attached (once upon a time, the "left" was the exclusive domain of the Hippies, so if you didn't smoke pot or believe in new-age personal growth bullshit, or buy the whole raft of groupthink that went with it, you were suspect, your politics invalid). "Third Way", "independent" parties aren't much help here, since politics depends on groupthink; even the most hardcore libertarian can find like-"minded" individuals to commiserate with. That being the case, nihilism becomes very attractive to the teen aged mind; after all, if all the positions are bullshit, then the whole system must be bullshit as well. I don't think Scott thought of himself as a nihilist (that would have required major insight)- but he did commit suicide, after all. There was a tendency in him to be malevolent, which bothered me and for which I criticized him, and which I think was the result of an unconscious alignment with nihilism. But it wasn't his nature, it was a pose he struck as a defense against the dearth of viable positions. This is obvious to me because of the things he never abandoned- such as a commitment to human rights, and justice (his knee never failed to jerk violently against obviously evil people).

I mention this now because I want to warn anyone considering this position. Sarte warned against bad faith; and nihilism is bad faith incarnate. If you find yourself fed up, and everyone in the world is saying things that make you sick, then it is your obligation to create a position and articulate it. Walter Sobchek: "Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, but at least it's an ethos." Art (which to me includes all the human creative endeavors, language, music, politics, law) is our best defense against the abyss, our birthright as Homo Sapiens, but most importantly a requirement of continued membership in life. Nihilism adds no comfort, makes no statements, shines no light and offers no solutions. There's a difference between that and art with the flavor of nihilism, which can be downright exhilarating: the Sex Pistols pump you up, and it's fun to give the finger to The Man, but all these "movements" that have annihilation as their core value (teabaggism, objectivism, end-times-ism) appeal mainly to those who are losing it all and want everyone else to lose it all too. Stay away from that shit! It's mind poison! Be creative! "Go not gentle into that good night" means not just to hang on to life, but also to battle death, the abyss that stares into us.

Which is a somewhat pollyannaish position, I know. I react, because I've lost someone that I love. I would do almost anything to have him back, alive. But my options are limited, even philosophically, because my emotions are a more accurate indicator of truth. I hate the thing that depressed him, whatever it is, so I can't have sympathy for a position that killed my best friend. We had a thing- what he called our "twins language"- which was a cipher that grew out of our mutual status as outcasts. But in later years, he started to pervert it so that communication was minimized; he wanted simply to parrot the phrases, to repeat the memes without referent. We got mad at each other over this- he because I wouldn't "run my lines", I because he sucked all the joy and meaning out of it. Tellingly, we would argue about this very issue in our twins language (meta-meta-meta-meta). And now it is a dead twins language ha ha ha. Fucking bleak, eh? The point is, I understand the attraction of giving in to death. When your strength is gone nothing is more sweet than going limp and letting Lethe carry you, drifting, towards Hades. And by the way fuck you world. Sadly, I'm still alive and I can't abandon hope (not an option for me, father of two, husband of one, son of many). The only way for me is to give myself over to the small consolations of creation, like the things that gave Scott joy (music and words and food). And to find a target- in this case the immorality of giving up. It's odd for me to align myself with Aquinas, considering my recent feelings about religion, but perhaps not: the Saint represents a time before the bad faith of the postmodern era. His argument is pure, and made from first principles. I only wish it would have worked on Scott.

2010-03-26T20:41:00.001-07:00

what is the purpose of federalism? To provide the courts a rationale for making excessively narrow judgements. Under federalism, twisted logic is acceptable. That's why federalism is a tool for those who wish to reduce civil rights, by discrimination. A liberal court is just the opposite- it will seek at every turn to extend rights to every class, as it is defined into existence. That's why liberalism is capable of dealing with the future; whereas federalism attempts to hold back the tide.

Facebook Fight!

2010-03-24T15:21:00.000-07:00

Colby Codner Can we secede yet? I don't want my kids growing up under a Socialist/Facscist/Statist government.
March 21 at 7:16pm · Comment ·
2 people like this.
Ed Boyce
I'm in man, it is time to either clean house or move out!
March 21 at 9:16pm
Loraine Marks Hirth
Well, considering the other side's dream is to sit around and let someone take care of them from cradle to grave, I'd say we have a pretty good chance of winning. I would rather die than live without liberty. I'M IN!
March 22 at 11:31am
Eric Steinberg
Gimme a break. Stop hating the President because he's black, go back to your PoliSci text, and see if you can figure out what all those "isms" really are about.
March 23 at 9:01pm ·
Colby Codner
Eric, Please.

The President is also half white, and I happen to dislike that part of him too. Stop grasping at straws...
March 24 at 3:59am
Eric Steinberg
No, the fact that you've conflated socialism and fascism only underscores that you don't understand either. And "statism", an Ayn Rand word, is a nearly meaningless concept (like the rest of Rand's 'philosophy'). This administration brought us back from the brink! But if you truly think selfishness and cruelty are virtues, then I guess you wouldn't mind being a tool of giant corporations.....listen, man- this Ayn Rand bullshit is second in stupidity only to Scientology.
March 24 at 6:13am ·
Colby Codner
OK Eric, I don't recall Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter or Ford ever taking over GM, the banking sector, etc. Government control over the private business sector have precedents in Fascism, Socialism and Communism. To me, the term "Statism" encompasses this idea that the government controls the market instead of the entrepreneur and investor and is thus, valid.

Do you honestly believe that this administration pulled us "back from the brink"? Seriously? HAHAHAHAHA. Sorry man, but Obama has spent in one year what it took Bush 5 years to spend, and Obama is ramping up spending (and further taking the economy down with him). I didn't like Bush because he wasn't a fiscal conservative. But for Obama, and his supporters, to keep blaming Bush for any given problem is disingenuous and childish.
March 24 at 6:30am
Eric Steinberg
Who is being disingenuous? If you really thought all gummint spending was bad, wouldn't you quit your city job? Obama has brought us back from so much more than a depression (how 'bout America's global image? Habeas Corpus? Torture as foreign policy? the gutting of EPA?)- but don't believe me, listen to the CBO. They say HCR will relieve debt, not add to it. And they say the stimulus worked.

You speak as if you wanted nothing less than complete lassez-faire. But regulation is part of any economic system. I for one don't like getting raped by big corporations. In point of actual fact, every time markets are deregulated our economy slides toward depression. Even if you truly are out for nobody but yourself (which I don't believe), you'd choose a regulated market over an unregulated one because it performs better.

All this talk about "tyrrany", "socialism", etc. is heat without light, bad analogies; in other words, fear talking. Old Ayn had the same problem- she did not present analysis, only empty hyperbole.
March 24 at 3:06pm ·
Loraine Marks Hirth
I would guess that Colby would very much like for the US Constitution to again be the supreme law of the land. But, hey, why talk of law and order when you can simply call someone a racist, and hide behind sophistry?
March 24 at 8:51pm
Colby Codner
Eric, I don't have a city job. We get contract work from various municipalities, but those are backed by local taxes that the citizens vote for.

As for Obama's ability to manage our global image, his track record would indicate that he's doing a less than stellar job. He's often derided by his peers (France, Russia, etc.), and the Europeans are finally beginning to wake up to the fact that Obama is just an empty suit. I can provide articles if you's like from foreign sources.

The Stimulus didn't work. I'll begin sending you economic articles that can detail this if you'd like. The HAMP thing is also another colossal government failure..

Eric, you are right that some minimum amount of regulation is needed. We need some simple rules that investment bankers can't easily circumvent. We don't need more back-door taxation however.

My tax money should be spent only on the enumerated powers given to the government in the founding documents, and not on some social welfare issue. I shouldn't be punished through increased taxation for someone else's poor life style decisions. People here, even extremely poor people here, have opportunities that an average person in India would die for. Honestly, I have no sympathy, or tolerance for people here that say that they are being oppressed somehow, and that they simply can't work. They need to starve.

I am not afraid of change, but I will fight against what I perceive to be diminishing personal freedoms at the mandate of some elitist oligarch. Or, in our former military parlance, "Obama can go eat a bag of dicks". But, I do appreciate the sentiment that you somehow know better for me.

The government is far too large in my opinion, and could function with a quarter of its current employees, and a tenth of it's programs. Charity was once the function of the churches, and not the government. Sure, nobody could pay off their Escalade on church charity, but nobody starved too much either. In other words, the person seeking charity was confronted with the consequences of their situation very quickly, and then motivated to be proactive in making their situation better----usually through hard work. Our government just gives away money with absolutely no consequence, and we have multi-generational fiscal parasites to show for it. Time for that to stop...
March 24 at 9:25pm
Eric Steinberg
Where do you get your news? And how do you know so much about what Europeans think? Please send me anything you think will help my state of mind; but I can't guarantee I'll understand it (I get vapor lock when I hear the word 'economics'). But those are trifles....I guess we do have opposing views as regards the purpose of government. Even that is small potatoes, though- the most important thing in our discussion is fear. A lot of people (you?) think we are in a Constitutional Crisis. I submit that we are not- not legally, not financially, not morally. Forget for a moment (if you can) how you or I feel about the President personally. Ask yourself this: has procedure been maintained, in the operation of this government? Has power been usurped in any way? Please show your work.
March 25 at 3:23pm ·
Loraine Marks Hirth
The enumerated powers doctrine holds that the federal government has no general powers and no unexpressed powers. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution defines the powers of Congress in eighteen clauses. Clauses 2 through 17 allow Congress, for example, to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to enact nationwide laws for bankruptcies, patents, copyrights, and naturalization; to establish post offices, post roads, federal courts, and a federal city; and to raise and support an army, navy, and militia.

Under the enumerated powers doctrine, the powers listed in these clauses are exhaustive.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined," Madison famously said in Federalist No. 45. "Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite."
March 25 at 4:12pm
Colby Codner
Thanks Loraine, that is how I interpret the Federal government's limited scope of power as well.

Eric,

China
http://www.chandlerswatch.com/2010/02/09/cold-war-brewing-between-china-and-us/

Japan
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/on-president-obamas-bow-to-the-japanese-emperor-an-academic-friend-writes-that-both-the-left-and-the-right-are-wrong.html

Russia
http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/18/1409370.aspx

The UK and France
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100011892/even-the-french-think-barack-obama-is-weak/

and these articles really don't even encompass the Obama administrations disastrous economic polices, but instead focus on his character.

I will be pretty busy this weekend, but can continue to forward you dozens of articles, blogs, etc from various foreign and domestic sources that outline what a colossal failure this administration has been to date.

Both parties share the blame for the mess that we are currently in, but this administration has really screwed the pooch. He has pushed forth his spending agenda, and it has irrevocably damaged our economy. The best thing that states like mine could do would be to secede and return to the black letter law of the original founding documents. At least then, we could get back to a more free state.
March 25 at 7:36pm
Eric Steinberg
I'm glad to have a couple of constitutional scholars to help me out....but you still haven't answered the question. This "doctrine" of which you speak is not part of the Constitution, but only an interpretation of it. Please tell me how, when and where this administration has done anything unconstitutional.
March 25 at 7:51pm ·
Colby Codner
The government took over (backstopped) private enterprises. That is the point where I became alarmed. These were companies with stock (albeit lousy stock, but privately held stock all the same). This means that there were individual, private investors. When the government came in and took over, they overstepped their delineated powers set forth in the founding documents. What is even more worrisome, was the shear size of the market segment the government captured in doing so. The government is supposed to leave the businesses alone.

With AIG, Citi, and Goldman Sachs in tow, they had a clear advantage over the market, and used it to manipulate the market via high frequency trading (100's of trades per second, but no real volume) with the SEC's blessing. Not only ythat, but they also bailed out Fannie and Freddie, and now there is a strong liklihood the the holder of your mortgage is now the federal government.

The entire market is rigged right now, and all historical modeling algorithms and techniques that have worked in the past currently don't work because of this. However, this is unsustainable, and will, at some point be rendered useless, and the market will come back down. I watch the bond market everyday, and there have been some interesting things going on this week.

This administration has been like the anti-Midas economically. Everything they have touched has turned to shit. It's sort of incomprehensible that they could accidentally be so horrible at this, but they are. The only people profiting are the large banks...
March 25 at 8:48pm
Loraine Marks Hirth
It is unconstitutional to make a law requiring citizens to purchase insurance. Anything not explicitly assigned to the federal government, by default, is left to the states. Don't even try to give me a list of things that the federal govt. is doing outside of the US Constitution. I already know, and I very much want them to stop.
March 26 at 2:12pm
Eric Steinberg
Loraine, maybe you can list them for me- but I doubt it. There is no law requiring any citizens to purchase anything. You've misinterpreted the HCR bill. Colby, lemme get this straight: you think we're in a constitutional crisis because of the way the market is going? And how do you square this with Paul Krugman? I mean, he's got a Nobel, and (forgive me) you don't.
March 26 at 3:34pm ·
Eric Steinberg
Look, I'm not trying to put you or anybody else down- but the fact remains that you are advocating SECESSION. You are supporting this position by repeating talking points from right-wing astroturf groups- in other words, LIES. This makes you, in effect, the TOOLS of the corporations behind these astroturf groups. I'll be honest- I hated W, andhis cabinet, about as much as I've ever hated anyone, and I'm a Socialist through and through (except for that mile-wide anarchist streak.....). BUT even though I hated that motherfucker, I never advocated seceding, or picking up a gun, or anything like that. Why? Because I believe in this country, I have a sense of ownership about it, and I'm not a goddamn crybaby.
March 26 at 3:55pm ·
Loraine Marks Hirth
How, exactly, did I misinterpret it?
March 26 at 4:46pm
Colby Codner
HAHAHAHA, who is crying Eric? Not me.

Hate Bush all you like. Obama is just a little darker shade of W, and a whole lot more narcissistic. Perhaps you didn't quite understand what my point was, and you resort, yet again to how you feel instead of examining the facts. The government cannot control a private business. It not only owns several private businesses, it it in bed with them and manipulating entire markets (at the detriment of the citizenry). I am not sure that I can make it any more clear to you. That is unconstitutional.

You are the one that keeps insisting that I dislike Obama for personal reasons. I dislike big government, and the demagogues that advocate for, and lead it. You can rest assured that in the next election, he will be voted out of office, and we'll most likely get another career politician in---but one that will hopefully somehow drastically reduce the size of the government.

You think that I am a tool of some giant corporation? Please Eric. That is the same argument the SEIU used. They are advocating taking over private 401ks. Are you on board with that too?

What sort of surprises me, is that with your Jewish roots, that you can't (or refuse to) recognize the stark similarities between Obama and Hitler. Don't think that I am trying to goad you, but really, look at it objectively.

You fail to recognize something else. I have a strong and abiding love for my country. Given the political trajectory that we are on, we will soon be a socialist nation. Go read the Constitution again and please show me where the founding fathers instituted a socialist government. They set an extremely limited role for the central government, and left the rest to the states and to the citizens. This administration is clearly against that concept. So, who abandoned the Constitution? It wasn't me. I'd rather secede and use the Constitution as the black letter law of the land instead of living in some socialist cabal. But hey, if you want to live in a socialist regime, go right ahead----it's still a free country. At least for now.
March 26 at 8:38pm
Eric Steinberg
Sorry Loraine- your opinion doesn't count, because you're a girl. But I'll help you out anyway- Commerce Act, Militia Act of 1790, go look 'em up.

Colby, I only mentioned my feelings to acknowledge bias, so that I could then make the larger point that this administration has not overstepped its bounds vis a vis the constitution. This is an objective fact, regardless of whether you are for big gov't (like me) or small (like you). As far as fascism goes, the only people I see acting like brownshirts these days are the teabaggers who had their own little Kristallnacht, throwing bricks and epithets. To try to pin fascism on Obama is pure paranoid fantasy. As regards socialism, there's nothing in the constitution that precludes it- we could definitely follow the letter of the law and also have a socialist economy (if only....).
Yesterday at 8:39am ·
Colby Codner
Eric, you are deflecting again. Please show where in the enumerated powers (sections 8 and 9) that the government can own a private enterprise. Also, QE was supposed to have ended, but is back up and running again (banks buying for the Fed). You are correct that this administration didn't "overstep", it steamrolled over its bounds.
Yesterday at 9:20am
Colby Codner
Eric, I know that you were trying to make a point with Loraine not being able to vote, but you seem to have forgotten the 19th Amendment. You're kind of showing your ass by trying to be snide....I expected more from you man.
Yesterday at 9:40am

humanist agnostic skeptic

2010-02-26T08:37:00.000-08:00

It's taken me quite a while to recover, even partially, from the shock of the events in Florida during the 2000 election. I did not think that plutocrats would be allowed to buy the Presidency of this country- boy, was I wrong. As shocked as I was at the naked fascistic greed of the Bush campaign, I was even more perturbed by the willful passivity of Gore's people, that they did not vigorously pursue the matter. And the ruling of the Supreme Court, giving their imprimatur to the charade, was beyond belief.

But I have recovered. Despite his (sometimes infuriating!) methodical pace, I remain positive about President Obama's level of engagement. I'm not one of those progressives that bemoan his constant striving for bipartisanship; after all, he's gotta serve the whole country, not just liberals and lefties. I'm not particularly disturbed that we're still in Afghanistan and Iraq; I knew from the instant we went in there that realpolitik required a stay of at least ten years, probably more (Kucinich notwithstanding). Obama is the exact opposite of impulsive. Everything he does is carefully considered to the nth degree. Despite this glacial pace on resolving issues, his election has largely restored my faith in the political system; the republic still stands, so that the work of undoing the fascistic greed of the Bush years can continue.

All of which has allowed me to reformulate my philosophy of government. I'm a humanist, and an agnostic. My inherent humanism will forever bar me from being a conservative- I can never have the contempt for others that conservativism requires. My agnosticism- in the sense that Robert Anton Wilson espoused- similarly determines my relation to the political, in that I can never be comfortable with demagoguery.

That's why I'm finally able to articulate my disgust with Sarah Palin. Never have I seen a more cynically stupid remark than her recent quip: "How's that hopey-changey thing workin' out for ya?". It's working out quite well, as it happens....Obama continues to be an inspiration to me. Palin doesn't even know what she doesn't know.

Now you're just being dumb.

2010-02-17T22:47:00.000-08:00

come ON, Troy! How about some writing, rather than simply regurgitating the idiotic spew of Mark Steyn (fer Chrissakes! of all the bullshit!). In related news, I'm becoming quite enamored (a little belatedly, I admit) of the Craigslist-derived term fucktard; it's just so darn apt! But apt of whom, you ax? Sadly, of my friend the Crack Emcee....seems his ability to parse fakepollery has been outstripped by the near-infinite capacity of the right wing to whore itself to the latest purveyor of spin. As usual, there aren't any ideas there- just look at the ratio of quoted to unquoted words.

i doubt

2010-02-08T12:32:00.000-08:00

Zappa's Politics

2009-12-31T09:44:00.000-08:00

In the lyrics to Dumb All Over, there's a glimmer of positive in the middle of the black sea of Frank's cynicism:

...we're gonna have to do a lot more than

Airline Security

2009-12-31T09:40:00.000-08:00

It's not there to keep us safe, it's there to keep the airlines safe.

marxism

2009-12-31T09:13:00.000-08:00

the rub: dialectical materialism is as close as economics ever gets to actual science. Therefore, the POV with the most credibility. Feeling our way, etc. The Whole Foods guy deserves a lot more criticism; he's an idiot. It's now wholly possible to have public and private personae that are completely dissociated by design, and under complete control by...whomever.

Dispense with Bullshit

2009-11-12T12:51:00.000-08:00

First, let's talk about socialism. If you, or anyone else, says that Obama is a socialist, or is trying to advance socialism, then you have no idea what socialism is. A committed Socialist will understand what dialectical materialism is about (to an extent), will know what Marx and Engels were referring to when they wrote about workers, the bourgeois, class struggle, the proletariat, the means of production, and continuing revolution, and think and work towards the day when the wealth of labor will be distributed equally among the laborers. More to the point, a socialist will NATIONALIZE an ENTIRE INDUSTRY; offering more service to the public for their tax dollars just doesn't qualify. Obama is NO SOCIALIST. He is a Capitalist; he's the chief executive of the biggest capitalist state in the history of mankind. None of the proposed healthcare legislation seeks to nationalize any industry- Obama is not trying to put the insurers out of business. Consequently, if you try to label Obama a Socialist then you are COMPLETELY FULL OF SHIT and IGNORANT.

Second, let's talk about economics. A lot of you guys out there (Dille! Codner!) have put forth a bunch of alarmist gobbledygook about the markets, and how the signs are all very bad. I'm sure that you are right. I'm not qualified to argue about markets, stocks, or macro- (or even micro-) economics. Quite frankly, that shit bores me to tears, and it seems to have replaced the obsession with sports statistics that used to be the sole intellectual pursuit of certain guys. But none of it will make Obama a socialist. There are many reasons to be alarmed these days, and concerns about the health of the economy are on everybodys mind- even TPM wants Geithner fired.

Finally, let's talk about Ayn Rand. Here is a sexually repressed demagogue who writes an overheated romance novel with political pretensions, that lucks into a boyfriend with an inheritance. Then some years go by, and the cult around her grows to include a few Washington pinheads who use her bullshit "philosophy" to excuse the most inhumanly evil behavior writ upon the modern scene; up to and including genocide, racial hatred and wholesale theft of public assets. This is not something anyone should be proud of; I myself hang my head shamefully, for the (not one but two!) copies of The Fondledhead on my shelf....but the real point here is that it's all DOCUMENTED and A MATTER OF FACT. To wit: Ken Lay, noted Objectivist/Randian, ripped off MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. Donald Rumsfeld, devoted Randian (are any of you in favor of Rumsfeld? Please explain why, and show your work...). Wolfowitz, Cheney, Greenspan, I could go on and on. The Whole Sick Crew, as it were.

Chapping my Hide

2009-10-23T10:18:00.000-07:00

There's the willful ignorance of terms- I am a socialist, and I can tell you that Obama is no socialist. Then there's the....wait, lemme get this straight. You think our country is, how you say, going to hell in a handbasket? Paranoid? Never mind that Obama has basically restored Habeas Corpus, when it was gutted by Bush. But what really REALLY chaps my hide is the fallback position: Ayn Rand. Of all the BULLSHIT. Smarter people than I have given philosophically rigorous explanations of why Randism=mind poison. As for me, I'll keep it simple:

1. Many young folk are enamored of her because they think they've discovered something big that isn't in the canon. If they stick with their studies they eventually figure out why she isn't in the canon; it's because her philosophy is a half-baked screed against the Soviet Union (for a similar off-the-rails diatribe, see Orly Taitz).

2. But it's much worse than that- Randism/Objectivism is an attempt to repaint amoral behavior as an alternate moral code. It's a way for people with property to feel o.k. about not sharing with anyone else, and as such, it's not just a completely bald-faced case of moral relativism, it is de facto WHITE SUPREMACISM.

this is just dumb

2009-10-10T08:06:00.000-07:00

This is what people are thingkit:

paranoia, paranoia, paranoia, based on bullshit. "I'm scared for my county, and he's a boogiiee maaaan" loose combo of John Birch/Ayn RAnd/ resulting in half (dissappointed progressive) half (disaffected know-nothing populace)

admission: sometimes the reference won't place itself quickly enough, and i forget....what are we rilly talkin about? Thje first thing that galls me is " the taking loosely of accepted terms to mean what you want". Is there a clinical name for this logical fallacy? Yes, it's called a "lie".

When people try to paint a liberal as an authoritarian. When in fact liberalism is the diametric opposite of authoritarianism. When in fact President Obama has spoken and acted just as what he is, a Liberal. The last liberal since Nixon, like my friend Larry says....

Quote:

Kim Allen-Butler It's official-the inmates are running the asylum. Obviously not the same voting committee as for the Olympics-too bad.

Yesterday at 8:58am · Comment · Like

Sandor Exposito likes this.

Melinda Jester

Stop picking on Obama!

Yesterday at 9:00am

Angie Thielemans

Hey stranger, where the heck have you been?

Yesterday at 9:14am

Eric Steinberg

WHAAAT? Are you actually ticked off that our President won the Nobel? Are you cheering for him to fail? Have you considered sedition? Are you about to go all McVeigh on us?

Yesterday at 9:36am · Delete

Eric Steinberg

It's because he's black, isn't it?

Yesterday at 9:37am · Delete

Liliana Kurpanik

Hey, he's in a group that includes Arafat.

Yesterday at 11:46am

Kim Allen-Butler

He's black??? No Eric-it's not 'cause he's black-it's cause he was in office 10 days before the voting deadline and how could anyone in their right mind know what he would do to further this peace process he's being awarded for. This is typically an award for people who have spent careers if not lifetimes in the pursuit of peace-not weeks in office. I, personally am suspicious of this move-haven't figured out the angle, yet, but I will. Try not to be duped-dig a little deeper.

Yesterday at 1:05pm

George Rothweiler

Just remember he's white also...

Yesterday at 5:14pm

Roger Inman

You are the BEST!! GO GIrl!!!

10 hours ago

....end quote.

Here's one for you: Sternn: "Don't worry, I've got an angle!"

Fuck the Poor

2009-09-16T14:38:00.000-07:00

I've known for years that it's pointless to try to turn somebody's head around about poor people; but that's not gonna stop me from trying. I also know that I'm not necessarily in the minority; most folks in this country have been indoctrinated by religion, so they're predisposed to have compassion for the poor. It's only an unfortunate few that have been indoctrinated by Ayn Rand, and thus have contempt for the poor. Notice I don't preclude myself from the ranks of the indoctrinated; we are all indoctrinated into one set of assumptions or another. The real point is how you behave in your everyday life; in other words, what kind of human are you?

Yes, the real point is how you act. "By their acts shall ye know them", or so says Scripture. I am extremely agnostic, personally, and something of a commie besides (thanks, Mom!); but I still find it useful to borrow the conceits of religion, in that they are so pithy and descriptive. Even as committed an atheist as Sartre makes the same point- the challenge, he said, was to be good without God. And I agree! I have great hopes for the future because I think we as a race are beginning to throw off the shackles of religion and learn how to treat each other as human.

Which brings me to this utter bullshit that's flying around in the "political" sphere. I'm quite sickened by the haters on the airwaves; Blush/Reck, teabaggers, O'Rly, etc. But they are to be expected any time the culture breaks new ground. What chaps my hide even more are friends of mine that have swallowed the logic-free and inhumanly stupid rhetoric of Palin/Rand/etc., just so they can feel superior to people with nothing. I've been having a debate with old Marine Corps buddies, and a couple of them are having a grand old time trashing ACORN in the wake of the Bleck "expose". They try to defend their position as consistent with Randian "values", and say that they have no real obligation to help the poor. This makes me physically ill. It just blows my mind that a middle class person would think it o.k. to steal from those with less. My bud The Crack Emcee can safely be ignored in this debate, as his blog is nothing more than a rant against his ex-wife and the regurgitation of Republican talking points (an analysis of his site shows a ratio of about eighty percent links/quotes to twenty percent actual writing). And sadly, the comments of President Carter are also irrelevant; as John Legend just mentioned on Anderson Cooper's show, the accusation of racism may be accurate but it is a distraction. The teabaggers are desperate people that have been duped into being tools for the corporations. They've been duped into agitating against themselves, against their own best interests! "Government out of Medicare", indeed!

I really hate it when people gang up on one person

2009-07-30T11:10:00.000-07:00

Here's a pretty funny blog entry, but in the comments everyone gangs up on rmrd0000. I happen to agree with him; the Civil War was worth fighting, and Henry Louis Gates has every right to not be treated like a slave, especially in his own home. Also, I think cops should be held to a higher standard- maybe their right to not be assaulted should be limited, since they are authorized by the state to use deadly force. That said, I'm a homeowner and a taxpayer, and decidedly pro-cop. I've experienced profiling and even brutality at the hands of the police first-hand, but I still think that they are our best option for dealing with violent crime, which is a problem for ALL AMERICANS.

What the Fuque, ovah?

2009-05-14T12:09:00.000-07:00

So, all my worst fears have been confirmed- my buddy Troy has completely lost his fucking mind (like what Stanley Crouch says about Amiri Baraka). Y'know, I try to play nice but my posts keep getting deleted just because I disagree with him. Must be nice living inside a goddamn air-conditioned bubble! The offense? I called bullshit on his constant Barack-knocking. His only (stated) rule on his blog is that you can't be anonymous; and, as anyone who knows me knows, anonymity is the furthest thing from my mind ('cept of course when I'm in the middle of committing crimes).

three pennies for your minds

2008-10-02T21:48:00.000-07:00

Y'know, I've had a realization....there's this scene in the Matrix where the baddie is telling Larry Fishburne what he hates about the Matrix...he says, "It's the smell". Which is how I feel about Sarah Palin's voice. She's one of these people who thinks she can appear smart by stringing together buzzwords. Coupled with that nasal twang, it's a sound that curdles my brain. It actually causes me physical pain, it's the damnedest thing.

brain child

2008-05-01T16:35:00.000-07:00

pretty scary, eh kids?

2008-05-01T16:33:00.001-07:00

grafittibow

2008-05-01T16:33:00.000-07:00

MM MM Good

2008-02-11T20:30:00.000-08:00

You know what I love? The return of craftsmanship. There is currently a renaissance of things finely made, well turned. Check out Vanilla Bicycles or San Francisco Drums or Emery Sound amplifiers, or any number of young geeks making beautiful things with their hands. Truly inspirational.

I need a new car.

2007-09-11T20:55:00.000-07:00

...Because my old one simply will not do. And here are my thoughts: for many years, the primary criteria my car had to meet was fuel efficiency. But now that I have a kid, that's changed to crash survivability. So, my choice in autos has necessarily mutated, allowing possibilities that would have seemed gauche in the extreme to several of my earlier selves. Following are cars that will fit my personal bill, and the reasons for them.

1. Some big American truck. This because in the realm of crashworthiness, sheer mass is king. It's simple physics, folks. Also, I can run a diesel on veggie oil, or biodiesel. And I like buying American. And I need room, for dogs, kids, gear, crap, whathaveyou.

2. VW Vanagon Syncro. Absolutely cavernous inside, and the all-wheel-drive makes it feel a lot safer than the (visually cool, but light as a feather wrapped in tinfoil) VW bus. Not as crashworthy as a full-size pickup, though. Age is a factor here. Self-maintenance is easy.

3. Pinzgauer. These Swedish military trucks have air-cooled engines and the best four-wheel drive ever made. Parts and service is not too bad, either. Ugly, utilitarian, weird (these are not negatives). Can survive a near-direct mortar blast.

4. Subaru. The best-engineered car made today. Comparitively tiny- not so good for someone with three huge dogs. Ubiquitous in the Bay Area.

5. Some other all-wheel-drive minivan, a la Dodge Caravan, Toyota Sienna, etc. Also very light and tinny- will fold like origami in a collision. Good on gas. No diesel option.

we safe in our concrete robe

2007-08-01T12:43:00.000-07:00

....mmmmBOY that is good flavor. So look. Yer skin is hangin off yer bones, ere eat this. Very tasty. No, there's plenty.

Debates, yay.

2007-08-01T12:36:00.000-07:00

Mike Gravel rawks.

galumph

2007-03-03T20:50:00.000-08:00

Jimmy!

2007-03-03T18:17:00.000-08:00

why, yes, actually

2007-02-18T12:23:00.001-08:00

"we started as a Scott Thunes tribute band....."

I'm a SPY

2006-09-13T16:35:00.000-07:00

Dig This:
http://sfbulldog.com/hBrown/2006/08/14/watching-city-hall-470
And This:
http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=13
(Click on the August 10, 2006 meeting and let it roll to about 19 minutes in....)
....apparently I've been on the DHS payroll without knowing...or getting paid...
-Be Seeing You!

I just thought of something....!

2006-02-14T10:21:00.000-08:00

... I was a Registered Green Party Voter the whole time I was in STA Platoon, Headquarters Company, First Battalion, Fifth Marine Regiment, First MarDiv. Also 31st MEU(SOC). Take that, Swofford!

The American Dream

2005-10-17T15:35:00.000-07:00

I see this from time to time in my neighborhood- a Black Man riding a Harley. To my mind, this captures something essential and is worthy of notice. That the descendents of slaves would have enough leisure time, disposable income, and cultural freedom to buy and wear an outlaw identity is, what? Unique? At least... where but in America could this happen? Perhaps the only other country with the cash to support that kind of flash is Japan- and in fact, I have seen in Japan a man riding a PERFECT replica of "Electra Glide in Blue", uniform too. But that gentleman came from privilege- you won't see any recent Korean immigrants terrorizing the Land of the Rising Sun on a chopper, you won't see any Filipinos there rumbling away on a Wide Glide. Nor an Indonesian on an Indian. So it occurred to me that the particular combination of African-American and Milwaukee iron might signify something unique to the United States. Maybe of equal importance is the notion that liquidity of identity can be a precursor of freedom- most "hip" types decry this, protesting that democratizing a cultural symbol robs it of import. Bullshit- if someone wants to buy it, it is important enough to them! More, buying an identity means that anyone can be anyone. That's democracy.

I think what you're saying is "Get Over It"

2005-07-24T15:00:00.000-07:00

You are right. And this doesn't have to be a "right wing frame of mind"...if the "Left" (and I can remember saying, in 1986, that The Left was dead in America) wants to be taken seriously, it needs to deal with the world as it is. That means that we as taxpayers, no matter what political stripe, are the legal owners of this war. So we'd better be sure we're getting our money's worth! Which brings to mind a thread about covert ops....

Roads Girdle the Globe

2005-07-19T17:25:00.000-07:00

I'm obsessed with this song for the past 3 days... and I started hunting for sheet music, only to be confronted with this. Irony is so ironic....And no, I'm not CMC's neighbor! Besides, there's already an XTC cover band.

The Death Penalty

2005-07-19T14:54:00.000-07:00

IF Rove or Cheney leaked Plames' name, then they are guilty of treason. Since the treason took place during wartime, that makes them eligible for...THAT'S RIGHT YOU GUESSED IT! THE BIG ONE! The Electric Chair, the caustic cocktail, drawin' and quarterin', the Major Ouch, etc., etc.

Land of the Dud

2005-07-11T11:53:00.000-07:00

So CMC and I went to check out the new George A. Romero installment on Saturday; on leaving, his words were "I'm never going to the movies again!" ... those very words spoken by me on several occasions, most recently after paying to see (and that's the real point) "Minority Report" (funny how nothing elicits this level of disgust like a Tom Cruise vehicle). Many things disturbed me about this movie- what sticks in my mind is the simple-minded pseudo-Marxism (example: class war subtext, potentially interesting ambiguity about who is the consumer and who the consumed, the nature of citizenship, equal rights for zombies) in stark contrast to the very weird racial politics Romero seems to be playing. "Night of the Living Dead", still one of the scariest movies of all time, also had one of the first and best Black Heroes in film history, albeit one who meets a tragic end. This tradition extended to "Dawn of the Dead": the best line in the movie delivered by a black guy ("...the only person that could miss with this gun is the sucker with the money to buy it...") So it really chaps my hide to see the following in this new film:
1. Casual racism- Dennis Hopper's character refers to John Leguizamo as a "spick".
2. The Samoan- "Pillsbury"- is a cartoon. Islanders ought to be pissed off about this! The whole litany about stolen cars, blah blah blah. Bullshit alarms go off when characters make soliloquies in combat zones.
3. The Stepin Fetchit butler; I suppose that, combined with item 1, the purpose of this character is to make sure that we know that Hopper is an Evil White Guy. But why, George Romero, do you have to stoop to a Speilbergian level of emotional manipulation just to make this point? It reeks of someone running out of ideas.

Which is a goddamn shame, because there is a lot of potential here. Zombies start to get a little bit smart in this movie- the Zombie Hero learns to shoot a gun (Steyr AUG! yeah!), which is very bad news. I wonder, when the Zombies develop language, how they will refer to the few remaining "living" humans? Quickies? Warmies? Food? Will we ever come to an understanding with the Zombies, or at least detente? Could Zombies potentially develop technology? Oh yeah, we've already got Zombie tech- it's called Microsoft. And what are the legal ramifications of this new Zombie/human sphere? Will there ever be marriage between a Warmie and a Stencher, or will they have to go to Massachusetts?

Who is training these people?

2005-05-10T12:36:00.000-07:00

"Alright people, this never happened....and I don't want to see any paperwork!!!"
-Maude, Monsters, Inc.

James Joyce

2005-04-23T16:06:00.000-07:00

Joyce predicted Television, not only in its banality but also ubiquity. What are they doing in the bars these days?

More Disgust

2005-04-23T16:02:00.000-07:00

Jimmy Cliff has just been co-opted by Toyota, an automobile company.
"You Can Get It If You Really Want,
But You Must Try,
Try And Try"
-Jimmy Cliff

2005-04-21T21:02:00.000-07:00

slightly invisible
mine, all mine!!!

Th' Poap

2005-04-21T20:36:00.000-07:00

You think Benedict XVI has "Arbeit Macht Frei" tattooed somewheres under that miter?

haecceities?

2005-04-19T14:41:00.000-07:00

what the hell are they? and how do you pronounce?

Something about mediated reality....

2005-04-13T12:46:00.000-07:00

...oh yeah. The phrase "throught the magic of Television" says it all. In the fifty or sixty years that we've had television, we are only just beginning to come to terms with the implications of the medium. TV essentially amounts to an infinite extension of our eyeballs (place a camera anywhere in the universe and you can transmit live images to your living room. There may be relativistic effects...). TV depends on persistence of vision to work- it uses a mosaic pattern to create a convincing simulacrum of what our eyes see, and it uses animation techniques to recreate motion in those images. That both of these objectives can be accomplished electronically busts the whole game wide open- not only does this allow complete abstraction of the signal vis a vis how to store it and transmit it, but at the same time gives complete flexibility in the message. Anything you can imagine visually, can be represented on a screen.

Magic: any technology sufficiently advanced blah blah blah (Arthur C. Clarke? Ted Sturgeon? somebody like that). Even sophisticates such as myself can be fooled into slack-jawed amazement by the things we see. So what does that imply for the state of the art? In sixty years, we should expect that the simulacrum has become ever more convincing; we should expect, in fact, that the illusion is complete, and that control of the illusion is complete.

and here's the soundtrack...

2005-03-28T12:49:00.000-08:00

yum

2005-03-27T11:37:00.000-08:00

Burgers!
It's what a carnivore likes to eat!
Burgers (whoa oh)
that's why they are made of meat!

I am going to hell (in a handbasket)(unless I repent)

2005-03-25T20:33:00.000-08:00

Here are a couple of limericks:

A bulimic girl (Terry Schiavo)
Was eating by means of the IV-o
Congress got hot
And said "She eats a lot!"
And now she's no longer alive-o

The idiot grin on poor Terry
Is not from sipping on sherry
They used too much lube
When installing the tube
And instead of binge/purge, she's Merry!

the tail of the Big Chicken

2005-03-16T21:26:00.000-08:00

Down in Mexico...down in Mexico way...there's a playa (dry lake bed) that's not so dry. Red mud and seabirds rub shoulders, and the mud's dried into hexagons. Closer to the water it's as slick as potter's slip. You can skate and the mud dries instantly on your feet, squishing and receiving your trail in its lens, the aqueous humour of a giant eye.

2005-03-08T17:55:00.000-08:00

2005-03-08T17:42:00.000-08:00

2005-03-08T14:18:00.000-08:00

2005-03-08T11:42:00.000-08:00

2005-03-08T11:30:00.000-08:00

2005-03-08T10:04:00.000-08:00

The Power of Profanity

2005-03-01T22:16:00.000-08:00

I LOVE profanity. I like people who use it, I like the dirty fucking words themselves. As far as I'm concerned, all fucking people must always make god-damned blanket fucking statements.

New Short Duration Tag Line

2005-03-01T22:14:00.000-08:00

"Ouch, Babe....it is 'Babe', isn't it?"

The Real Point

2005-03-01T22:08:00.000-08:00

-is that America is the only place where Black People are from.
-Haters you can find anywhere.

true RAWK

2005-02-28T23:39:00.000-08:00

"Have Love, Will Travel"; finally a song that I'm glad was purchased by a car company. But will Richard Berry get his cut? I've been giving some thought to possible strategies for moral reclamation of this RAWKIN' cut...make a video, with lots and lots of burning Land Rovers? Keep those cards and letters coming!

Adios, Hunter

2005-02-23T19:53:00.000-08:00

Timing, as always, is everything. For someone that stood for MAXIMUM LIBERTY, it seems like an obvious checkout point.

My Rap Sheet

2005-02-23T15:09:00.000-08:00

I can tell right now what gorge is rising in the throats of all CMC's "white" readership- "But that's not me!" is the collective whine rising over the land. Liberal petulant insistence that one has "never- never, ever!" been a racist ("ahm zo zorry; ah had no ahdea we employed a rahcist here!"). So it got me to thinking: what is my own culpability in this (rigged) game? Never mind that the question is seriously begged from the start. Here's what I've done and not done:
1) I have been uptight around a hoodlum-looking black dude (or group of black dudes).
2) I have NEVER used the word "nigger" as an epithet
3) I have lost much use for the concept of Black and White. Every person in this country, and everyone you know, is of mixed heritage. So it really should be a non-issue at this point. And it is our duty as Americans to identify with each other (and not just identify each other, AssCroft!)

Even I- a Jewish guy raised in a big, ethnically mixed city (L.A.)- have pretensions towards being "part of the solution, not part of the problem". For instance, I have long thought that one of the only relevant viewpoints on race has been that held by Albert Murray .

But a lot of water still needs to flow under the bridge for everyone to identify themselves as "American". And Crack, why should anyone settle for being a second-class citizen? My point being, why wouldn't your black friends disavow citizenship? I agree that such a pose is a cop-out; what we need is more engagement. But I understand why an impetuous young person might choose to make such a statement.

That's funny!

2005-02-23T15:08:00.000-08:00

When Stephen Colbert says "feasting on my ball sack", that shit makes soda spurt out my nose. And I wasn't even drinking soda!

The Ultimate Power in the Universe

2005-02-09T14:02:00.000-08:00

Let us reflect for a moment on the necessity of ROCK (and I know that ALL CAPS equals shouting, but tough titty said the kitty). As is well understood by all intelligent beings and non-beings, and thinking and non-thinking things, ROCK is the ne plus ultra of human expression. And when I say ROCK (you say, HOW HIGH?), I am of course referring to all popular music. That ROCKS. And that includes rap, disco, boingy stuff, trippy shit, and whatever (please reference my previous post re: musical genres). What is that ineffable (or effable) quality of which I speak? It is the outward pushing, emotionally committed, headlong charge into oblivion; or the sonic induction of muscular rictus; or the sudden urge to BANG ONE'S HEAD!!!!!!!

Ah, the transcendent power of Queen. Only music that ROCKS this hard could become this popular amongst the youth despite the quite-obvious homosexual subtext. Ghod, they were good! Freddie we hardly knew ye. How 'bout "Dragon Attack"? And I think the reason that no-one of late has approached this level of artistry is that musicians are, quite simply, afraid. Afraid to let it all hang out- and in this day and age, what with all the boundaries we've crossed as a culture, and the dearth of subjects that will shock, letting it hang out (think about the etymology of that phrase) involves a major act of will and bravery. I mean, even Marilyn Manson and GWAR are raising yawns anymore, and that says a lot about how jaded we all are. It's gonna take some serious atom-bomb style conceptual power to wake the peoples up.

Delaminating

2005-02-08T14:36:00.000-08:00

Let's get back to basics here. Left, right, who's whining, who's a pain in our ass, and cetera, and cetera, and cetera. Because I think that we're rapidly falling into the Twilight Zone as regards politics in this country. It's like the dog in the cartoon- "Left is right, up is down, dogs and cats living together...it just doesn't add up!!!"

My first question for the Cracked One: what is so outlandish (other than sheer outlandishness) about the various conpsiracy charges that lefties have thrown at our Pinhead-In-Chief? Granted, it's prima facie absurd to even contemplate that any Gummint O-fish-al had anything to do with aiding and abetting the perpetrators of 9/11. It's just as absurd as saying "The Jews Did It"! BUT. There is precedent. Consider the (rather well substantiated) contentions by various historians that FDR had prior knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack. It's just a short leap from there to total complicity. Every American knows that the "President" knows more than he lets on; this is just best practices for intelligence operations. And every lefty knows that Dubya was in business with the Saudis and Bin Laden from the very start of his career- and so was George the 41st. Crack tells me, "no way in Hell would a sitting President allow 4,000 of his own country's Citizens be murdered." BUT. Every military officer knows that an explicit part of his training is to learn how to order subordinates to their death. So it's not too hard to imagine Dubya letting a bunch of Blue-state functionaries be killed for political purposes.

Question two- or rather, a response. Re: all those whining pseudoliberals, bitching and moaning about how bad young George da Turd is. Yeah, Crack, I'm with you on this. It was tiresome long ago. Now it's just embarassing. BUT. You, yourself, are treading dangerously close to that maudlin state of politicized apoplexy. Flogging a dead horse much? I suppose there's no way to avoid, in this town, the extreme juvenilia that comes out of people's heads. After all, we've STILL got "flower children" hassling us for KIND BUDS on the upper Haight. That's ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT, that's STASIS, that's INFANTILE DISREGARD FOR THE WORLD AT LARGE, that's almost SOLIPSISTIC. Even I, a confirmed fan of Chaos and Anarchy (but never, ever, an Anarchist- I'm not interested in any Ism that would hold my member hostage), find it to be Beyond the Pale. And it's been this way for YEARS, nay, DECADES. So GET OVER IT! And that means You too.

"Well, boys, looks like this is it: nuculer combat toe to toe with the Russkies!"

short duration tag line

2004-12-27T21:54:00.000-08:00

"Three cents a day, and worth every penny"

charter

2004-12-27T21:36:00.000-08:00

What this is, is a three cent response to the Macho Response. You may notice that the title of each entry is linked to an entry on my friend Crack Emcee's own blog. I'll try to keep up.

not for everybody....just the sexy people!

2004-12-27T15:32:00.000-08:00

Growing up, I was beaten just as often as CMC for the Sin of Inappropriate Music. Depressed Mode? You must be a fag POW! Dead KennyG's? Trying to destroy society POW! P-Fonque? Nigger-lover POW! And on, and on, andonandonandonandonandonandonandonandonandonandon. But as I played more music, an amazing thing happened- I completely lost the ability to distinguish any difference between any of it. I mean, genres are a figment of some beancounting marketers imagination (what's left of it). And the only way I can interface with it is directly- if you say to me, "make a jazz noise here", I won't know what the fucque you're talking about. If, on the other hand, you tell me to deliver three notes in the Mezzrow style, and to do it presto, then we got something. Genres should be abolished- ask any musician what their real, day-to-day utility is. This is because music is a language, and if you restrict your dialectic to metalinguistic terms, you are stuck jerking off in a Frederick Jameson po-mo mobius strip. Where the soundtrack is A-Ha and Abba. But if you wanna get some work done, if you wanna get things jerking back and forth, you've got to approach your instrument with sincerity and commitment. Some sympathy, and some taste.

a little terminology please

2004-12-27T15:14:00.000-08:00

Let's take "Guilty, guilty..." first. Crack, everything you say is correct, of course, but this doesn't mean it's right. Point by point, I agree with you, and with your overarching theme; to wit, the Left sold out long ago and is way past being relevant. Proof? Their inability to unseat a dimwitted Texan, twice. Further proof? The ascendancy of Bill Clinton- a "liberal" filtered through a Reagan lens. But your points belabor the obvious:

One: Bush, Inc. did steal the 2000 race. I'll admit that against someone as arrogant and lackluster as Gore, it was Bush's race to lose. But that doesn't add any legitimacy to the actual proceedings- a "legal" solution to a constitutional problem, delivered by Bush41's appointees. A cliche from the 80's rears its ugly head- if the Ukrainians can have another election, why can't we?

Your next two points: regarding Gay Marriage, everyone's credibility was lost due to excessive posturing. And Bush lied? So what. Presidents Lie, that's what they do. Anyone who says they're shocked suffers from excessive coyness, and should get over it. So I'm with you on both items here.

But the Kicker: It is a frequent error of armchair generals to confuse tactics with strategy. Our strategy- our global response- was never in doubt from the moment those planes hit the WTC. Realpolitik demands that we slap somebody down for being too bold, and that holds for whomever is in the Oval Office. But tactics matter- under Clinton, we had these fuckers running scared and running out of money. Bush, on the other hand, has a tantrum in public. Which is more effective? Under Clinton, sure, the WTC was bombed; but the perpetrators have been arrested, and more to the point, Clinton never lost his cool in the global arena. If the Shrub had merely paid attention, then operations might have continued as before; Delta Force would still be "kickin' down doors and sweepin' out corners", and these networks would have been rolled back. But NO! Dicknbush had their eyes on the Oil, and that's how Mohammed Atta slipped under the wire. And if you think we're winning, then you really don't understand Terrorism. How many days have gone by where you didn't think about 9/11? Be honest.

That's more like it!

2004-12-22T11:33:00.000-08:00

Thanks, CMC, for gettin' down to the nitty gritty and talking like the honest broker we all know you are. No one but a lily-livered pansy could argue the fact that we need to slap down these terrorists like a bunch of spoiled teenagers- the stakes in this game are Civilization itself, make no mistake. I still maintain, however, that Bush is not the man for the job. He's technically retarded, he's deep in the pocket of the worst corporate fascists I've ever heard of, and his attitude sucks. He's a public relations disaster for the U.S., and I have no problem voting him out even in the middle of a war- provided, of course, that my vote is counted.

You're definitely a voice worth listening to- brutality in one's life has a way of opening your eyes. I've had maybe a tenth of your hardships (heroin in the family, suicide, abuse of one form or another) so I can dig it, at least a little bit. And you're on the money when you call all these whiners on the carpet and insist that they start identifying as Americans, rather than separating themselves in the name of dubious identity movements.

But a fight for our lives needs to be conducted in a far more serious manner than what we're doing now. What we're doing in Iraq is totally half-assed (as a former Squid, you know that), and would have been accomplished handily by a Democratic president- with a greater emphasis on covert and Special operations, a more tailored approach. When a president must appear less warlike to his constituents, the path left available to conduct the necessities of realpolitik is covert ops, and that is nearly always more efficient.

But this is really arguing over trifles. I contend that 9/11 would not have happened if Gore were in office at the time. The Shrub's cabinet just wasn't thinking about the world in the way they should have been. It's a failure of imagination on their part, and we need leaders with imagination.

Allow me to expand...

2004-12-20T17:28:00.000-08:00

Excuse me... I'll need a little room here... but my friend CmC is full of shit. Never mind that we effete Ivory Tower bleeding heart liberals just don't get it. Forget (for a moment) that we who live in a city chock full o' fags are completely out of touch with the Heartland of America. It's time for a slight interlude:

Gene Wilder, as The Kid, speaking to Cleavon Little, as Sheriff Bart:
"Salt of the earth...you know....morons!"

I digress. Yes, the burning issue is terrorism and what to do about it. But people who trot out the old saw about "not changing generals in midstream" (thank you Yogi Berra) are the types who would be considered excess baggage in combat. Y'ever hear of fragging? A highly effective technique, despite any drawbacks. ABSOLUTELY we should change commanders, if and when those commanders prove themselves to be less than effective. And this "president" is anything but effective in the war on Terror. Public perception to the contrary is only that- perception. The Shrub has but one goal: enriching his cabal of corporate goons, at the expense of John and Jane Taxpayer. It is eminently in his interest to foment a Spectacle (see Situationism) of Terror, a shitstorm of fear and violence, in order to control the emotions of our retarded cousins quivering in the center of the Big Chicken. Of course this "values" bullshit is a farragoe, yet another distraction in the War for the Mind of America. Go on, call me paranoid.

This is all academic now, anyway. The Shrubs' victory is complete: the Diebolds have delivered the verdict they were programmed for, and the White House is still standing, with nary a pitchfork or improvised torch having touched its hallowed tapestries. And there won't be any rock throwing on Inauguration Day, either- all those with little enough common sense to risk their freedom for a trifling thing like the will of the people (should be will o' the wisp, now) have been subdued, either by the Prozac floating down from the chemtrails coming out of those C-130s out of March AFB, or the HAARP emissions coming out of Montauk. Go on, call me paranoid.

Look, maaaaaaaannnnn....

2004-12-20T15:19:00.000-08:00

Crack Emcee is a friend of mine, so I take his recent conversion to the Dark Side with equanimity. That said- WHAT THE FUCQUE, ARE YOU BACK ON THE PIPE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?