Okay, so another movie director is trying to capture the emotion of the September 11 attacks on celluloid, this time Oliver Stone with his World Trade Center drama aptly titled World Trade Center. The movie stars Nicholas Cage as a New York Port Authority police officer who was trapped with another officer under the rubble of the World Trade Center. As with United 93, family members of the deceased (and of the two officers featured, who are real people and who did survive) were consulted at length and gave their blessing.
Also as with United 93, people are starting to suggest that World Trade Center is just what the country needs, that it should be required viewing to remind all of us ungrateful Americans of “what we’re fighting for.” I don’t think either movie would do the job, and I don’t think either should be asked to.
As midterm elections start heating up, and as high-minded politicians start looking ahead to the presidential elections in 2008, the debate is rising again over the actual imagery of the September 11 attacks. Bush’s campaign in 2004 was practically set against a backdrop of the crumbling towers. The meme then, and God forbid it should return, was, “Look! It’s the death and desolation of the people you love! Vote for me, or it’ll happen again!” And it’s been generally accepted that using the deaths of thousands of much beloved family members for political purposes was a bad thing.
Why, then, should using them for entertainment purposes be any better? Even if – especially if – it’s “entertainment with a message”? Much to the open-mouthed disbelief of the stubbornest righties, I haven’t forgotten 9/11. I remember where I was when the first and second planes hit. I also remember where I was for the next three days – on my couch, glued to the television, looking for some explanation and/or some sign of humanity in the chaos.
You know what I saw? I saw people running from the rubble, covered in dust, as the coworker who was right behind them on the stairs never appeared. I saw children and husbands and wives straining at police barriers and poring over walls of pictures, hoping desperately – and, often, fruitlessly – that their missing loved one had just been misplaced for a while. I saw crews of twenty firefighters go into the rubble, and come out only fifteen.
I saw people jumping from windows. I saw people jumping from fucking windows, holding hands and jumping or, God help us, jumping all by themselves, because of the despair, the knowledge that they weren’t going to be saved, and the hope that a hundred-story fall would be a kinder death than the fire.
I don’t want to be reminded of what I was feeling that day. Those aren’t the kind of feelings that just go away anyway. And what I really don’t want is for some filmmaker, or some politician, or some blogger sitting at home on his couch, to say, “Remember those feelings? Let them make you angry. Let them make you hate. Let them make you scared enough that you don’t care what’s going on in the rest of the world, as long as your government is keeping you safe.”
But there’s another reason I don’t think WTC works as a “reminder of what we’re fighting for,” and that’s that I don’t think that “preventing another 9/11” is what we’re fighting for. I think that what we’re really fighting for, or, at least, what we should be fighting for, is several degrees removed from the events of 9/11. If people were objecting to our actions in Afghanistan, then yeah, I think that a sharp, emotional rap upside the head might be useful. But if our current activities elsewhere in the Middle East have the goal of preventing another 9/11, we’re way off track.
The way I see it, and correct me if I’m wrong here, we’re working toward something more far-reaching and globally significant than just preventing more terrorist attacks. Not that 9/11 wasn’t significant to a lot of people, and not that it didn’t count for anything, but our actions now take on more of a “grand scheme of things” significance. We’re not trying to stop more people from blowing up our stuff; from what I can tell, we’re trying to create an environment where terrorism can’t grown, where the seeds of terrorism (if you’ll pardon my flowery metaphor) never get planted, because people who could be terrorists have other outlets. The reason we’re trying to rebuild the region, establish democratic government, and discourage sectarian action, rather than just paving the whole place over, is that we see the potential for responsible global citizenship in the Middle East. And that is ultimately what’s going to keep us safe, not the fact that all of the terrorists are dead.
We’re not trying to prevent “another 9/11.” We’re trying to prevent suicide bombers from blowing up day laborers in Kufa. We’re trying to prevent insurgents from gunning down mothers and children in Baghdad. We’re trying to prevent Hezbollah from attacking Israel just for existing, and prevent Lebanese villagers from getting blown up for something Hezbollah did. And, though the connection not be immediately apparent, we’re trying to prevent honor killings in Turkey and the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan, because our goal isn’t some myopic hope that our buildings will still be standing tomorrow afternoon. Our goal is to create a world where no one has to be scared to walk to the market in the morning because someone might shoot them or kidnap them or drop a fucking bomb on them, and while Americans think we know what that fear is like, we don’t, even a little bit. Any lesson that we could learn from World Trade Center would be a shallow one that misses the point and only stands in the shadow of the real lesson, which is that the only safe world to live in is one where people agree to not kill each other, even if they don’t agree to like each other.
Now, whether or not we’re going about it the right way has been and is being debated. Right now, the hottest debate is over Israel and Lebanon, about the balance between Israel’s right to defend itself and the danger to Lebanese citizens. In the end, the goal is the same: a world where people don’t have to be afraid, either of their fellow citizens or of their own government or of some guy who hates you and doesn’t even know you. But that goal is one that’s being largely ignored, because it doesn’t have a convenient and emotionally charged mascot like the World Trade Center.
If we really want to remind people what we’re fighting for, we don’t need to get them scared. We need to get them educated and informed. And then we need to hope they give a rat’s ass about something that’s happening thousands of miles away, and more importantly, about the people it’s happening to. Because the real threat isn’t from what’s happening at home. Maybe someone needs to make a movie about that.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
On the real cost of war
Okay, so Doug's written a really thoughtful and thought-provoking post on the current conflict in Israel and Lebanon. He makes a lot of good points about the potential repercussions, for Lebanon, for Israel, and for the possibility of peace in the Middle East, and I really can't think of anything to add.
Except for this: Go here. And then go here. Or go to the second one first and the first one second. And then before you start throwing down your comments about how the [insert racial slur here]s just need to go find their virgins, or about Israel has been waiting for an excuse to start something, remember who is really being hurt in this conflict. It's not the Israeli government, which has countless allies in this situation. And it's not Hezbollah, which manages to take every bomb and every death and turn it into a rallying cry for still more bombs and death. The people being hurt are folks very much like your mother. Or your sister. And they don't want war or death any more than your mother wants war or death.
Or maybe that's not safe to say. Judging from some of the comments I've read, there are a lot of people out there who are all about war and death. For all I know, they are mothers. Thank God they aren't mine.
Except for this: Go here. And then go here. Or go to the second one first and the first one second. And then before you start throwing down your comments about how the [insert racial slur here]s just need to go find their virgins, or about Israel has been waiting for an excuse to start something, remember who is really being hurt in this conflict. It's not the Israeli government, which has countless allies in this situation. And it's not Hezbollah, which manages to take every bomb and every death and turn it into a rallying cry for still more bombs and death. The people being hurt are folks very much like your mother. Or your sister. And they don't want war or death any more than your mother wants war or death.
Or maybe that's not safe to say. Judging from some of the comments I've read, there are a lot of people out there who are all about war and death. For all I know, they are mothers. Thank God they aren't mine.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
On what the devil really wears
Okay, so I'm sure that the percentage of Practically Harmless readers who have seen or are likely to see The Devil Wears Prada is somewhere around, well, me. However, I did see it, and while I did, for the record, enjoy the heck out of it (Meryl Streep rawks as passive-aggressive editor-in-chief Miranda Priestly, and while I know she's supposed to be the titular devil, I want to be her), I had some issues with it. And now you're gonna hear about them.
Anyone planning to see the movie - consider this the slightest bit spoliery.
The biggest thing, and realize that this comes from someone who was employed in a similar position up until quite recently, is that the writers really used the fashion industry as shorthand for "shallow and valueless pursuits." Instead of actually trying to show, through what she did and said and how she acted, how main character Andy turned into something distasteful because of the job she had, they just got lazy and said, "It's the fashion industry! Everyone knows it's shallow and vapid, because it's the fashion industry! Andy's gonna get all shallow and vapid, because she works in the fashion industry!" She started dressing better. She stopped slacking off at her job. She started seeing her coworkers as human beings. But it's the fashion industry, which means she's becoming - all together, now - shallow and vapid.
It's just lazy, says I.
Now, this might just be the Stockholm Syndrome talking, but as a former Much-Abused Assistant, I can really identify with the character of Andy Sachs. I, too, was a young woman, reasonably fresh out of college, completely unconcerned with fashion but facing down the barrel of a resume-building entry-level job that would pretty much let me write my own ticket in the future. I started out with a lot of disdain for the industry, and a lot of that, I still have (there's a lot of superficiality going on, and a lot of politics), but I also gained a lot of respect and understanding.
For instance, I learned that a significant chunk of the economy is supported by retail, design, and production, and it really does range across all income levels, from the Mercedes-driving, Manhattan-loft-dwelling trust-fund baby who sits on her ass and pretends to design hideous chiffon sundresses so that Daddy thinks she's doing something productive all the way down to the college student supplementing her scholarship money folding sweaters at Old Navy. Moreover, as far as a fashion publication is concerned, there are a whole bunch of people involved who couldn't care less whether they're producing a fashion magazine or Philatelists Monthly, as long as the magazine is getting out on time and their name is spelled right on the paycheck.
Yes, Andy's job was hard. It was demanding. It sucked that she had to miss her boyfriend's birthday party, and it sucked that she was forced to attend the gala on such short notice. But she was working a high-prestige, dues-paying job, and them's the breaks. It's the kind of decision that a person has to make for herself. What do I value more: personal time, relationships, sleep, health, job satisfaction, and a sense of fulfillment, or a job that looks good on the resume and will most likely to lead to better jobs in the future? When you get to the point where the former starts to outweigh the latter, that's when you quit your job and find something more livable.
What bugged Andy's friends wasn't the fact that she was devoting so much of herself and her time to her job; it was that they didn't think that her job was good enough, had enough value. If she'd had to miss her boyfriend's party to work late for her job as a PR flack for the CDC, he probably wouldn't have had nearly the same reaction - even if she'd only been schlepping crudites at her boss's cocktail party. But she was working late for her fashion industry job, so it was perfectly acceptable to accuse her of losing track of her values and sense of self. When her boyfriend accused her of losing her values, it was only because initially, they'd both had equal disdain for the industry, but now she was being open-minded and starting to learn that her colleagues (most of them, anyway) were actually human beings as worthy of respect as anyone else, and he was still disdainful.
From the beginning, Andy said that job was going to be both high-stress and high-reward. She said that if she could tough it out for one year, the rest of her career would be smooth sailing. Her friends could have accepted that and gotten off her back a little, respecting that she was doing what she'd decided was necessary for her future success. Instead, they accepted her expensive designer gifts, played keep-away with her phone while her boss was trying to call, and laid a world-class guilt trip on her for not devoting more time to them when she was obviously stressed paper-thin as it was.
Miranda, bless her heart, was at least consistent in her ridiculous and impossible demands, and the brass ring was very much in evidence. Her friends, on the other hand, demanded her time and attention, accepted her best efforts and pricey gifts, and offered nothing in return in terms of compassion or understanding. I'm not going to pretend that Miranda wasn't beastly (been there, done that, got the ulcer and a really great pair of chandelier earrings), but from where I was sitting, it looked like the devil was wearing Converse.
Anyone planning to see the movie - consider this the slightest bit spoliery.
The biggest thing, and realize that this comes from someone who was employed in a similar position up until quite recently, is that the writers really used the fashion industry as shorthand for "shallow and valueless pursuits." Instead of actually trying to show, through what she did and said and how she acted, how main character Andy turned into something distasteful because of the job she had, they just got lazy and said, "It's the fashion industry! Everyone knows it's shallow and vapid, because it's the fashion industry! Andy's gonna get all shallow and vapid, because she works in the fashion industry!" She started dressing better. She stopped slacking off at her job. She started seeing her coworkers as human beings. But it's the fashion industry, which means she's becoming - all together, now - shallow and vapid.
It's just lazy, says I.
Now, this might just be the Stockholm Syndrome talking, but as a former Much-Abused Assistant, I can really identify with the character of Andy Sachs. I, too, was a young woman, reasonably fresh out of college, completely unconcerned with fashion but facing down the barrel of a resume-building entry-level job that would pretty much let me write my own ticket in the future. I started out with a lot of disdain for the industry, and a lot of that, I still have (there's a lot of superficiality going on, and a lot of politics), but I also gained a lot of respect and understanding.
For instance, I learned that a significant chunk of the economy is supported by retail, design, and production, and it really does range across all income levels, from the Mercedes-driving, Manhattan-loft-dwelling trust-fund baby who sits on her ass and pretends to design hideous chiffon sundresses so that Daddy thinks she's doing something productive all the way down to the college student supplementing her scholarship money folding sweaters at Old Navy. Moreover, as far as a fashion publication is concerned, there are a whole bunch of people involved who couldn't care less whether they're producing a fashion magazine or Philatelists Monthly, as long as the magazine is getting out on time and their name is spelled right on the paycheck.
Yes, Andy's job was hard. It was demanding. It sucked that she had to miss her boyfriend's birthday party, and it sucked that she was forced to attend the gala on such short notice. But she was working a high-prestige, dues-paying job, and them's the breaks. It's the kind of decision that a person has to make for herself. What do I value more: personal time, relationships, sleep, health, job satisfaction, and a sense of fulfillment, or a job that looks good on the resume and will most likely to lead to better jobs in the future? When you get to the point where the former starts to outweigh the latter, that's when you quit your job and find something more livable.
What bugged Andy's friends wasn't the fact that she was devoting so much of herself and her time to her job; it was that they didn't think that her job was good enough, had enough value. If she'd had to miss her boyfriend's party to work late for her job as a PR flack for the CDC, he probably wouldn't have had nearly the same reaction - even if she'd only been schlepping crudites at her boss's cocktail party. But she was working late for her fashion industry job, so it was perfectly acceptable to accuse her of losing track of her values and sense of self. When her boyfriend accused her of losing her values, it was only because initially, they'd both had equal disdain for the industry, but now she was being open-minded and starting to learn that her colleagues (most of them, anyway) were actually human beings as worthy of respect as anyone else, and he was still disdainful.
From the beginning, Andy said that job was going to be both high-stress and high-reward. She said that if she could tough it out for one year, the rest of her career would be smooth sailing. Her friends could have accepted that and gotten off her back a little, respecting that she was doing what she'd decided was necessary for her future success. Instead, they accepted her expensive designer gifts, played keep-away with her phone while her boss was trying to call, and laid a world-class guilt trip on her for not devoting more time to them when she was obviously stressed paper-thin as it was.
Miranda, bless her heart, was at least consistent in her ridiculous and impossible demands, and the brass ring was very much in evidence. Her friends, on the other hand, demanded her time and attention, accepted her best efforts and pricey gifts, and offered nothing in return in terms of compassion or understanding. I'm not going to pretend that Miranda wasn't beastly (been there, done that, got the ulcer and a really great pair of chandelier earrings), but from where I was sitting, it looked like the devil was wearing Converse.
On Km Jonquil: This Is Your Soundtrack
Okay, so some of the biggest news in the past week has been North Korea's test firing (or, more likely, "startin' something" firing) of several threatening-type missiles. An act of aggression for which they will be severely diplomacized.
That's why this Not-Even-Friday, Not-Even-Random Ten goes out to Kim Jong Il, The Boy King, The Littlest Dictator, Senor Pompadour himself. History shows what happens to uppity little-bitty guys with Napoleonic complexes. Like, say, Napoleon.
The Ten:
1. Basement Jaxx, "Red Alert"
2. Guster, "Rocket Ship"
3. Diana Krall, "Lost Mind"
4. Norah Jones, "Shoot the Moon"
5. Avril Lavigne, "Losing Grip"
6. Lenny Kravitz, "A Million Miles Away"
7. Korn, "Falling Away From Me"
8. Jump, Little Children, "Too High"
9. Ohio Players, "Fire"
10. Frank Sinatra, "Fly Me to the Moon"
That's why this Not-Even-Friday, Not-Even-Random Ten goes out to Kim Jong Il, The Boy King, The Littlest Dictator, Senor Pompadour himself. History shows what happens to uppity little-bitty guys with Napoleonic complexes. Like, say, Napoleon.
The Ten:
1. Basement Jaxx, "Red Alert"
2. Guster, "Rocket Ship"
3. Diana Krall, "Lost Mind"
4. Norah Jones, "Shoot the Moon"
5. Avril Lavigne, "Losing Grip"
6. Lenny Kravitz, "A Million Miles Away"
7. Korn, "Falling Away From Me"
8. Jump, Little Children, "Too High"
9. Ohio Players, "Fire"
10. Frank Sinatra, "Fly Me to the Moon"
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
On things that are new
Okay, so it seems that I've been giving so many of those "Where the hell have you been?" updates that I might as well make it a weekly feature ("Wednesday Weekly Wherethehellyoubeen?" perhaps). Hopefully, though, this'll be the last one for a while - not because I'm going anywhere, but because I've finally gotten (God willing) to the kind of settled place where I might actually be able to get to the computer on a more-than-biweekly basis.
Anyone who's done any freelancing knows exactly how much actual work-work it takes to pay the bills (and most of the rest of the time is spent doing something known as "fervent sobbing prayer"). That's why I jumped at the chance to take on a new day job, one that would actually pay me a living wage (unlike my last one) and give me actual time off on weekends and holidays (unlike my last one) and not make me physically ill with stress and overwork (seen The Devil Wears Prada?"). I've been holding off on an official announcement until I'd actually been to work and seen that it could be a sustainable, perhaps even permanent, kind of thing. But I have, and it could be, and here I am: the newest resident of Birmigham, Alabama.
Yeeeeah. I'm not really sure myself how it really happened; it was all kind of a blur. But I know there was a job opening for an advertising and marketing copywriter in Doug's building, just upstairs, and I know that they paid real money, and I know that I was completely underqualified, and I know that they said, "Meh" and hired me anyway. So my last big life change has been followed by another one, which currently involves me crashing on Doug's couch while I look for an apartment and will soon involve some seriously nice benefits and, I hope, a non-slum apartment.
So that's where I am now, and I'm assured that I'll have plenty of time to "pursue other writing projects in the evenings" (which I think is UAB's way of reminding me that we don't blog on university time). And this is certainly something I intend to keep writing. And now I'll have time to actually do it, albeit not during the work day.
But more importantly, I will no longer be my boss's handmaiden and/or her daughter's math tutor. And I think we can all agree that that's a very good thing.
Anyone who's done any freelancing knows exactly how much actual work-work it takes to pay the bills (and most of the rest of the time is spent doing something known as "fervent sobbing prayer"). That's why I jumped at the chance to take on a new day job, one that would actually pay me a living wage (unlike my last one) and give me actual time off on weekends and holidays (unlike my last one) and not make me physically ill with stress and overwork (seen The Devil Wears Prada?"). I've been holding off on an official announcement until I'd actually been to work and seen that it could be a sustainable, perhaps even permanent, kind of thing. But I have, and it could be, and here I am: the newest resident of Birmigham, Alabama.
Yeeeeah. I'm not really sure myself how it really happened; it was all kind of a blur. But I know there was a job opening for an advertising and marketing copywriter in Doug's building, just upstairs, and I know that they paid real money, and I know that I was completely underqualified, and I know that they said, "Meh" and hired me anyway. So my last big life change has been followed by another one, which currently involves me crashing on Doug's couch while I look for an apartment and will soon involve some seriously nice benefits and, I hope, a non-slum apartment.
So that's where I am now, and I'm assured that I'll have plenty of time to "pursue other writing projects in the evenings" (which I think is UAB's way of reminding me that we don't blog on university time). And this is certainly something I intend to keep writing. And now I'll have time to actually do it, albeit not during the work day.
But more importantly, I will no longer be my boss's handmaiden and/or her daughter's math tutor. And I think we can all agree that that's a very good thing.
Saturday, July 08, 2006
On the not-so-secretivest of secrets
Okay, so a Google search for the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication turns up, as the very first hit, a Web site devoted entirely to SWIFT, produced by none other than SWIFT themselves.
Why does SWIFT hate America?
One has to wonder why the Belgium-based company would be so blatant and overt about their activities tracking terrorist financial activities. Bush's passionate condemnation of the New York and Los Angeles papers for publishing articles about the program certainly seems to indicate that it's super-duper-extra secret, that the papers in question have given aid and comfort to the terrorists by letting them know that the US government is tracking their financial transactions. And yet SWIFT is so bold as to discuss that very same classified program on its Web site.
And in the hateful language of the cheese-eating surrender monkeys, no less.
But it gets worse, people. This is from our very own president, on September 24, 2001:
Why does President Bush hate America?
What's even more, that same DefenseLINK article has a sidebar of 27 "individuals and organizations identified in President Bush's Sept. 24 executive order as terrorists, sympathizers or supporters whose financial holdings in the United States are subject to an immediate freeze." Way to protect our men and women in uniform, DefenseLINK.
So now, for those keeping score: Leaks that of classified information to the benefit of the government, to make them look good and tough and butch and stick it to their critics? Awesome. Leaks that the administration doesn't personally orchestrate themselves? Aiding and abetting terrorists.
Hope y'all are taking notes. It gets complicated.
Why does SWIFT hate America?
One has to wonder why the Belgium-based company would be so blatant and overt about their activities tracking terrorist financial activities. Bush's passionate condemnation of the New York and Los Angeles papers for publishing articles about the program certainly seems to indicate that it's super-duper-extra secret, that the papers in question have given aid and comfort to the terrorists by letting them know that the US government is tracking their financial transactions. And yet SWIFT is so bold as to discuss that very same classified program on its Web site.
And in the hateful language of the cheese-eating surrender monkeys, no less.
But it gets worse, people. This is from our very own president, on September 24, 2001:
"We're putting banks and financial institutions around the world on notice -- we will work with their governments, ask them to freeze or block terrorists' ability to access funds in foreign accounts."
Why does President Bush hate America?
What's even more, that same DefenseLINK article has a sidebar of 27 "individuals and organizations identified in President Bush's Sept. 24 executive order as terrorists, sympathizers or supporters whose financial holdings in the United States are subject to an immediate freeze." Way to protect our men and women in uniform, DefenseLINK.
So now, for those keeping score: Leaks that of classified information to the benefit of the government, to make them look good and tough and butch and stick it to their critics? Awesome. Leaks that the administration doesn't personally orchestrate themselves? Aiding and abetting terrorists.
Hope y'all are taking notes. It gets complicated.
On world logic
Okay, so in light of North Korea's recent missile launches, President Bush has decided to take a tough line. Further acts of aggression will lead to a firm, multi-national come-to-Jesus:
So now, for those keeping score: Amass stockpiles of plutonium and fire multiple missiles toward and around enemy countries, get a good talking-to. Don't have weapons, don't sponsor terrorism, and be next door to a country that's actually successfully attacked the US, and your shit will get blown up.
Incidentally, don't miss the second half of the article, where the the leader of North Korea is identified as "Km Jonquil." Always remember: If you're going to write your stories by hand, make sure your editor can read your handwriting. Vldmr Pooting will thank you.
"As you know, we want to solve all problems diplomatically. That's our first choice," he said.
So now, for those keeping score: Amass stockpiles of plutonium and fire multiple missiles toward and around enemy countries, get a good talking-to. Don't have weapons, don't sponsor terrorism, and be next door to a country that's actually successfully attacked the US, and your shit will get blown up.
Incidentally, don't miss the second half of the article, where the the leader of North Korea is identified as "Km Jonquil." Always remember: If you're going to write your stories by hand, make sure your editor can read your handwriting. Vldmr Pooting will thank you.
Friday, June 30, 2006
On A Bitch: This Is Your Soundtrack
Okay, so I'm sure you've all been over to Doug's blog to hear his woeful tale of the bitch who dumped him to his voicemail, and I am not even kidding, his voicemail. Just in case anyone was wondering and thought the fact should be submitted to the record: That is not even okay. There is no excuse, short of breathless dying words, for dumping someone to his/her voicemail (and those dying words had still better be, "Baby, you know I love you more than anything, but I won't be able to see you anymore after my brain ceases to function in about twelve seconds, and I feel awful about that").
I'm not even going to mention her name, because it's not worth mentioning, and she's less than a human being for doing what she did. Doug's taking it pretty well, all told, because that's the kind of guy he is, but I feel no compulsion whatsoever to do the same. If I need to cut a bitch, don't think I won't. Seriously.
And that's why this Friday Not-Even-Random Ten goes out to The Bitch Who Dumped Doug To His Voicemail. Honey, you have less than a soul. Don't run into me. Ever.
The Ten:
1. Annie Sellick, "How Insensative"
2. EMF, "Unbelievable"
3. Beck, "Loser"
4. Dixie Chicks, "Bitter End"
5. Coldplay, "Yellow"
6, Injected, "Faithless"
7. Home Grown, "Suffer"
8. Bon Jovi, "You Give Love a Bad Name"
9. Cibo Matto, "Know Your Chicken"
10. Green Day, "Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)"
And for Doug:
11. Ben Folds Five, "Song for the Dumped"
Your Ten and/or best time-tested revenge suggestions go below.
I'm not even going to mention her name, because it's not worth mentioning, and she's less than a human being for doing what she did. Doug's taking it pretty well, all told, because that's the kind of guy he is, but I feel no compulsion whatsoever to do the same. If I need to cut a bitch, don't think I won't. Seriously.
And that's why this Friday Not-Even-Random Ten goes out to The Bitch Who Dumped Doug To His Voicemail. Honey, you have less than a soul. Don't run into me. Ever.
The Ten:
1. Annie Sellick, "How Insensative"
2. EMF, "Unbelievable"
3. Beck, "Loser"
4. Dixie Chicks, "Bitter End"
5. Coldplay, "Yellow"
6, Injected, "Faithless"
7. Home Grown, "Suffer"
8. Bon Jovi, "You Give Love a Bad Name"
9. Cibo Matto, "Know Your Chicken"
10. Green Day, "Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)"
And for Doug:
11. Ben Folds Five, "Song for the Dumped"
Your Ten and/or best time-tested revenge suggestions go below.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
On a guy whose job I want
Okay, so this got pitched over to me by our dear friend Doug, and I'm really glad it was, because I like it a lot.
Where the hell is Matt?
Also be sure to go to WhereTheHellIsMatt.com for the full story of why he's going to all of those different countries and dancing in a silly way.
Which I'd be totally willing to do, by the way. I'm no dummy.
Where the hell is Matt?
Also be sure to go to WhereTheHellIsMatt.com for the full story of why he's going to all of those different countries and dancing in a silly way.
Which I'd be totally willing to do, by the way. I'm no dummy.
Friday, June 23, 2006
On more shallowness (because we can)
Okay, so so there's thin, and then there's skinny, and then there's bleeeeh. Courtesy of The Superficial, we have pictures of Nicole Ritchie and Mischa Barton at the beach together, probably weighing about a hundred and ten pounds between them. Seriously, it's hard to tell if they're trying to tan their skin or bleach their bones.
And the dog is thinking, "Oh, boy, a stick! A stick!"
Seriously, guys, not to be a bitter curvy girl here, but is that the least bit attractive? Or this? Or, dear Lord, this?
These women are young and, apparently, not terribly bright. They have to have handlers. I know that there was a point in Nicole Ritchie's life where some kind person said to her, "Nicole, honey, your hair looks like you left it for a week without washing and then styled it with an egg beater, and buttercup, I think the cat got at your top, and don't you want to put on pants of some kind?" I mean, hell, the girl showed up at the MTV Movie Awards looking like this, and honey, I'm fairly sure I hate that dress, but you just look so classy.
So if there is a person in this world who can turn Nicole from skank to swank, can that person not also influence her to eat something? Yes, I understand that there's a huge amount of pressure on young women in Hollywood to be not just hot, but the hottest, and not just thin, but the thinnest, but this girl's health has got to be in danger. And she's probably hanging out with Mischa because she's the only other girl who'll go to The Ivy with her and split a grape.
Please, nameless handler, get this girl a sandwich. Get her a salad. Hell, get her a glass of whole milk; just get something into her. 'Cause the only one on that beach looking hungrier than her is that dog, and we don't want to find her buried somewhere in his backyard for him to come back to later.
And the dog is thinking, "Oh, boy, a stick! A stick!"
Seriously, guys, not to be a bitter curvy girl here, but is that the least bit attractive? Or this? Or, dear Lord, this?
These women are young and, apparently, not terribly bright. They have to have handlers. I know that there was a point in Nicole Ritchie's life where some kind person said to her, "Nicole, honey, your hair looks like you left it for a week without washing and then styled it with an egg beater, and buttercup, I think the cat got at your top, and don't you want to put on pants of some kind?" I mean, hell, the girl showed up at the MTV Movie Awards looking like this, and honey, I'm fairly sure I hate that dress, but you just look so classy.
So if there is a person in this world who can turn Nicole from skank to swank, can that person not also influence her to eat something? Yes, I understand that there's a huge amount of pressure on young women in Hollywood to be not just hot, but the hottest, and not just thin, but the thinnest, but this girl's health has got to be in danger. And she's probably hanging out with Mischa because she's the only other girl who'll go to The Ivy with her and split a grape.
Please, nameless handler, get this girl a sandwich. Get her a salad. Hell, get her a glass of whole milk; just get something into her. 'Cause the only one on that beach looking hungrier than her is that dog, and we don't want to find her buried somewhere in his backyard for him to come back to later.
On being shallow (and loving it)
Okay, so after six long years, I can finally say it (and say it with glee):
I've got better legs than Britney Spears.
Booyah.
I've got better legs than Britney Spears.
Booyah.
On Shakespeare for Dummies: This Is Your Soundtrack
Okay, so British schoolkids are getting a new and different take on Shakespeare with the dumbed down versions they're reading in class. A whole generation of Brits get to grow up thinking that "You'd best be off now" and "Eat dagger, old man!" sound, like, totally Shakespearean. I mean, like, who the hell bites their thumb at people anyway?
So this Friday Not-Even-Random Ten goes out to Coordination Group Publications and all of the students who think that "Ooh, look! A dagger!" sounds Shakespearean. Behold the vast range of movies loosely based on Shakespeare, from "interpretation" all the way to "bastardization." And when I say "bastardization," I mean, "Give us a snog, then."
The Ten:
1. Garbage, "#1 Crush" (from Romeo + Juliet)
2. Borealis, "Mightier Than the Sword" (from O)
3. Sister Hazel, "Your Winter" (from 10 Things I Hate About You)
4. The Crystal Method, "Keep Hope Alive" (from Romeo Must Die)
5. Morcheeba, "Big Calm" (from Hamlet)
6. Ludwig von Beethoven, "Piano Sonata No. 14 in C sharp minor" (from Scotland, PA)
7. The Faders, "No Sleep 2Nite" (from She's the Man)
8. The Pogues, "The Old Main Drag" (from My Own Private Idaho)
9. Giacomo Puccini, "Che Galida Manina" from La Boheme (from A Midsummer Night's Dream)
10. Depeche Mode, "It's No Good" (from Midsummer)
Yours go below.
So this Friday Not-Even-Random Ten goes out to Coordination Group Publications and all of the students who think that "Ooh, look! A dagger!" sounds Shakespearean. Behold the vast range of movies loosely based on Shakespeare, from "interpretation" all the way to "bastardization." And when I say "bastardization," I mean, "Give us a snog, then."
The Ten:
1. Garbage, "#1 Crush" (from Romeo + Juliet)
2. Borealis, "Mightier Than the Sword" (from O)
3. Sister Hazel, "Your Winter" (from 10 Things I Hate About You)
4. The Crystal Method, "Keep Hope Alive" (from Romeo Must Die)
5. Morcheeba, "Big Calm" (from Hamlet)
6. Ludwig von Beethoven, "Piano Sonata No. 14 in C sharp minor" (from Scotland, PA)
7. The Faders, "No Sleep 2Nite" (from She's the Man)
8. The Pogues, "The Old Main Drag" (from My Own Private Idaho)
9. Giacomo Puccini, "Che Galida Manina" from La Boheme (from A Midsummer Night's Dream)
10. Depeche Mode, "It's No Good" (from Midsummer)
Yours go below.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
On the Shakespearean term for "gettin' it on"
Okay, so educators in are (understandably, I think) up in arms about new versions of Shakespeare's classics that take "dumbing down" to a new and outrageous low.
[...]
And don't think this is just another one of the usual colloquial and/or simplified versions used to help students better understand Shakesperean language. Oh, no. Thanks to the CGP versions of the plays, we get a lot of interesting translations.
Romeo and Juliet, Act One, Scene Five, is the big first-kiss scene. Rome kisses Juliet and declares,
Same play, Act Three, Scene Five, Juliet wakes up next to Romeo and says:
Macbeth, Act Two, Scene One, where Macbeth sees the dagger that he'll shortly use to stab his father:
Not even kidding.
Some would decry the loss of Shakespeare's innate poetry. Some would complain that the act of learning Shakespearean language and decoding the plays themselves teaches students to think critically and stretch their brains a bit to accept ideas that don't, on first glance, seem to make sense.
I wonder what will happen to flirting.
I mean, come on. What guy hasn't, at at least one point in his life, pulled out a little bit of Shakespeare in one way or another? Who hasn't taken a girl to a Shakespeare play that he didn't particularly like or even care about, just to make him seem deep and sensitive? Has the most tenacious among you, perhaps, even managed to pull out, "Her beauty makes / This vault a feasting presence full of light"?
"Parting is such sweet sorrow." "What's in a name?" "To be or not to be." These are the remnants of our high school years that we pull out only in those situations where we need to appear more intelligent and/or charming. "Give us a snog then"? We can get that anywhere (anywhere vaguely British, anyway). Give us back our pretentious, high-toned language, for it is all that we have to pretend to be more than we are.
Alas and alack.
Examiners recently complained that teenagers are approaching Shakespeare's plays as if they are TV soap operas, peppering their essays with conversational cliches and references to popular culture.
Coordination Group Publications, which describes itself as one of the country's most popular educational publishers, produces a series of complete plays of Shakespeare and revision guides.
[...]
The first page of the complete play of Romeo and Juliet states that 'reading Shakespeare can be a real headache'.
And don't think this is just another one of the usual colloquial and/or simplified versions used to help students better understand Shakesperean language. Oh, no. Thanks to the CGP versions of the plays, we get a lot of interesting translations.
Romeo and Juliet, Act One, Scene Five, is the big first-kiss scene. Rome kisses Juliet and declares,
Thus from my lips, by thine, my sin is purg'd.... which scene, in the CGP version, becomes:
Juliet: What are you thinking about?
Romeo: Oh, just moons and spoon in June.
Juliet: Wow. Give us a snog then.
Same play, Act Three, Scene Five, Juliet wakes up next to Romeo and says:
Wilt thou be gone? It is not yet near day. It was the nightingale, and not the lark That pierc'd the fearful hollow of thine ear. Nightly she sings on yond pomegranate tree. Believe me, love, it was the nightingale.... unless she says:
Well that was nice. You'd best be off now.
Macbeth, Act Two, Scene One, where Macbeth sees the dagger that he'll shortly use to stab his father:
Is this a dagger, which I see before me, The handle toward my hand?... which becomes:
Ooh! Would you look at that!... after which he stabs his father and exclaims, "Eat dagger, old man!"
Not even kidding.
Some would decry the loss of Shakespeare's innate poetry. Some would complain that the act of learning Shakespearean language and decoding the plays themselves teaches students to think critically and stretch their brains a bit to accept ideas that don't, on first glance, seem to make sense.
I wonder what will happen to flirting.
I mean, come on. What guy hasn't, at at least one point in his life, pulled out a little bit of Shakespeare in one way or another? Who hasn't taken a girl to a Shakespeare play that he didn't particularly like or even care about, just to make him seem deep and sensitive? Has the most tenacious among you, perhaps, even managed to pull out, "Her beauty makes / This vault a feasting presence full of light"?
"Parting is such sweet sorrow." "What's in a name?" "To be or not to be." These are the remnants of our high school years that we pull out only in those situations where we need to appear more intelligent and/or charming. "Give us a snog then"? We can get that anywhere (anywhere vaguely British, anyway). Give us back our pretentious, high-toned language, for it is all that we have to pretend to be more than we are.
Alas and alack.
On yet another arbitrary milestone
Okay, so in the quote-excitement-unquote of my second blogiversary, another milestone has almost been overlooked. At some point this afternoon, Practically Harmless turned over 20,000 views. The lucky 20,000th visitor came to us from Ballysmuttan, Ireland, during a search for the waterlogged-Kate-Winslet picture I linked to once, stayed all of nineteen seconds, and then buggered off, clever man.
The Irish Titanic Googler joins the ranks of the UofT Inappropriate Smile Googler (15,000) and Commenter Tami (1,000) (I'm sure there was someone at 10,000, too, but damned if I can remember who).
As with all of our milestone guests, the Irish Titanic Googler wins a sense of self-satisfaction and a bright, shiny nickel, should s/he ever reappear to collect it.
The Irish Titanic Googler joins the ranks of the UofT Inappropriate Smile Googler (15,000) and Commenter Tami (1,000) (I'm sure there was someone at 10,000, too, but damned if I can remember who).
As with all of our milestone guests, the Irish Titanic Googler wins a sense of self-satisfaction and a bright, shiny nickel, should s/he ever reappear to collect it.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
On now being this many
Okay, so for two years now, I've been sitting down to my trusty laptop (or, occasionally, the Disco Mac at work) on a daily (or every-other-daily, or occasionally weekly, when things got really busy) and writing about stuff that interested me. To my pearls-clutching shock, a few folks have actually cared. Which is pretty cool. When I started out, I was sufficiently satisfied with the fact that I finally had an outlet for the opinions that had been rattling around in my head more-or-less unexpressed. Since then, though, I've really started grooving on the knowledge that I have an audience, and I can't say for sure that I would have kept doing this if I hadn't gotten some kind of response. So, to my regular readers and commenters: this is your fault.
The old saying is that the more things change, the more they stay the same. So now, a look back at a few of the things that have changed since this time last year, and a few of the things that haven't:
Changed: My employment situation. I finally ballsed up and struck out on my own, which is not so great for the paycheck but far better for the advancement potential.
The Same: My standard of living. The cool thing about being broke-ass is that there's not much more broke-ass you can get until you hit "homeless."
Changed: Zarqawi, bitches. The head of al Qaeda in Iraq got a couple of much-deserved 500-pound bombs to the head, and uncharitable as it is, I think the world is all the better of for it. I know that I'm supposed to mourn all loss of life, even scumbags like this guy, but I'm just finding it hard to think anything but, "Score!"
The Same: Iraq. Scum rises to the top, and Zarqawi's replacement, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, has sought to prove that the new boss has even less of a soul than the old boss by brutally killing two kidnapped American soldiers. And for the record, torture is bad no matter who does it. It's the fact like guys like this do it and are proud of it that only underscores our need to act like actual human beings.
Changed: Gay marriage. The amendment to the Georgia state constitution establishing marriage as a bond between one man and one woman was overturned on the single-subject rule. The issue is currently under debate, but hopefully, Georgia voters will be given the chance to vote again, this time without legislators trying to pull a fast one and slip civil unions into the gay marriage debate.
The Same: Gay marriage. Still not legal in the vast majority of states, Georgia included. Despite concerns that legalization of gay marriage in Massachussetts would result in a tide of groom-on-groom weddings nationwide, the US remains 99 percent straight-married. And 62 percent straight-divorced. Nice work, folks.
Changed: Like, the entire staff of the White House. John Snow is gone. Scott McClellan is gone. Andy Card, out. Karl Rove, demoted. Never before have so many families had so much time to spend with their ex-White-House-staffer daddies.
The Same: Donald Rumsfeld. 'Cause it would be awful to change horses in midstream. Even if the horse we're on is lame. And old. And smelly. And constantly trying to bite us. And might actually be a donkey.
Changed: Iraq's finally starting to get its government together. Parliament has filled some important security posts, and although a few ethics questions have been raised, none of them concern anything that the US government wouldn't overlook in its own legislature. It's too soon to know if things are actually looking up, but at this point, they've got the potential for good things.
The Same: The rest of the stuff. Electricity. Bombings. Personal security. Religious freedom. For whatever reason, and I'm not trying to throw around blame here, Iraq citizens (especially those not living in the same neighborhood as a cabinet minister, by some strange coincidence) are still only without electricity about 16 hours a ridiculously hot day, and sectarian violence and intimidation is on an upswing. Hopefully, a complete and more stable Iraqi government will be able to make significant changes in those areas.
In other Same news, I'm still single, still po', still waiting to replace the mass airflow sensor in my VW, still waiting for Michael Buble to call. But I'm also still living comfortably, still eating daily, still surrouded by people who love me, and still free to post this stuff at my leisure for another year. Looks like I've still come out on top.
Keep reading, y'all. I love it.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
On Friday Not-Even-Random Way-More-Than-Ten
Okay, so I know I've been really negligent lately as far as blog posts go. I did mention that things had gotten a lot crazier around the Practically Harmless household when I made the leap to go freelance, but I really did intend to stay on top of things a lot better than I have. This is my pledge for the future, that I will take more time to waste more time, just to keep y'all entertained.
In the meantime, though, I know I've missed a couple of Not-So-Random Tens, so here's what I'm gonna do: I'm giving you a Not-So-Random Thirty, with plenty of tracks for your enjoyment. And, as an added bonus, it's actually happening on a Friday.
And this one is dedicated to me. God knows I've earned it.
Thirty, y'all:
1. Kent, "Unprofessional"
2. Beck, "Jack-Ass"
3. The Rolling Stones, "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction"
4. Queen, "I Want to Break Free"
5. Elvis, "It's Now or Never"
6. 311, "Sever"
7. The Ceasars, "Jerk It Out:
8. Maroon 5, "Sweetest Goodbye"
9. Athenaeum, "So Long"
10. Green Day, "Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)"
11. The La's, "There She Goes"
12. Ben Folds Five, "Song for the Dumped"
13. Jump, Little Children, "All Those Days Are Gone"
14. Big Audio Dynamite, "Rush"
15. Pet Shop Boys, "Liberation"
16. Furslide, "Over My Head"
17. Evanescence, "Where Will You Go"
18. Remy Zero, "Glorious"
19. The Smiths, "Panic"
20. Coldplay, "Don't Panic"
21. Dido, "Honestly OK"
22. Dixie Chicks, "I Like It"
23. Nina Simone, "Feelin' Good (Joe Claussell Remix)"
24. Ramsey Lewis, "Do What You Wanna (Mr. Scruff's Soul Party Mix)"
25. Shirley Bassey, "No Regrets"
26. Kelly Clarkson, "Miss Independent"
27. Owsley, "I'm Alright"
28. Sarah Vaughan, "I Could Write a Book"
29. The Beatles, "Paperback Writer"
30. Sting, "Tomorrow We'll See"
And as a sidenote: I selfishly dedicated this'n to myself, because I can, but in a way, it's also a shout-out to a dear friend of mine who just found her own kind of freedom. Jen, honey, congratulations on getting your last name back. I'm drinking to a bright and prosperous future for the both of us.
In the meantime, though, I know I've missed a couple of Not-So-Random Tens, so here's what I'm gonna do: I'm giving you a Not-So-Random Thirty, with plenty of tracks for your enjoyment. And, as an added bonus, it's actually happening on a Friday.
And this one is dedicated to me. God knows I've earned it.
Thirty, y'all:
1. Kent, "Unprofessional"
2. Beck, "Jack-Ass"
3. The Rolling Stones, "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction"
4. Queen, "I Want to Break Free"
5. Elvis, "It's Now or Never"
6. 311, "Sever"
7. The Ceasars, "Jerk It Out:
8. Maroon 5, "Sweetest Goodbye"
9. Athenaeum, "So Long"
10. Green Day, "Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)"
11. The La's, "There She Goes"
12. Ben Folds Five, "Song for the Dumped"
13. Jump, Little Children, "All Those Days Are Gone"
14. Big Audio Dynamite, "Rush"
15. Pet Shop Boys, "Liberation"
16. Furslide, "Over My Head"
17. Evanescence, "Where Will You Go"
18. Remy Zero, "Glorious"
19. The Smiths, "Panic"
20. Coldplay, "Don't Panic"
21. Dido, "Honestly OK"
22. Dixie Chicks, "I Like It"
23. Nina Simone, "Feelin' Good (Joe Claussell Remix)"
24. Ramsey Lewis, "Do What You Wanna (Mr. Scruff's Soul Party Mix)"
25. Shirley Bassey, "No Regrets"
26. Kelly Clarkson, "Miss Independent"
27. Owsley, "I'm Alright"
28. Sarah Vaughan, "I Could Write a Book"
29. The Beatles, "Paperback Writer"
30. Sting, "Tomorrow We'll See"
And as a sidenote: I selfishly dedicated this'n to myself, because I can, but in a way, it's also a shout-out to a dear friend of mine who just found her own kind of freedom. Jen, honey, congratulations on getting your last name back. I'm drinking to a bright and prosperous future for the both of us.
On not leaving well enough afreakinglone
Okay, so this is - It's - I really can't describe - GAAAAAH!
Ahem.
Okay, so some people won't take "Shut your stupid face, you're an idiot" for an answer. Gloriously smacked down by the Gwinnett County School Board in her attempt to clear the school libraries of Harry Potter books (none of which she's actually read), Loganville mother Laura Mallory has stomped her foot, screwed up her face, and taken her case to the state Board of Education. Her letter requesting an appeal was received by the school board late last Friday, and Gwinnett County had ten days after that to forward it on to state authorities. District spokeswoman Sloan Roach said she didn't know when the state would be taking up the issue. She didn't add, "or whether they'll send a guy with a Wiffle bat to beat her down for wasting their freaking time already," but you know she was thinking it.
When I mentioned this whole mes to my mother, she said, "It would be really nice if people would raise their children as they see fit and tell them not to read those mean, nasty, evil books, and leave other parents to raise their children and let them read those mean, nasty, evil books." To that, I say, nyeah. We live in a world where the FCC hands out fines for profanity on shows that a) kids shouldn't be watching anyway b) that are shown when kids should be in bed anyway, because God forbid you should actually parent your child instead of using the TV as a handy, dandy babysitter. We live in a world where it's easier to raise your kid in a plastic bubble than to actually raise a strong, smart human being who can face down vice and temptation and not actually freaking deal with it instead of collapsing into a puddle and crying for Mommy to make it go away.
Raise your freaking kids, parents! If you don't want your kid exposed to something, you do something about it. Watch your kid. Teach him. Guide him through life. Don't expect the world to get all soft and squishy just because little Tommy there never learned to grow a freaking spine.
My mom likes to tell the story of a friend of hers who was absolutely meticulous in her housekeeping, verging on OCD, really. She sprayed, scalded or otherwise disinfected every single surface that her toddler came in contact with, to save the little dear from getting germs on him. Well, one day, they're at a playdate at the park, and a fly - just a regular old housefly - lands on Junior's lip. And Junior ends up with an abscess on his lip the size of Kansas. Why? Because for all of her desire to keep the tyke safe and protected, all she did was leave him unprepared for a world that doesn't smell like Lysol.
Ahem.
Okay, so some people won't take "Shut your stupid face, you're an idiot" for an answer. Gloriously smacked down by the Gwinnett County School Board in her attempt to clear the school libraries of Harry Potter books (none of which she's actually read), Loganville mother Laura Mallory has stomped her foot, screwed up her face, and taken her case to the state Board of Education. Her letter requesting an appeal was received by the school board late last Friday, and Gwinnett County had ten days after that to forward it on to state authorities. District spokeswoman Sloan Roach said she didn't know when the state would be taking up the issue. She didn't add, "or whether they'll send a guy with a Wiffle bat to beat her down for wasting their freaking time already," but you know she was thinking it.
When I mentioned this whole mes to my mother, she said, "It would be really nice if people would raise their children as they see fit and tell them not to read those mean, nasty, evil books, and leave other parents to raise their children and let them read those mean, nasty, evil books." To that, I say, nyeah. We live in a world where the FCC hands out fines for profanity on shows that a) kids shouldn't be watching anyway b) that are shown when kids should be in bed anyway, because God forbid you should actually parent your child instead of using the TV as a handy, dandy babysitter. We live in a world where it's easier to raise your kid in a plastic bubble than to actually raise a strong, smart human being who can face down vice and temptation and not actually freaking deal with it instead of collapsing into a puddle and crying for Mommy to make it go away.
Raise your freaking kids, parents! If you don't want your kid exposed to something, you do something about it. Watch your kid. Teach him. Guide him through life. Don't expect the world to get all soft and squishy just because little Tommy there never learned to grow a freaking spine.
My mom likes to tell the story of a friend of hers who was absolutely meticulous in her housekeeping, verging on OCD, really. She sprayed, scalded or otherwise disinfected every single surface that her toddler came in contact with, to save the little dear from getting germs on him. Well, one day, they're at a playdate at the park, and a fly - just a regular old housefly - lands on Junior's lip. And Junior ends up with an abscess on his lip the size of Kansas. Why? Because for all of her desire to keep the tyke safe and protected, all she did was leave him unprepared for a world that doesn't smell like Lysol.
On men having babies
Okay, so I'd be horribly remiss if I didn't stop in to visit two of our favorite Atlantans, Shaunti Feldhahn and Diane Glass, also known as the AJC's Woman to Woman team. The girls are discussing a fairly timely question: Should fathers be held financially responsible for children born without their consent?
I hate to say it, guys, but, shyeah.
And yeah, I've heard the reasoning, which, on the surface, makes sense. Shaunti's case, as well as that of a lot of MRAs (Men's Rights Advocates) and even otherwise-reasonable people, is that men can't control whether or not a woman has a baby. Women, however, can do that. The right to have an abortion gives women the opportunity to decide, in given circumstances, whether or not to have the kid, and thus if the babydaddy doesn't want to support the kid, she can decide not to have a baby she'll have to raise by herself.
The problem with that argument is that men can't get pregnant.
When I was in college, I didn't have the right to demand a Braille note-taker from the University. Doesn't that suck? All of these other kids could have one; they made the announcement at the beginning of class and everything: if you're blind and need someone to take notes and transcribe them into Braille, the university could provide. Ohhhh, but not for me. If you can see (assuming you don't have some other kind of diability, like a learning disability, which also warrants a note-taker from UGA), you have to take notes your own self. Lazy blind punks.
You might ask yourself what the hell blindness and Braille note-takers have to do with men's rights, and that's fine, because only in my convoluted mind is such a connection readily apparent. But here 'tis: A man doesn't have the right to have an abortion, because men don't get pregnant.
An abortion terminates not a child, but a pregnancy. Now, of course, a side effect of the pregnancy's termination is that the fetus involved doesn't make it to babyhood, but no-baby isn't the purpose of the abortion. No-pregnancy is the purpose of the abortion. If all a woman wanted to do was not have a baby, she could simply give birth and put the baby up for adoption.
And that's where men's rights come in, because while a man can't be pregnant, he can be a father. The vast majority, if not all, pregnancies result from the union of a man and a woman in one way or another, and once that baby has been produced, both father and mother have a right to decide how the kid is raised. In most states, the decision to put a baby up for adoption has to be a unanimous one, agreed to by both parents, and several high-profile adoptions have gone pear-shaped when an absent sperm donor turned up and decided he wanted the kid after all. Issues of consent and support come up only at that point, and not before. Diane mentions a case where a father (unsuccessfully, which I think is a pity) argued that the woman who stole his sperm and purposely impregnated herself without his knowledge should not have a right to child support, and that, I think, is worthy of reconsideration as a seminal (if I may) case on this subject.
What a man can't do is decide what goes on in a woman's body, regardless of whether that body is harboring his sperm. A man can't force a woman's hips to spread. He can't force her hormones to race, her breasts to swell, her feet to swell, her back to ache, her moods to swing, or her vagina to express a watermelon. Those are all things that only a woman experiences during the length of her pregnancy, and her partner/husband/boyfriend/sperm donor can't make the decision for her to keep experiencing them or stop doing it. Only when a woman has made the decision to carry a pregnancy to term does a man's right to keep or not keep his child come into play.
So men, when you're able to carry a baby, carry away. When your girlfriend/wife/woman/what-have-you decides that she doesn't want to be pregnant anymore, and you valiantly take over incubation of the fetus, you can decide whether or not the little peanut becomes a big peanut. But until reproductive technology gets that far, you don't get to make decisions until the sucker's out. And for God's sake, keep it zipped.
I hate to say it, guys, but, shyeah.
And yeah, I've heard the reasoning, which, on the surface, makes sense. Shaunti's case, as well as that of a lot of MRAs (Men's Rights Advocates) and even otherwise-reasonable people, is that men can't control whether or not a woman has a baby. Women, however, can do that. The right to have an abortion gives women the opportunity to decide, in given circumstances, whether or not to have the kid, and thus if the babydaddy doesn't want to support the kid, she can decide not to have a baby she'll have to raise by herself.
The problem with that argument is that men can't get pregnant.
When I was in college, I didn't have the right to demand a Braille note-taker from the University. Doesn't that suck? All of these other kids could have one; they made the announcement at the beginning of class and everything: if you're blind and need someone to take notes and transcribe them into Braille, the university could provide. Ohhhh, but not for me. If you can see (assuming you don't have some other kind of diability, like a learning disability, which also warrants a note-taker from UGA), you have to take notes your own self. Lazy blind punks.
You might ask yourself what the hell blindness and Braille note-takers have to do with men's rights, and that's fine, because only in my convoluted mind is such a connection readily apparent. But here 'tis: A man doesn't have the right to have an abortion, because men don't get pregnant.
An abortion terminates not a child, but a pregnancy. Now, of course, a side effect of the pregnancy's termination is that the fetus involved doesn't make it to babyhood, but no-baby isn't the purpose of the abortion. No-pregnancy is the purpose of the abortion. If all a woman wanted to do was not have a baby, she could simply give birth and put the baby up for adoption.
And that's where men's rights come in, because while a man can't be pregnant, he can be a father. The vast majority, if not all, pregnancies result from the union of a man and a woman in one way or another, and once that baby has been produced, both father and mother have a right to decide how the kid is raised. In most states, the decision to put a baby up for adoption has to be a unanimous one, agreed to by both parents, and several high-profile adoptions have gone pear-shaped when an absent sperm donor turned up and decided he wanted the kid after all. Issues of consent and support come up only at that point, and not before. Diane mentions a case where a father (unsuccessfully, which I think is a pity) argued that the woman who stole his sperm and purposely impregnated herself without his knowledge should not have a right to child support, and that, I think, is worthy of reconsideration as a seminal (if I may) case on this subject.
What a man can't do is decide what goes on in a woman's body, regardless of whether that body is harboring his sperm. A man can't force a woman's hips to spread. He can't force her hormones to race, her breasts to swell, her feet to swell, her back to ache, her moods to swing, or her vagina to express a watermelon. Those are all things that only a woman experiences during the length of her pregnancy, and her partner/husband/boyfriend/sperm donor can't make the decision for her to keep experiencing them or stop doing it. Only when a woman has made the decision to carry a pregnancy to term does a man's right to keep or not keep his child come into play.
So men, when you're able to carry a baby, carry away. When your girlfriend/wife/woman/what-have-you decides that she doesn't want to be pregnant anymore, and you valiantly take over incubation of the fetus, you can decide whether or not the little peanut becomes a big peanut. But until reproductive technology gets that far, you don't get to make decisions until the sucker's out. And for God's sake, keep it zipped.
On losing my sense of humor
Okay, so yet another Marine has managed to shoot his compatriots in the foot - figuratively, at least. The story breaks in the wake of investigation into the deaths of 24 civilians in Haditha, although the video in question was made a month before the Haditha incident took place. Still, the viral distribution of the "Hadji Girl" video only makes the Pentagon's job more difficult as they try to assure America that Marines in Iraq are able to maintain compassion and respect for the Iraqi people throughout their long deployments, and that killing two dozen civilians in the heat of anger isn't something they'd do.
The video (available here, along with coverage of the Marine's apology) shows 23-year-old Cpl. Joshua Belile playing the guitar and singing to a laughing and cheering crowd. It's kind of a pity, really, because Belile's voice has a lot of quality to it and the tune is fairly catchy. The lyrics, however, leave something to be desired:
Sick, sick, sick bastard.
I in no way mean to imply that this is the attitude of all Marines in Iraq, or even most Marines in Iraq, or even many Marines in Iraq (note: the Pentagon's response to the incident says that "the video is not reflective of the tremendous sacrifices and dedication demonstrated, on a daily basis, by tens of thousands of Marines who have assisted the Iraqi people in gaining their freedom,” and I couldn't agree more). I know a few Marines, and none of them would ever consider doing the things described in the song. But the fact is, a lot of them would laugh at it, and not just at the funny-'cause-they-aren't-PC parts. When Belile describes pulling the "Hadji Girl's" younger sister in front of him and watching the blood spurt from her head wound, his audience laughs and cheers, and call me stodgy, but that shit just ain't funny.
Right now, the position of most of the country (somewhere around 62 percent, last I read, but don't quote me on it) is that things in Iraq aren't going well, that going in was a mistake, but that we need to fix what's going on. The idea is that we're trying to do good for the people of Iraq, trying to bring democracy and restore infrastructure and give rights to people who didn't have them. But we're not going to be able to do that successfully if we don't have respect for them; we can't teach them to respect themselves if we're joking about blowing them up - and laughing when other people do it.
If the subject of Joshua Belile's song had been a black American woman, and he'd sung about using her little sister as a human shield, America would be up in arms; we recognize, whether because of the Civil Rights movement or sensitivity training or just because we know in our hearts that human beings are human beings and deserve respect, that that sort of thing is wrong and bad and not a joking matter. But when it's a brown person overseas, it's a different matter. These people, the ones we've been sent to help, the ones for whom so many of our troops have lost their lives, are less than human, are just objects, are largely without inherent value, and if we save three and execute one, we're still ahead by points, right?
Yeah, I know it's just a song. Yeah, I know that, as Cpl. Belile said, it was supposed to be a joke. But it wasn't a funny one, and it seemed more like one of those not-joke jokes that are more revealing than anything else. Investigating the killings in Haditha and making sure they don't happen again is important; also imporant is impressing on the troops the idea that that sort of thing isn't a joke, not the kind of thing that should be taken lightly. Belile said, "I think it’s a joke, and anybody who tries to take it seriously knows it’s a joke. People can’t just laugh at it and let it go.” I'm sure he'll quickly learn that some things, you just don't joke about.
The video (available here, along with coverage of the Marine's apology) shows 23-year-old Cpl. Joshua Belile playing the guitar and singing to a laughing and cheering crowd. It's kind of a pity, really, because Belile's voice has a lot of quality to it and the tune is fairly catchy. The lyrics, however, leave something to be desired:
“I grabbed her little sister and put her in front of me. As the bullets began to fly, the blood sprayed from between her eyes, and then I laughed maniacally. . .I blew those little f**kers to eternity. . .They should have known they were f**king with the Marines.”
Sick, sick, sick bastard.
I in no way mean to imply that this is the attitude of all Marines in Iraq, or even most Marines in Iraq, or even many Marines in Iraq (note: the Pentagon's response to the incident says that "the video is not reflective of the tremendous sacrifices and dedication demonstrated, on a daily basis, by tens of thousands of Marines who have assisted the Iraqi people in gaining their freedom,” and I couldn't agree more). I know a few Marines, and none of them would ever consider doing the things described in the song. But the fact is, a lot of them would laugh at it, and not just at the funny-'cause-they-aren't-PC parts. When Belile describes pulling the "Hadji Girl's" younger sister in front of him and watching the blood spurt from her head wound, his audience laughs and cheers, and call me stodgy, but that shit just ain't funny.
Right now, the position of most of the country (somewhere around 62 percent, last I read, but don't quote me on it) is that things in Iraq aren't going well, that going in was a mistake, but that we need to fix what's going on. The idea is that we're trying to do good for the people of Iraq, trying to bring democracy and restore infrastructure and give rights to people who didn't have them. But we're not going to be able to do that successfully if we don't have respect for them; we can't teach them to respect themselves if we're joking about blowing them up - and laughing when other people do it.
If the subject of Joshua Belile's song had been a black American woman, and he'd sung about using her little sister as a human shield, America would be up in arms; we recognize, whether because of the Civil Rights movement or sensitivity training or just because we know in our hearts that human beings are human beings and deserve respect, that that sort of thing is wrong and bad and not a joking matter. But when it's a brown person overseas, it's a different matter. These people, the ones we've been sent to help, the ones for whom so many of our troops have lost their lives, are less than human, are just objects, are largely without inherent value, and if we save three and execute one, we're still ahead by points, right?
Yeah, I know it's just a song. Yeah, I know that, as Cpl. Belile said, it was supposed to be a joke. But it wasn't a funny one, and it seemed more like one of those not-joke jokes that are more revealing than anything else. Investigating the killings in Haditha and making sure they don't happen again is important; also imporant is impressing on the troops the idea that that sort of thing isn't a joke, not the kind of thing that should be taken lightly. Belile said, "I think it’s a joke, and anybody who tries to take it seriously knows it’s a joke. People can’t just laugh at it and let it go.” I'm sure he'll quickly learn that some things, you just don't joke about.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
On the way things are
Okay, so some of you may have noticed that I've been posting less frequently (and those of you who haven't noticed, shame on you!). You may think that this is because I've just stopped caring, and, to some extent, you'd be right.
So here's the deal: I was recently given the option of strangling my editor with a lamp cord, rolling her body up in an area rug, duct taping the whole thing and pitching it into the woods somewhere just off of I-85. I instead chose option (b), in which I quit my job and strike out on my own as a freelancer. I've had more success at this than I expected, seeing as how my expectations involved a sleeping bag under the overpass at the Grady Curve, but, to quote Angelina Jolie in Gone in Sixty Seconds, I've discovered that you have to work twice as hard when it's honest.
And that's basically what I've been up to, and the combined jobs of doing work and looking for work leave little time for hittin' the blogs. But rest assured that I'm still trying to do it all; that I do care deeply about, like, political stuff, when I actually have the opportunity to know about it; and that my opinions tend to be unresearched and pulled-from-my-ass enough that my lack of time shouldn't really affect the quality of my work.
If I've missed something that you think I shouldn't miss, let me know. And if you know of anyone in need of a marginally talented and occasionally reliable freelance writer, sure as hell let me know. And if you know of anyone, particularly a rich and elderly anyone, looking for a trophy wife to coddle, spoil and endow with an endless supply of shoes... Well, you get the idea.
So here's the deal: I was recently given the option of strangling my editor with a lamp cord, rolling her body up in an area rug, duct taping the whole thing and pitching it into the woods somewhere just off of I-85. I instead chose option (b), in which I quit my job and strike out on my own as a freelancer. I've had more success at this than I expected, seeing as how my expectations involved a sleeping bag under the overpass at the Grady Curve, but, to quote Angelina Jolie in Gone in Sixty Seconds, I've discovered that you have to work twice as hard when it's honest.
And that's basically what I've been up to, and the combined jobs of doing work and looking for work leave little time for hittin' the blogs. But rest assured that I'm still trying to do it all; that I do care deeply about, like, political stuff, when I actually have the opportunity to know about it; and that my opinions tend to be unresearched and pulled-from-my-ass enough that my lack of time shouldn't really affect the quality of my work.
If I've missed something that you think I shouldn't miss, let me know. And if you know of anyone in need of a marginally talented and occasionally reliable freelance writer, sure as hell let me know. And if you know of anyone, particularly a rich and elderly anyone, looking for a trophy wife to coddle, spoil and endow with an endless supply of shoes... Well, you get the idea.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
On gays, not, despite your most deeply-held fears, settlin' down
Okay, so in light of the recent finding by a Superior Court judge that Georgia's gay marriage amendment is unconstitutional, and the subsequent Supreme Court review of said ruling, Guv'nor Sonny has promised to call a special session of the General Assembly starting August 9 should the ban not be upheld.
Now, said special session could cost Georgia taxpayers up to $40,000 a day, but it would be worth every penny to protect us from the all-powerful scourge of Gays Settlin' Down, which threatens our lives and livelihoods and heterosexual marriage as we know it.
Except that it really doesn't.
And except that gay marriage is illegal in Georgia whether or not the amendment passes.
There is no imminent threat here. Gays aren't going to start sponteneously planning their dream June weddings now that homophobia is no longer officially enshrined in the state Constitution. The people's right to establish legislation through legal, constitutional channels is not at risk. And for Sonny to imply otherwise is, at best, a cheap ploy to satisfy his Republican base in preparation for the gubernatorial election.
Or, at $40,000 a day, not so cheap.
What really bugs is that all of this was foretold back in 2004. Constitutional scholars and experts predicted that the violation of the single-subject rule would have us arguing the constitutionality of the amendment for years after its passage (true). Many also speculated that the single-subject violation was deliberate (arguable); supporters of the amendment feared that,left to their own devices, even opponents to gay marriage might be willing to support civil unions. By combining the two issues in one amendment, legislators made a bet that Georgia voters hated gay marriage more than they liked civil union and would be willing to throw out a baby or two with the bathwater.
And that's what's got Sonny's panties in a wad right now. He's afraid that, given the opportunity to give gays some basic partnership rights without actually calling it marriage in so many words, Georgia voters will choose tolerance over homophobia. While I can't speak to Sonny's personal views on gay rights, I know that his brick-red fundamentalist Republican supporters need a hard line on this so they can convince their supporters that sodomites aren't going to be treated like human beings in the great state of Georgia, not while they draw breath.
Guv'nor Sonny wants to make sure that the will of the people is respected in Georgia. I happen to agree. I personally can't wait to see what voters say when they're offered a reasonable, acceptable compromise instead of far-right-wing political pandering. But the world isn't going to come to a crashing end if we have to wait a year to see that happen, and it doesn't have to happen at the cost of $40,000 a day.
Now, said special session could cost Georgia taxpayers up to $40,000 a day, but it would be worth every penny to protect us from the all-powerful scourge of Gays Settlin' Down, which threatens our lives and livelihoods and heterosexual marriage as we know it.
Except that it really doesn't.
And except that gay marriage is illegal in Georgia whether or not the amendment passes.
There is no imminent threat here. Gays aren't going to start sponteneously planning their dream June weddings now that homophobia is no longer officially enshrined in the state Constitution. The people's right to establish legislation through legal, constitutional channels is not at risk. And for Sonny to imply otherwise is, at best, a cheap ploy to satisfy his Republican base in preparation for the gubernatorial election.
Or, at $40,000 a day, not so cheap.
What really bugs is that all of this was foretold back in 2004. Constitutional scholars and experts predicted that the violation of the single-subject rule would have us arguing the constitutionality of the amendment for years after its passage (true). Many also speculated that the single-subject violation was deliberate (arguable); supporters of the amendment feared that,left to their own devices, even opponents to gay marriage might be willing to support civil unions. By combining the two issues in one amendment, legislators made a bet that Georgia voters hated gay marriage more than they liked civil union and would be willing to throw out a baby or two with the bathwater.
And that's what's got Sonny's panties in a wad right now. He's afraid that, given the opportunity to give gays some basic partnership rights without actually calling it marriage in so many words, Georgia voters will choose tolerance over homophobia. While I can't speak to Sonny's personal views on gay rights, I know that his brick-red fundamentalist Republican supporters need a hard line on this so they can convince their supporters that sodomites aren't going to be treated like human beings in the great state of Georgia, not while they draw breath.
Guv'nor Sonny wants to make sure that the will of the people is respected in Georgia. I happen to agree. I personally can't wait to see what voters say when they're offered a reasonable, acceptable compromise instead of far-right-wing political pandering. But the world isn't going to come to a crashing end if we have to wait a year to see that happen, and it doesn't have to happen at the cost of $40,000 a day.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
On Michael Hayden: This Is Your Soundtrack
Okay, so the Senate Intelligence Committee voted 12-3 to recommend Michael Hayden as the new CIA chief.
I can't say that I don't have a little bit of trouble with the thought of the man in charge of President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program now in charge of the CIA (although the fact that he'd be spying on other people and not, hopefully, violating the civil liberties of Americans is somewhat comforting). Now that I think about it, that sort of cloak-and-dagger surveillance does seem more suited to the James Bond-ish stuff you always associate with the Central Intelligence Agency, so he might be well suited.
My only question there would concern Hayden's apparent affection for wiretapping and data mining, when some former CIA operatives have said that such impersonal and removed methods have resulted in the problems we've been having in recent years, and that the real solution is less technology and analysis and more actual human contact. But what do I know? I'm just an American citizen who'd love to keep both my civil liberties and my nation's security by any means necessary.
Anyway, this Not-Even-Friday, Not-Even-Random, Not-Even-Ten goes out to CIA Michael Hayden. Stay the hell out of my underwear drawer and my e-mail inbox, Mike.
The Not-Ten:
1. Johnny Rivers, "Secret Agent Man"
2. Guster, "I Spy"
3. U2, "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For"
4. Hatebreed, "I Will Be Heard"
5. Billie Holiday, "I'll Be Seeing You"
6. El Bosco, "Satellite"
7. Barenaked Ladies, "Call and Answer"
8. Skunk Anansie, "Secretly"
9. Take 6, "Like the Whole World's Watching"
Your whatever goes below.
I can't say that I don't have a little bit of trouble with the thought of the man in charge of President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program now in charge of the CIA (although the fact that he'd be spying on other people and not, hopefully, violating the civil liberties of Americans is somewhat comforting). Now that I think about it, that sort of cloak-and-dagger surveillance does seem more suited to the James Bond-ish stuff you always associate with the Central Intelligence Agency, so he might be well suited.
My only question there would concern Hayden's apparent affection for wiretapping and data mining, when some former CIA operatives have said that such impersonal and removed methods have resulted in the problems we've been having in recent years, and that the real solution is less technology and analysis and more actual human contact. But what do I know? I'm just an American citizen who'd love to keep both my civil liberties and my nation's security by any means necessary.
Anyway, this Not-Even-Friday, Not-Even-Random, Not-Even-Ten goes out to CIA Michael Hayden. Stay the hell out of my underwear drawer and my e-mail inbox, Mike.
The Not-Ten:
1. Johnny Rivers, "Secret Agent Man"
2. Guster, "I Spy"
3. U2, "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For"
4. Hatebreed, "I Will Be Heard"
5. Billie Holiday, "I'll Be Seeing You"
6. El Bosco, "Satellite"
7. Barenaked Ladies, "Call and Answer"
8. Skunk Anansie, "Secretly"
9. Take 6, "Like the Whole World's Watching"
Your whatever goes below.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
On Big Brother (better late than never)
Okay, so bless their hearts, the AJC's Woman to Woman column is frequently a couple of weeks - or months - behind on the issues. They take their first swing at domestic wiretapping this week, long after the story originally broke and in the wake of recent allegations of information sharing by phone companies (which the FCC says it can't investigate because of the classified nature of the information involved. Convenient).
But better late than never, I s'pose, and Diane and Shaunti do dive into the topic enthusiastically. And when I say "enthusiastically," I mean that Diane misses the point but manages to keep it in the ballpark, and Shaunti grabs her bat and glove and shows up at the hockey rink.
But the important thing to remember is that it's not possible to have both. Either the President willfully violates the Constitution, or Osama bin Laden will personally kill you. There is no middle ground, so don't wander around thinking there is.
And I have two words for you, Shaunti: diaphonous sushi. (What d'you mean, "relevance"?)
Now, I could take this opportunity to point out that domestic wiretapping falls under FISA, which court has rejected all of four warrant requests since its inception nearly thirty years ago. But I'd hate to shatter Shaunti's illusions that Zack Moussaoui's Compaq was the key to preventing the 9/11 attacks, and that Bush's lil' "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" memo would just have been a distraction from the real security issues.
A theoretical desire to protect privacy at all costs? Is this desire truly theoretical? Or is it just that most Americans don't accept the impact of unwarranted government intrusion because, up until now, it's been secretive and impersonal? What if we did make it a little more personal for "most Americans"? Let's say the NSA has instituted a bedroom-by-bedroom search of all households in America, digging for leads on terrorist plots. When they empty your underwear drawer into a garbage bag and take it back to the office to dig for evidence, would "most Americans" think, "Oh, it's no big. I don't have anything but panties in there anyway."
Moreover, is it an efficient use of government resources to search every underwear drawer in the country for evidence, or would it be more efficient to dig through the BVDs of only those terror suspects who are suspicious enough to warrant a warrant?
The average American also believes that a bearded man sits up in the clouds and makes decisions that affect our daily lives, but the Constitution says that such beliefs don't get to directly influence the activities of our government. Once upon a time, the "average" American thought that it was okay for schoolkids to be segregated by race, as long as the schools were ostensibly "equal." I'm not saying that democracy is a wash, but people are willing to submit to a lot of things under the influence of fear that they might not be willing to accept in other circumstances. And the government has been doing a pretty good job of keeping us afraid since 9/11.
Right back atcha.
I laid down my opposition to the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program here, when it first came to light in December of last year, and again here when Alberto Gonzales was defending the program to the Senate Judiciary Committee. My arguments haven't changed much in the months since: Where is the line drawn between liberty and security? If these searches really do "satisfy the requirements of the Fourth Amendent," why not just get a warrant? Does the President really have the authority to countermand the Constitution in the interest of national security? And would people be willing to submit to random cavity searches if they knew they had nothing hidden in their rectums?
But you've read all of that already. What I want to hear is a reasonable argument in favor of the NSA's wiretapping program and the (purported) data mining of phone companies. I want to hear from people who actually support such programs, and from people who don't support them but can take a fairly decent Devil's Advocate-y swing at defending them. I'd like to know what's so important about the programs that it's acceptable to violate the Constitution, and what the NSA is doing that makes the FISA warrant process impossible.
And I'd also kind of like an answer to the rectum question. Morbid curiosity there, I guess.
But better late than never, I s'pose, and Diane and Shaunti do dive into the topic enthusiastically. And when I say "enthusiastically," I mean that Diane misses the point but manages to keep it in the ballpark, and Shaunti grabs her bat and glove and shows up at the hockey rink.
Somewhere in the world right now – even here on U.S. soil – some evil men are delighted at how quickly Americans forget hard-learned security lessons. I’m astounded that Diane thinks we are complacent about losing our privacy: I think we’re far too complacent about losing our lives.
But the important thing to remember is that it's not possible to have both. Either the President willfully violates the Constitution, or Osama bin Laden will personally kill you. There is no middle ground, so don't wander around thinking there is.
I have two words for Diane or anyone else who prefers to snipe at the NSA data-mining program for being intrusive and “unlawful” (which it isn’t), instead of being thankful that our government does try so hard to protect privacy. Two words: Zacharias Moussaoui.
And I have two words for you, Shaunti: diaphonous sushi. (What d'you mean, "relevance"?)
A few years ago, I read the fascinating 9/11 Commission Report cover to cover, and its Moussaoui discussion puts the current NSA debate squarely in perspective. In August 2001, we had captured a suspected Qaeda operative who, alarmingly, had been learning to fly (into the Capital or the White House, as we now know). We also had his captured laptop, and several weeks in which we could have tied him to the man who was planning the impending attacks, and from him to several other hijackers – exactly the sort of connect-the-dots effort intended by the NSA program. But despite urgent requests, FBI headquarters wouldn’t grant a search warrant for Moussaoui’s laptop, saying enough probable cause hadn’t been shown. In other words, saying this man’s privacy trumped national security.
Now, I could take this opportunity to point out that domestic wiretapping falls under FISA, which court has rejected all of four warrant requests since its inception nearly thirty years ago. But I'd hate to shatter Shaunti's illusions that Zack Moussaoui's Compaq was the key to preventing the 9/11 attacks, and that Bush's lil' "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" memo would just have been a distraction from the real security issues.
A theoretical desire to protect privacy at all costs is laudable, but despite what the ACLU and Diane implies, most Americans are and should be completely unwilling to pay that “all costs” price. The NSA isn’t after the Youens of the world, who want to harm one person at a time: they are trying to stop the Moussaoui’s, who want to kill millions.
A theoretical desire to protect privacy at all costs? Is this desire truly theoretical? Or is it just that most Americans don't accept the impact of unwarranted government intrusion because, up until now, it's been secretive and impersonal? What if we did make it a little more personal for "most Americans"? Let's say the NSA has instituted a bedroom-by-bedroom search of all households in America, digging for leads on terrorist plots. When they empty your underwear drawer into a garbage bag and take it back to the office to dig for evidence, would "most Americans" think, "Oh, it's no big. I don't have anything but panties in there anyway."
Moreover, is it an efficient use of government resources to search every underwear drawer in the country for evidence, or would it be more efficient to dig through the BVDs of only those terror suspects who are suspicious enough to warrant a warrant?
The average American doesn’t want the government to miss another chance to keep us safe. Immediately after 9/11 when we understood just what we were facing, most Americans supported large increases in surveillance authority. And even in March 2006, before the media made a mountain out of this NSA molehill, an ABC poll found that 54% of Americans thought the expanded authority should continue, even if with no warrant.
The average American also believes that a bearded man sits up in the clouds and makes decisions that affect our daily lives, but the Constitution says that such beliefs don't get to directly influence the activities of our government. Once upon a time, the "average" American thought that it was okay for schoolkids to be segregated by race, as long as the schools were ostensibly "equal." I'm not saying that democracy is a wash, but people are willing to submit to a lot of things under the influence of fear that they might not be willing to accept in other circumstances. And the government has been doing a pretty good job of keeping us afraid since 9/11.
Diane, you say we just don’t care enough. No, I think we just disagree with you.
Right back atcha.
I laid down my opposition to the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program here, when it first came to light in December of last year, and again here when Alberto Gonzales was defending the program to the Senate Judiciary Committee. My arguments haven't changed much in the months since: Where is the line drawn between liberty and security? If these searches really do "satisfy the requirements of the Fourth Amendent," why not just get a warrant? Does the President really have the authority to countermand the Constitution in the interest of national security? And would people be willing to submit to random cavity searches if they knew they had nothing hidden in their rectums?
But you've read all of that already. What I want to hear is a reasonable argument in favor of the NSA's wiretapping program and the (purported) data mining of phone companies. I want to hear from people who actually support such programs, and from people who don't support them but can take a fairly decent Devil's Advocate-y swing at defending them. I'd like to know what's so important about the programs that it's acceptable to violate the Constitution, and what the NSA is doing that makes the FISA warrant process impossible.
And I'd also kind of like an answer to the rectum question. Morbid curiosity there, I guess.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
On the best lede ever, and a Dixie Chicks roundup
Okay, so the Dixie Chicks made it onto the cover of Time magazine for their new album and completely unpenitent return to country music after a self-imposed three-year exile (a summary of the article can be found at CNN.com). The lead paragraph is the stuff of dreams:
In other Dixie Chicks news:
Bill O'Reilly gets tole by Natalie Maines, courtesy of TBogg.
Pat Boone thinks he is someone and calls the Chicks to task for their criticism of the President, who deserves their support, much like he supported President Clinton once 'pon a time (courtesy of Sadly, No!).
As of today, Taking the Long Way was ranked as the most heavily downloaded album on iTunes, "Not Ready to Make Nice" was the 52nd most downloaded track, and the album was the top seller at Amazon.com. It's been described as "the best Dixie Chicks album few may buy" - or not.
And for those who have been writing breathless letters to local newspapers, aghast that the Dixie Chicks still refuse to apologize for the 2003 comments, which they refer to as "The Incident" - they just released a single called "Not Ready to Make Nice," which proclaims their unreadiness to make nice. They could have called it "Don't Look for an Apology, Because Bush Is Still Fucking Things Up." They could have called it "I Have to Flip You the Middle Finger in a Song." Y'all, come on.
Natalie Maines is one of those people born middle finger first.
As a high school senior in Lubbock, Texas, she'd skip a class a day in an attempt to prove that because she never got caught and some Mexican students did, the system was racist.
After Maines joined the Dixie Chicks, and the Dixie Chicks became the biggest-selling female group in music history -- with suspiciously little cash to show for it -- she and her bandmates told their record label, Sony, they were declaring themselves free agents. (In the high school that is Nashville, this is way worse than skipping class.)
In other Dixie Chicks news:
Bill O'Reilly gets tole by Natalie Maines, courtesy of TBogg.
Pat Boone thinks he is someone and calls the Chicks to task for their criticism of the President, who deserves their support, much like he supported President Clinton once 'pon a time (courtesy of Sadly, No!).
As of today, Taking the Long Way was ranked as the most heavily downloaded album on iTunes, "Not Ready to Make Nice" was the 52nd most downloaded track, and the album was the top seller at Amazon.com. It's been described as "the best Dixie Chicks album few may buy" - or not.
And for those who have been writing breathless letters to local newspapers, aghast that the Dixie Chicks still refuse to apologize for the 2003 comments, which they refer to as "The Incident" - they just released a single called "Not Ready to Make Nice," which proclaims their unreadiness to make nice. They could have called it "Don't Look for an Apology, Because Bush Is Still Fucking Things Up." They could have called it "I Have to Flip You the Middle Finger in a Song." Y'all, come on.
Saturday, May 20, 2006
On gays settlin' down: This Is Your Soundtrack
Okay, so I know I'm a little late on this, but a girl is busy, so give her a break.
This Not-Even-Friday, Not-Even-Random, For-That-Matter-Not-Even-Ten goes out not to Judge Constance Russell, who was only doing her job (and good on her for that), but for all the gays out there interested in settlin' down, as well as all of the straights out there who don't see why they shouldn't.
The Ten (almost):
1. The Beach Boys, "God Only Knows"
2. Gladys Knight & The Pipps, "If I Were Your Woman"
3. The Chemical Brothers, "Hey Boy Hey Girl"
4. The Original Broadway Cast of Avenue Q, "If You Were Gay"
5. Blur, "Girls & Boys"
6. Otis Redding, "When a Man Loves a Woman"
7. Joss Stone, "Fell in Love With a Boy"
8. Sting, "The Secret Marriage"
9. Wet Wet Wet, "Love Is All Around"
9. Kay Starr, "Lover Man"
Your Ten (more or less) goes below.
This Not-Even-Friday, Not-Even-Random, For-That-Matter-Not-Even-Ten goes out not to Judge Constance Russell, who was only doing her job (and good on her for that), but for all the gays out there interested in settlin' down, as well as all of the straights out there who don't see why they shouldn't.
The Ten (almost):
1. The Beach Boys, "God Only Knows"
2. Gladys Knight & The Pipps, "If I Were Your Woman"
3. The Chemical Brothers, "Hey Boy Hey Girl"
4. The Original Broadway Cast of Avenue Q, "If You Were Gay"
5. Blur, "Girls & Boys"
6. Otis Redding, "When a Man Loves a Woman"
7. Joss Stone, "Fell in Love With a Boy"
8. Sting, "The Secret Marriage"
9. Wet Wet Wet, "Love Is All Around"
9. Kay Starr, "Lover Man"
Your Ten (more or less) goes below.
Friday, May 19, 2006
On the reintroduction of rational thought
Okay, so just an update for those of you keeping score: The Gwinnett County School Board voted unanimously to allow Harry Potter books in school libraries. I'd like to lift my glass to said school board for injecting a little bit of sanity into what was becoming a deeply ridiculous debate.
I'd also like to lift a chalice of dragon's blood to Laura Mallory for making the rest of us look a little bit smarter in comparison.
Looking back:
On the fundie-mentals of reading
On Laura Mallory: This Is Your Soundtrack
I'd also like to lift a chalice of dragon's blood to Laura Mallory for making the rest of us look a little bit smarter in comparison.
Looking back:
On the fundie-mentals of reading
On Laura Mallory: This Is Your Soundtrack
On gays settlin' down: Part Two of Two
Okay, so I've laid out my (admittedly armchair) legal opinion on Georgia's gay marriage amendment, but in the interest of full disclosure, I feel that I should clarify my own opinion on the subject of gay marriage.
Straight people, get the hell over yourself.
God.
I covered this back in 2004, back before Amendment One was passed, and I know I haven't been silent about it since. But it's never a bad idea to revisit, to elucidate, to lay things out in easy-to-digest bullet points. So why not?
Straight people are a threat to straight marriage. Kevin Federline is a threat to straight marriage. Angelina Jolie (bless her boobs) is a threat to straight marriage. Elton John? He's a threaten to good fashion sense, sure, but I don't think his union is the one that's crushing America's traditional morality under the wedge heel of his silver-embellished, diamond-encrusted platform boot. Dear friend Evan proposed that the only legislation sure to protect the sanctity of marriage would outlaw celebrity marriage; I have to agree.
Gay people are not a threat to straight marriage. The fact that my dog breathes oxygen is no threat to human respiration. The fact that my fish sits in a lovely bowl on the counter is no threat to our waterways. You know what does threaten human respiration? Pollution. Man-made pollution. If humans are worried about being able to breathe, maybe we need to stop spitting carcinogens into the air, and if we're worried about being married, maybe we need to stop spewing crap into our own marriages.
The government needs to stay the hell out of marriage. Controversial, I know. Here's my take: Most marriages have both a religious and a civil component. First, you go to the courthouse to get your marriage license and prove to the state that you're not trying to marry your sister (not applicable in the state of Kentucky). Then, you go to the church/temple/beach/sylvan glade/Elvis chapel, and the priest/rabbi/minister/moon priestess/King confers the blessings of a given deity on your union.
Some marriages don't both with both components. I could easily find myself a consort and drag him to a Justice of the Peace for a marriage that would be recognized by the state but not (necessarily) the Catholic church. Alternately, I could drag the same poor sclub before my friend Sam, an ordained minister in the Universal Life Church, but without a marriage license, our marriage wouldn't be recognized by the state.
I think that if we want to reform marriage, we need to get the government out of it entirely. Yes, the state does have some interest in civil unions, in terms of taxes and children and partner rights, but that's as far as it needs to go: civil union. The interests of the state hold regardless of the genders of the people being united. If a couple is prepared to live in such a way that those interests are sustained, the state has no reason to approve the union of a man and a woman where a man and a man wouldn't be similarly approved.
After that, the actual issue of marriage is left to the institution that invented the conceit in the first place: churches. Churches can continue to bless those unions that they always have, or expand their repertoire if they choose. Straight people who disagree with gay marriage can find a church that doesn't perform them, and gay people who want to enjoy the same blessings that straight people do need only find a cleric to distribute them. Protection of the sanctity of marriage is thus returned to the only entity actually capable of sanctifying things in the first place: God.
Straight people, get the hell over yourself.
God.
I covered this back in 2004, back before Amendment One was passed, and I know I haven't been silent about it since. But it's never a bad idea to revisit, to elucidate, to lay things out in easy-to-digest bullet points. So why not?
Straight people are a threat to straight marriage. Kevin Federline is a threat to straight marriage. Angelina Jolie (bless her boobs) is a threat to straight marriage. Elton John? He's a threaten to good fashion sense, sure, but I don't think his union is the one that's crushing America's traditional morality under the wedge heel of his silver-embellished, diamond-encrusted platform boot. Dear friend Evan proposed that the only legislation sure to protect the sanctity of marriage would outlaw celebrity marriage; I have to agree.
Gay people are not a threat to straight marriage. The fact that my dog breathes oxygen is no threat to human respiration. The fact that my fish sits in a lovely bowl on the counter is no threat to our waterways. You know what does threaten human respiration? Pollution. Man-made pollution. If humans are worried about being able to breathe, maybe we need to stop spitting carcinogens into the air, and if we're worried about being married, maybe we need to stop spewing crap into our own marriages.
The government needs to stay the hell out of marriage. Controversial, I know. Here's my take: Most marriages have both a religious and a civil component. First, you go to the courthouse to get your marriage license and prove to the state that you're not trying to marry your sister (not applicable in the state of Kentucky). Then, you go to the church/temple/beach/sylvan glade/Elvis chapel, and the priest/rabbi/minister/moon priestess/King confers the blessings of a given deity on your union.
Some marriages don't both with both components. I could easily find myself a consort and drag him to a Justice of the Peace for a marriage that would be recognized by the state but not (necessarily) the Catholic church. Alternately, I could drag the same poor sclub before my friend Sam, an ordained minister in the Universal Life Church, but without a marriage license, our marriage wouldn't be recognized by the state.
I think that if we want to reform marriage, we need to get the government out of it entirely. Yes, the state does have some interest in civil unions, in terms of taxes and children and partner rights, but that's as far as it needs to go: civil union. The interests of the state hold regardless of the genders of the people being united. If a couple is prepared to live in such a way that those interests are sustained, the state has no reason to approve the union of a man and a woman where a man and a man wouldn't be similarly approved.
After that, the actual issue of marriage is left to the institution that invented the conceit in the first place: churches. Churches can continue to bless those unions that they always have, or expand their repertoire if they choose. Straight people who disagree with gay marriage can find a church that doesn't perform them, and gay people who want to enjoy the same blessings that straight people do need only find a cleric to distribute them. Protection of the sanctity of marriage is thus returned to the only entity actually capable of sanctifying things in the first place: God.
On gays settlin' down: Part One of Two
Okay, so Georgia's gay marriage ban was voided Tuesday when a Superior Court judge found it in violation of the "single-subject" rule. Amendments to the state constitution can only address one subject at a time, and Judge Constance Russell found that the amendment in question tries to address both gay marriage and civil union.
We'll set aside for the moment that experts were predicting this very controversy when the amendment was propsed back in 2004. Now, the people are up in arms that Judge Russell should overturn legislation that passed so overwhelmingly. This "activist judge" is denying the will of the people, they're saying. The voters of Georgia have declared that they don't want gays settlin' down, and so it's Judge Russell's job to keep gays from settlin' down.
Even, apparently, if it's unconstitutional.
There seems to be a growing sense of rule by fiat in the country. The Will of the People is paramount, and nothing, not rule of law, not longstanding constitutional amendment, can keep it from being honored. We want national security, and if that can only happen in violation of the Fourth Amendment, so be it. We want an amendment against gays settlin' down, and whether or not that amendment has been passed in accordance with the state constitution, we're going to get one.
It's that accordance with the Constitution thing that's the rub. Both the state and federal constitution have been passed to, more than anything else, guarantee the rights of the people and, in some cases, protect them from the government's everpresent potential for tyranny. The rules laid out by the Constitution(s) force the government to follow certain procedures before moving in on the rights of the people, whether by physically placing a tap on a phone or searching a house or by passing laws limiting the rights of the populus.
It's easy to dismiss those rules when they're affecting someone else. When your phone isn't being tapped ("I have nothing to hide!") and your relationship is unthreatened ("Sanctity of marriage!"), it's easy to brush aside the legalities.
But when your own rights are in danger, it's a lot easier to get excited. Take, for instance, the ongoing debate over the Second Amendment. At any given point, both state and federal legislation is in the works that might threaten a person's unlimited right to bear arms. Some of it is well-conceived; some of it isn't. Some of it is constitutional; some of it isn't. But lobbyists on both sides of the issue fight passionately in support of their position.
No matter the subject, a law's only defense is it constitutionality. Rules must be followed. I's must be dotted and T's must be crossed. A "good" law (and in most cases, "good" is merely a point of view) is only as strong as its writing. A good law, like a good house, has to be built on a strong foundation, and if it isn't, it's just as unlikely to afford protection.
Whether or not the gay marriage amendment is a good one, it's worthless if it doesn't abide by the rules laid out in the state constitution. Whether or not Judge Russell is an activist, she's a judge, with an extensive education and experience in the law, and she's doing you a favor. If the people of Georgia want to keep gay marriage settlin' down, they'll vote for it now the way they voted for is in 2004. But what they vote on has to be constitutional.
We'll set aside for the moment that experts were predicting this very controversy when the amendment was propsed back in 2004. Now, the people are up in arms that Judge Russell should overturn legislation that passed so overwhelmingly. This "activist judge" is denying the will of the people, they're saying. The voters of Georgia have declared that they don't want gays settlin' down, and so it's Judge Russell's job to keep gays from settlin' down.
Even, apparently, if it's unconstitutional.
There seems to be a growing sense of rule by fiat in the country. The Will of the People is paramount, and nothing, not rule of law, not longstanding constitutional amendment, can keep it from being honored. We want national security, and if that can only happen in violation of the Fourth Amendment, so be it. We want an amendment against gays settlin' down, and whether or not that amendment has been passed in accordance with the state constitution, we're going to get one.
It's that accordance with the Constitution thing that's the rub. Both the state and federal constitution have been passed to, more than anything else, guarantee the rights of the people and, in some cases, protect them from the government's everpresent potential for tyranny. The rules laid out by the Constitution(s) force the government to follow certain procedures before moving in on the rights of the people, whether by physically placing a tap on a phone or searching a house or by passing laws limiting the rights of the populus.
It's easy to dismiss those rules when they're affecting someone else. When your phone isn't being tapped ("I have nothing to hide!") and your relationship is unthreatened ("Sanctity of marriage!"), it's easy to brush aside the legalities.
But when your own rights are in danger, it's a lot easier to get excited. Take, for instance, the ongoing debate over the Second Amendment. At any given point, both state and federal legislation is in the works that might threaten a person's unlimited right to bear arms. Some of it is well-conceived; some of it isn't. Some of it is constitutional; some of it isn't. But lobbyists on both sides of the issue fight passionately in support of their position.
No matter the subject, a law's only defense is it constitutionality. Rules must be followed. I's must be dotted and T's must be crossed. A "good" law (and in most cases, "good" is merely a point of view) is only as strong as its writing. A good law, like a good house, has to be built on a strong foundation, and if it isn't, it's just as unlikely to afford protection.
Whether or not the gay marriage amendment is a good one, it's worthless if it doesn't abide by the rules laid out in the state constitution. Whether or not Judge Russell is an activist, she's a judge, with an extensive education and experience in the law, and she's doing you a favor. If the people of Georgia want to keep gay marriage settlin' down, they'll vote for it now the way they voted for is in 2004. But what they vote on has to be constitutional.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
On things that, unsurprisingly, continue to fall
Okay, so we were all disappointed (in the sense of being not terribly surprised and, for that matter, not terribly disappointed) when President Bush spoiled our gamble-y fun by dropping to a 29 percent approval rating mere days after the launch of a betting pool that didn't have him doing that for another week.
Well, screw that. Per the suggestion of Bill-once-but-no-longer-in-Johnson-City's suggestion, we're shifting the target from a sub-30 percent approval to the Nixonian low of 27 percent (you're right, Bill, that's a really satisfying word. "Nixonian." Love it).
Doug has called May 22, and Brian has taken what appears to be the safe road and gone for this Thursday, May 18. Bill's down for May 19. Feel free to stick with your old guess or leave a new one in comments, and I swear that if Bush hits 27 before tomorrow afternoon, there will be much drinking in the Practically Harmless household.
Well, screw that. Per the suggestion of Bill-once-but-no-longer-in-Johnson-City's suggestion, we're shifting the target from a sub-30 percent approval to the Nixonian low of 27 percent (you're right, Bill, that's a really satisfying word. "Nixonian." Love it).
Doug has called May 22, and Brian has taken what appears to be the safe road and gone for this Thursday, May 18. Bill's down for May 19. Feel free to stick with your old guess or leave a new one in comments, and I swear that if Bush hits 27 before tomorrow afternoon, there will be much drinking in the Practically Harmless household.
Friday, May 12, 2006
On George W. Bush: This Is Your Soundtrack. Again.
Okay, so it's just like George Bush to ruin our fun. For those of you participating in our Things That Fall Betting Pool, the good money, it appears, was on May 11. Courtesy of Bill in Portland Maine at Daily Kos, we have Harris Interactive news that a whopping 29 percent of Americans approve of the way that Bush does his job, and that 69 percent feel that "things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track."
Yeesh.
I'll consider Bill (in Johnson City, Tennessee)'s suggestion of re-launching the pool to guess when Bush's approval rating will match the Nixonian record of 27 percent. In the meantime, this Friday Not-Even-Random Ten goes out to our president, George W. Bush, warmonger, eavesdropper, brush cutter, buzzkill.
The Ten:
1. Guster, "Parachute"
2. Dave Matthews Band, "Let You Down"
3. Arlington Priest, "The Stone"
4. Shirley Bassey, "Don't Rain on My Parade"
5. Madonna, "Rain"
6. Bananarama, "Cruel Summer"
7. Diana Krall, "How Deep Is the Ocean"
8. Norah Jones, "One Flight Down"
9. Dido, "Slide"
10. Alicia Keys, "Fallin'"
Your Ten, or whatever, go below.
Yeesh.
I'll consider Bill (in Johnson City, Tennessee)'s suggestion of re-launching the pool to guess when Bush's approval rating will match the Nixonian record of 27 percent. In the meantime, this Friday Not-Even-Random Ten goes out to our president, George W. Bush, warmonger, eavesdropper, brush cutter, buzzkill.
The Ten:
1. Guster, "Parachute"
2. Dave Matthews Band, "Let You Down"
3. Arlington Priest, "The Stone"
4. Shirley Bassey, "Don't Rain on My Parade"
5. Madonna, "Rain"
6. Bananarama, "Cruel Summer"
7. Diana Krall, "How Deep Is the Ocean"
8. Norah Jones, "One Flight Down"
9. Dido, "Slide"
10. Alicia Keys, "Fallin'"
Your Ten, or whatever, go below.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
On things that fall
Okay, so before you read this, go into the nearest bathroom, stare yourself down in the mirror, and do a good minute or so of facial stretches and exercises. Big face, little face. Big face, little face. Half a dozen times. I'll wait.
Done? Great. It's very important that you stretch appropriately before attempting the kind of shocked expression necessary to respond to the following news: George Bush's approval rating has dropped below freezing.
Yeah, I know. Take a minute to compose yourself. Then, behold the trends, if you're a trend person (and who isn't, these days?). Or, alternately, if you're a visual person, take a gander at this'n:
Yeeeah. When I say "Ouch," I mean it in just a little bit of a schadenfreude-y way. And it's schadenfreude not because I have such severe dislike of Bush, because I actually don't (ask my about my lack of abject hatred for our commander in chief), but because I told you so. I did. I told you and I told you and I told you and I told you, and you were all, like, "Well, John Kerry looks like a horse, so meh," and now look what you've done.
Whew. Ahem.
Anyway, that's water under the bridge. What's important now is that y'all have learned your lesson (about six years too late, but whatever), and it's showing in the polls (not that they really mean anything at this point, but whatever again). Per CBS and the New York Times, as linked above, Bush's approval rating has gone from 42 percent at the end of January to 34 percent at the end of February to 33 percent at the end of April, and, well, here we are.
Unfortunately, traditional betting pools don't work too well over the Internet, if only because collecting a dollar per square from a guy in Kuala Lumpur is an absolute bitch. So we're going to make it a little more simple: Pick the day when you think that President Bush's approval rating will first duck below 30 percent, and leave it in comments. Whoever gets within two days on either side of the actual event wins his or her choice of Flying Spaghetti Monster apparel from CafePress, courtesy of your friendly neighborhood blogger.
See below for official rules. No purchase necessary. Many will enter, few will win.
Selection of dates is first-come, first-served. Dates available will fall in the two-month period between today (May 10, 2006) and July 10, 2006. In the event of a tie, the contestant who picks the closest day before the event in question will be declared the winner. Declaration of winners and distribution of prizes is entirely at the discretion of management. Not applicable in conjunction with any other offer. If a rash appears, immediately discontinue use and contact your physician. Do not use while driving or operating heavy machinery. Swim at your own risk.
Done? Great. It's very important that you stretch appropriately before attempting the kind of shocked expression necessary to respond to the following news: George Bush's approval rating has dropped below freezing.
Yeah, I know. Take a minute to compose yourself. Then, behold the trends, if you're a trend person (and who isn't, these days?). Or, alternately, if you're a visual person, take a gander at this'n:
Yeeeah. When I say "Ouch," I mean it in just a little bit of a schadenfreude-y way. And it's schadenfreude not because I have such severe dislike of Bush, because I actually don't (ask my about my lack of abject hatred for our commander in chief), but because I told you so. I did. I told you and I told you and I told you and I told you, and you were all, like, "Well, John Kerry looks like a horse, so meh," and now look what you've done.
Whew. Ahem.
Anyway, that's water under the bridge. What's important now is that y'all have learned your lesson (about six years too late, but whatever), and it's showing in the polls (not that they really mean anything at this point, but whatever again). Per CBS and the New York Times, as linked above, Bush's approval rating has gone from 42 percent at the end of January to 34 percent at the end of February to 33 percent at the end of April, and, well, here we are.
Unfortunately, traditional betting pools don't work too well over the Internet, if only because collecting a dollar per square from a guy in Kuala Lumpur is an absolute bitch. So we're going to make it a little more simple: Pick the day when you think that President Bush's approval rating will first duck below 30 percent, and leave it in comments. Whoever gets within two days on either side of the actual event wins his or her choice of Flying Spaghetti Monster apparel from CafePress, courtesy of your friendly neighborhood blogger.
See below for official rules. No purchase necessary. Many will enter, few will win.
Selection of dates is first-come, first-served. Dates available will fall in the two-month period between today (May 10, 2006) and July 10, 2006. In the event of a tie, the contestant who picks the closest day before the event in question will be declared the winner. Declaration of winners and distribution of prizes is entirely at the discretion of management. Not applicable in conjunction with any other offer. If a rash appears, immediately discontinue use and contact your physician. Do not use while driving or operating heavy machinery. Swim at your own risk.
On obnoxious bleating
Okay, so this post actually has nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or the Republican National Committee. No, it has to do with cars, and with ads. Specifically, with car ads. Specifically, this car ad, which I've heard best described as "morse code spasmed and seizured and coughed up this ass-basket of a song."
"Ass-basket." Must write down for future use.
Anyway, this one is worth an open letter.
Dear heartless bastards at JWT,
You have made the world a worse place. Because of a choice you made, the world as a whole is ever-so-slightly less bright, less pleasant, and the English-speaking, television-watching world may never recover.
I understand that it's hard to resist when a pretty blonde girl sends you a copy of her song. I'm sure your first reaction was, "Ooh, pretty blonde girl, song about driving. Awesome!" However, upon actually listening to the song and realizing that it sounded rather like a duck being raked across a cheese grater, your reaction should have been to throw the CD with great force into the nearest incinerator. No, sirs, not trash can - incinerator. Such things cannot be allowed continued existence.
Instead, though, you went completely in the other direction and made an ad out of it. This is unforgivable. The song is heinous. It's obnoxious. The lead singer's voice makes my eardrums actually spasm, resulting in a strange vibrating sensation in the side of my head and a sound kind of like a helicopter in a Vietnam War movie, which is unpleasant but thankfully drowns out the sound of the ad. I have no choice but to boycott not only Ford, but also your other clients, including Kraft, Estee Lauder, Nestle and Pfizer, until this monstrosity is taken off the air (I will continue to patronize Cadbury and Smirnoff as a show of good faith).
The band has been compared to "the B-52s on a gallon of espresso." This is because they made the comparison themselves; no reaonably intelligent ten-year-old would make the same mistake. I'd be more likely to compare it to the time when I was eleven and my friend Allie and I decided to make our own radio show using the intercom in our house. As is obvious from watching the ad, the band desperately hopes they look and sound like the B-52s, much in the same way that I desperately hope that I look like Charlize Theron when I wake up in the morning.
Lead singer Cheri D has said, "We want it [the song] to lead to a big shiny bus so we can go all over the USA and beep for everybody." Heartless bastards at JWT, only you can keep this from happening. Pull the ad. Pull the ad.
Pull the ad.
Every time that horrendous bleating wakes my dog from a sound sleep, I curse you by name.
Much love,
ACG
"Ass-basket." Must write down for future use.
Anyway, this one is worth an open letter.
Dear heartless bastards at JWT,
You have made the world a worse place. Because of a choice you made, the world as a whole is ever-so-slightly less bright, less pleasant, and the English-speaking, television-watching world may never recover.
I understand that it's hard to resist when a pretty blonde girl sends you a copy of her song. I'm sure your first reaction was, "Ooh, pretty blonde girl, song about driving. Awesome!" However, upon actually listening to the song and realizing that it sounded rather like a duck being raked across a cheese grater, your reaction should have been to throw the CD with great force into the nearest incinerator. No, sirs, not trash can - incinerator. Such things cannot be allowed continued existence.
Instead, though, you went completely in the other direction and made an ad out of it. This is unforgivable. The song is heinous. It's obnoxious. The lead singer's voice makes my eardrums actually spasm, resulting in a strange vibrating sensation in the side of my head and a sound kind of like a helicopter in a Vietnam War movie, which is unpleasant but thankfully drowns out the sound of the ad. I have no choice but to boycott not only Ford, but also your other clients, including Kraft, Estee Lauder, Nestle and Pfizer, until this monstrosity is taken off the air (I will continue to patronize Cadbury and Smirnoff as a show of good faith).
The band has been compared to "the B-52s on a gallon of espresso." This is because they made the comparison themselves; no reaonably intelligent ten-year-old would make the same mistake. I'd be more likely to compare it to the time when I was eleven and my friend Allie and I decided to make our own radio show using the intercom in our house. As is obvious from watching the ad, the band desperately hopes they look and sound like the B-52s, much in the same way that I desperately hope that I look like Charlize Theron when I wake up in the morning.
Lead singer Cheri D has said, "We want it [the song] to lead to a big shiny bus so we can go all over the USA and beep for everybody." Heartless bastards at JWT, only you can keep this from happening. Pull the ad. Pull the ad.
Pull the ad.
Every time that horrendous bleating wakes my dog from a sound sleep, I curse you by name.
Much love,
ACG
Friday, May 05, 2006
On Zacarias Moussaoui: This Is Your Soundtrack
Okay, so 9/11 conspirator and general failure both as a terrorist and as a human being Zacarias Moussaoui got life in prison instead of death, and he seems to think he's won something.
The Friday Not-Even-Random Ten disagrees:
1. Elvis, "Jailhouse Rock"
2. Shania Twain, "Man! I Feel Like a Woman"
3. Switchfoot, "This Is Your Life"
4. White Town, "Your Woman"
5. Johnny Cash, "Folsom Prison Blues"
6. The Temptations, "Treat Her Like a Lady"
7. Dave Matthews Band, "Cry Freedom"
8. Vertical Horizon, "Shackled"
9. Guster, "What You Wish For"
10. Beck, "Loser"
Your stuff goes in comments.
The Friday Not-Even-Random Ten disagrees:
1. Elvis, "Jailhouse Rock"
2. Shania Twain, "Man! I Feel Like a Woman"
3. Switchfoot, "This Is Your Life"
4. White Town, "Your Woman"
5. Johnny Cash, "Folsom Prison Blues"
6. The Temptations, "Treat Her Like a Lady"
7. Dave Matthews Band, "Cry Freedom"
8. Vertical Horizon, "Shackled"
9. Guster, "What You Wish For"
10. Beck, "Loser"
Your stuff goes in comments.
On things that are, apparently, not funny
Okay, so normally, I wouldn't really care what Richard Cohen has to say about Stephen Colbert. The latter is about twenty times funnier than the former, and better looking to boot. But Cohen just happens to be syndicated in the AJC, and I just happened to read him over my Cheerios this morning, and now here I am.
Yeah, but looks aren't everything.
And, judging from this column, it really, really can't. But I'm glad his fourth-grade classmates thought he was such a hoot.
Thanks for the warning.
I totally agree. It would have been one thing if Bush had shown up at the Correspondents' Association Dinner with the knowledge that, at such dinners, fun is usually poked at the president. Or if, say, he'd shown up with his very own Dubya impersonator to poke fun at himself. But to take the piss out of our president when all he wanted in the world was a dry chicken breast and a glass of sub-par Chardonnay? That's unthinkable.
I will admit, I find Bush's approval rating terribly unfunny.
Our president's inability to Scotch-tape together a cohesive sentence? Also unfunny.
It's a good thing Colbert's entire schtick doesn't center around mixed metaphors and malapropisms. It's also good that he hasn't developed a character whose entire appeal arises from his grandiosity and unselfconscious faux-intellectualism. 'Cause Richard Cohen says that that's not funny, and Richard Cohen knows from funny.
So remember, folks: if you tell the truth, but you don't get fired for it, it's actually lies. Lies, all lies.
A bully! Oh, noes! Our poor, defenseless president, who only has the executive branch, the judicial branch and both houses of Congress to back him up. Sending tens of thousands of troops off to get maimed and killed in a war over WMD that didn't actually exist, giving government subsidies to oil companies that have been dragging in record profits month after month after month and wiretapping American citizens without benefit of a warrant in direct violation of the Constitution are no reason for ridicule! Poor schnookums.
Oh, don't tell me...
... Ouch. Invitation get "lost in the mail," Cohen?
I hear that joked killed back in fourth grade.
I think we'd all love for Bush to take some time off next year. Say, maybe, the whole year. But I think that encouraging Bush to puss out on the Correspondents' Association Dinner because they's all mean and hurt his fee-fees isn't going to do much for his approval rating (which we know to be in the 30s, because Colbert spoke truth to power).
Whereas Bill O'Reilly leaves himself open to taunts from a diverse audience and suffers the slings and arrows like a brave little soldier. And I understand that Days Of Our Lives often films live before an audience of Guiding Light fans, just to keep them on their toes.
I know that George Carlin's political commentary is what's kept him in high heels for decades now. Let this serve as a warning to all up-and-coming comedians: Your act can't be funny if it isn't educational. Remember to tell your audience things that they need to hear, unless you're saying things that they need to hear that might offend the sitting president of the United States.
Maybe they were alienated by his unfunniness. Maybe they were alienated by the fact that he took them to task about as solidly as he did the president. I suppose we'll never know.
And, in retaliation, neither was Cohen.
First, let me state my credentials: I am a funny guy.
Yeah, but looks aren't everything.
This is well known in certain circles, which is why, even back in elementary school, I was sometimes asked by the teacher to "say something funny" -- as if the deed could be done on demand.
And, judging from this column, it really, really can't. But I'm glad his fourth-grade classmates thought he was such a hoot.
This, anyway, is my standing for stating that Stephen Colbert was not funny at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. All the rest is commentary.
Thanks for the warning.
The commentary, though, is also what I do, and it will make the point that Colbert was not just a failure as a comedian but rude. Rude is not the same as brash. It is not the same as brassy. It is not the same as gutsy or thinking outside the box. Rudeness means taking advantage of the other person's sense of decorum or tradition or civility that keeps that other person from striking back or, worse, rising in a huff and leaving. The other night, that person was George W. Bush.
I totally agree. It would have been one thing if Bush had shown up at the Correspondents' Association Dinner with the knowledge that, at such dinners, fun is usually poked at the president. Or if, say, he'd shown up with his very own Dubya impersonator to poke fun at himself. But to take the piss out of our president when all he wanted in the world was a dry chicken breast and a glass of sub-par Chardonnay? That's unthinkable.
Colbert made jokes about Bush's approval rating, which hovers in the middle 30s.
I will admit, I find Bush's approval rating terribly unfunny.
He made jokes about Bush's intelligence, mockingly comparing it to his own. "We're not some brainiacs on nerd patrol," he said. Boy, that's funny.
Our president's inability to Scotch-tape together a cohesive sentence? Also unfunny.
Colbert took a swipe at Bush's Iraq policy, at domestic eavesdropping, and he took a shot at the news corps for purportedly being nothing more than stenographers recording what the Bush White House said. He referred to the recent staff changes at the White House, chiding the media for supposedly repeating the cliche "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" when he would have put it differently: "This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring. If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg." A mixed metaphor, and lame as can be.
It's a good thing Colbert's entire schtick doesn't center around mixed metaphors and malapropisms. It's also good that he hasn't developed a character whose entire appeal arises from his grandiosity and unselfconscious faux-intellectualism. 'Cause Richard Cohen says that that's not funny, and Richard Cohen knows from funny.
Why are you wasting my time with Colbert, I hear you ask. Because he is representative of what too often passes for political courage, not to mention wit, in this country. His defenders -- and they are all over the blogosphere -- will tell you he spoke truth to power. This is a tired phrase, as we all know, but when it was fresh and meaningful it suggested repercussions, consequences -- maybe even death in some countries. When you spoke truth to power you took the distinct chance that power would smite you, toss you into a dungeon or -- if you're at work -- take away your office.
So remember, folks: if you tell the truth, but you don't get fired for it, it's actually lies. Lies, all lies.
But in this country, anyone can insult the president of the United States. Colbert just did it, and he will not suffer any consequence at all. He knew that going in. He also knew that Bush would have to sit there and pretend to laugh at Colbert's lame and insulting jokes. Bush himself plays off his reputation as a dunce and his penchant for mangling English. Self-mockery can be funny. Mockery that is insulting is not. The sort of stuff that would get you punched in a bar can be said on a dais with impunity. This is why Colbert was more than rude. He was a bully.
A bully! Oh, noes! Our poor, defenseless president, who only has the executive branch, the judicial branch and both houses of Congress to back him up. Sending tens of thousands of troops off to get maimed and killed in a war over WMD that didn't actually exist, giving government subsidies to oil companies that have been dragging in record profits month after month after month and wiretapping American citizens without benefit of a warrant in direct violation of the Constitution are no reason for ridicule! Poor schnookums.
I am not a member of the White House Correspondents' Association,
Oh, don't tell me...
and I have not attended its dinner in years (I watched this year's on C-SPAN).
... Ouch. Invitation get "lost in the mail," Cohen?
The gala is an essentially harmless event that requires the presence of one man, the president. If presidents started not to show up, the organization would have to transform itself into a burial association.
I hear that joked killed back in fourth grade.
But presidents come and suffer through a ritual that most of them find mildly painful, not to mention boring. Whatever the case, they are guests. They don't have to be there -- and if I were Bush, next year I would not. Spring is a marvelous time to be at Camp David.
I think we'd all love for Bush to take some time off next year. Say, maybe, the whole year. But I think that encouraging Bush to puss out on the Correspondents' Association Dinner because they's all mean and hurt his fee-fees isn't going to do much for his approval rating (which we know to be in the 30s, because Colbert spoke truth to power).
On television, Colbert is often funny. But on his own show he appeals to a self-selected audience that reminds him often of his greatness.
Whereas Bill O'Reilly leaves himself open to taunts from a diverse audience and suffers the slings and arrows like a brave little soldier. And I understand that Days Of Our Lives often films live before an audience of Guiding Light fans, just to keep them on their toes.
In Washington he was playing to a different crowd, and he failed dismally in the funny person's most solemn obligation: to use absurdity or contrast or hyperbole to elucidate -- to make people see things a little bit differently. He had a chance to tell the president and much of important (and self-important) Washington things it would have been good for them to hear.
I know that George Carlin's political commentary is what's kept him in high heels for decades now. Let this serve as a warning to all up-and-coming comedians: Your act can't be funny if it isn't educational. Remember to tell your audience things that they need to hear, unless you're saying things that they need to hear that might offend the sitting president of the United States.
But he was, like much of the blogosphere itself, telling like-minded people what they already know and alienating all the others. In this sense, he was a man for our times.
Maybe they were alienated by his unfunniness. Maybe they were alienated by the fact that he took them to task about as solidly as he did the president. I suppose we'll never know.
He also wasn't funny.
And, in retaliation, neither was Cohen.
On winners and losers
Okay, so headlines all across America said it yesterday: "America, you lost!... I won!" This was the response from Zacarias Moussaoui to a jury's decision to recommend life in prison rather than the death penalty for his role in the 9/11 attacks.
Now, far be it from me to contradict the esteemed deranged terrorist loony, but I must disagree.
Mr. Moussaoui,
You seem to be under the impression that you've won something because the jury decided to let you rot in a federal prison rather than granting you the martyrdom that you've been gagging for since the 9/11 attacks were in the planning stages. Allow me to correct you on a few points.
First of all, let me remind you that even the jury could tell you were little more than a "bit player" in the attacks on September 11. If I recall correctly, al-Qaeda didn't even want you on the planes that day; they tucked you away for another attack later on down the line. Sure. Another attack. A later attack. Did you really believe that when they said it to you? Have you seen American Dreamz?
But let's go ahead and assume that there really was a subsequent attack planned, and that Osama bin Laden wasn't just trying to get you out of the way so he could carry off his terror attack without your Three-Stooges-esque incompetence screwing things up. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you really did have an attack of your own to carry out. How'd that work out for you? I don't seem to recall further fear, bloodshed or loss of life in the months following 9/11, and that might just be because you got caught. You killed no one. You got the attention of no one. You struck fear into the hearts of no one. The sole purpose of a terrorist is to instill others with terror; what do we call a terrorist who couldn't terrorize the binky out of a two-year-old? A loser.
So that's pretty much where you stand, Zack. No martyrdom. No virgins. No fame, no terror. Your name will become a footnote in a textbook, forever preserved in history as a guy who didn't blow up so much as a Ruby Tuesday's. All you've won is a lifelong hitch in Florence, Colorado, a soundproof cell in the "Alcatraz of the Rockies," where you'll disappear and be forgotten just as easily as that terror attack you failed to pull off. And when some three-hundred-pound bald man named Tiny is making you his woman, I hope you'll be able to yell, "You lost! I won!" and I hope it'll give you some comfort.
Putz.
Much love,
ACG
Now, far be it from me to contradict the esteemed deranged terrorist loony, but I must disagree.
Mr. Moussaoui,
You seem to be under the impression that you've won something because the jury decided to let you rot in a federal prison rather than granting you the martyrdom that you've been gagging for since the 9/11 attacks were in the planning stages. Allow me to correct you on a few points.
First of all, let me remind you that even the jury could tell you were little more than a "bit player" in the attacks on September 11. If I recall correctly, al-Qaeda didn't even want you on the planes that day; they tucked you away for another attack later on down the line. Sure. Another attack. A later attack. Did you really believe that when they said it to you? Have you seen American Dreamz?
But let's go ahead and assume that there really was a subsequent attack planned, and that Osama bin Laden wasn't just trying to get you out of the way so he could carry off his terror attack without your Three-Stooges-esque incompetence screwing things up. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you really did have an attack of your own to carry out. How'd that work out for you? I don't seem to recall further fear, bloodshed or loss of life in the months following 9/11, and that might just be because you got caught. You killed no one. You got the attention of no one. You struck fear into the hearts of no one. The sole purpose of a terrorist is to instill others with terror; what do we call a terrorist who couldn't terrorize the binky out of a two-year-old? A loser.
So that's pretty much where you stand, Zack. No martyrdom. No virgins. No fame, no terror. Your name will become a footnote in a textbook, forever preserved in history as a guy who didn't blow up so much as a Ruby Tuesday's. All you've won is a lifelong hitch in Florence, Colorado, a soundproof cell in the "Alcatraz of the Rockies," where you'll disappear and be forgotten just as easily as that terror attack you failed to pull off. And when some three-hundred-pound bald man named Tiny is making you his woman, I hope you'll be able to yell, "You lost! I won!" and I hope it'll give you some comfort.
Putz.
Much love,
ACG
Monday, May 01, 2006
On a day without immigrants
Okay, so today was officially a Day Without Immigrants, a day in which immigrants of all kinds, but particularly Hispanic/Latino immigrants, skipped work and, in many cases, marched to show the impact of immigrant labor on the US. Estimates put somewhere around 500,000 people rallying in Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York, plus smaller rallies in smaller towns all over the country.
Mike Collins, owner of 500 acres of Vidalia onions, found himself without 175 "seasonal laborers" today:
The pinch was also felt at food processing plants, nurseries (for plants and for babies), construction sites, and just about anywhere else immigrant labor is used. That is, for the record, just about everywhere. A counter-protester in Pensacola had this solution:
Which sounds like a brilliant idea, particularly this part:
Culberson: "take all of the welfare recipients who are taking a free check and make them do those jobs."
I have plenty of sympathy for anyone who's looking for a job and can't find one. I've been slogging through a rather depressed job market for a couple of years now, but I've got a college degree; a friend who is still working on her associate's degree has been looking for work on that end of the job market, and her struggle is even more emblematic of what many people are going through right now.
This friend, and I hope she won't mind me sharing just a bit of her story, was working toward her nursing degree when she had to put the entire process on hold to follow her brand-new husband to the other side of the country for Navy flight training. When he decided he didn't want to be an NFO after all, she followed him back across the country, and when he decided he didn't want to be married to her anymore, she found herself without a job (which she had given up when they moved), without a degree (which she had planned to complete as soon as The Bastard got his wings), and without the money to pay for health insurance, tuition, or rent.
Right now, she's living with her family, taking one or two classes at a time as she can afford them and trying to find a job that will allow her to be independent. The problem? Such jobs don't exist. A job seeker without a college degree can be a line cook, a construction worker, a mechanic at an oil change, a maid at a hotel. If an individual has a good command of the English language (and often even if they don't), telemarketing and customer service may be available. Some restaurants will take on wait staff without experience.
If these are the jobs that are available, why don't people on welfare take them? For the same reason that my friend is looking for something more: because a person can't live off of them. A minimum-wage job, paying $5.15 an hour, comes out to only $10,712 a year; some jobs make slightly more, and many food service jobs pay less. Supporting a family takes two or three of those jobs. Two or three of those jobs leave little to no time - or money - for education. No time or money for education means that a person is pretty much stuck where he or she is.
I suspect that Mike Collins isn't paying his "seasonal laborers" any kind of wage that my friend, or a welfare recipient, would accept for a full day of work. But a laborer who was used to even less money, not to mention worse living conditions, education, and healthcare back in his country of origin, would be more likely to take what he could get. If Mike Collins is allowed to pay sub-minimum wages to get his onions harvested, who is at fault: the laborers who accept what is offered, or Mike himself for using workers who are most likely undocumented rather than paying a living wage for a day's worth of labor?
The Day Without Immigrants underlined more than just the importance of an immigrant workforce to American society; it demonstrated just how many employers are willing to break the law by hiring undocumented workers and paying them next to nothing. An American that wishes to be illegal-immigrant-free has to also be willing to pay out the nose for their Vidalia onions. Immigrants will continue to, as one day laborer put it, "cross the border and cross a desert" for work as long as that work continues to be available. The crackdown on illegal immigration starts not with border security or deportation but with Mike Collins and anyone else who hires undocumented laborers.
Another important point to remember is that not all of the immigrants protesting today are undocumented; many documented immigrants took the day off to show solidarity. The proposed "compromise legislation" that passed in the Senate would have aided in legalizing many of the illegal immigrants by making them pay fines and back taxes, then guiding them through the entire immigration process. Many who object to the legislation call it amnesty, implying that a crime would go unpunished, which ignores the fact that the illegal (hoping to become legal) immigrants would be forced to pay a fine before going through the process legally. Anyone who objects to a worker accepting punishment for his crime and paying restitution before seeking citizenship through legal channels has something more than law and order on his mind. One could wonder what Jack Culberson would think of thirteen million hard-working documented immigrants taking jobs from welfare recipients, and whether he would feel any differently if said immigrants were slightly less tan.
Mike Collins, owner of 500 acres of Vidalia onions, found himself without 175 "seasonal laborers" today:
“We need to be going wide open this time of year to get these onions out of the field,” he said. “We’ve got orders to fill. Losing a day in this part of the season causes a tremendous amount of problems.”
The pinch was also felt at food processing plants, nurseries (for plants and for babies), construction sites, and just about anywhere else immigrant labor is used. That is, for the record, just about everywhere. A counter-protester in Pensacola had this solution:
“You should send all of the 13 million aliens home, then you take all of the welfare recipients who are taking a free check and make them do those jobs,” said Jack Culberson, a retired Army colonel who attended the Pensacola rally. “It’s as simple as that.”
Which sounds like a brilliant idea, particularly this part:
Culberson: "take all of the welfare recipients who are taking a free check and make them do those jobs."
I have plenty of sympathy for anyone who's looking for a job and can't find one. I've been slogging through a rather depressed job market for a couple of years now, but I've got a college degree; a friend who is still working on her associate's degree has been looking for work on that end of the job market, and her struggle is even more emblematic of what many people are going through right now.
This friend, and I hope she won't mind me sharing just a bit of her story, was working toward her nursing degree when she had to put the entire process on hold to follow her brand-new husband to the other side of the country for Navy flight training. When he decided he didn't want to be an NFO after all, she followed him back across the country, and when he decided he didn't want to be married to her anymore, she found herself without a job (which she had given up when they moved), without a degree (which she had planned to complete as soon as The Bastard got his wings), and without the money to pay for health insurance, tuition, or rent.
Right now, she's living with her family, taking one or two classes at a time as she can afford them and trying to find a job that will allow her to be independent. The problem? Such jobs don't exist. A job seeker without a college degree can be a line cook, a construction worker, a mechanic at an oil change, a maid at a hotel. If an individual has a good command of the English language (and often even if they don't), telemarketing and customer service may be available. Some restaurants will take on wait staff without experience.
If these are the jobs that are available, why don't people on welfare take them? For the same reason that my friend is looking for something more: because a person can't live off of them. A minimum-wage job, paying $5.15 an hour, comes out to only $10,712 a year; some jobs make slightly more, and many food service jobs pay less. Supporting a family takes two or three of those jobs. Two or three of those jobs leave little to no time - or money - for education. No time or money for education means that a person is pretty much stuck where he or she is.
I suspect that Mike Collins isn't paying his "seasonal laborers" any kind of wage that my friend, or a welfare recipient, would accept for a full day of work. But a laborer who was used to even less money, not to mention worse living conditions, education, and healthcare back in his country of origin, would be more likely to take what he could get. If Mike Collins is allowed to pay sub-minimum wages to get his onions harvested, who is at fault: the laborers who accept what is offered, or Mike himself for using workers who are most likely undocumented rather than paying a living wage for a day's worth of labor?
The Day Without Immigrants underlined more than just the importance of an immigrant workforce to American society; it demonstrated just how many employers are willing to break the law by hiring undocumented workers and paying them next to nothing. An American that wishes to be illegal-immigrant-free has to also be willing to pay out the nose for their Vidalia onions. Immigrants will continue to, as one day laborer put it, "cross the border and cross a desert" for work as long as that work continues to be available. The crackdown on illegal immigration starts not with border security or deportation but with Mike Collins and anyone else who hires undocumented laborers.
Another important point to remember is that not all of the immigrants protesting today are undocumented; many documented immigrants took the day off to show solidarity. The proposed "compromise legislation" that passed in the Senate would have aided in legalizing many of the illegal immigrants by making them pay fines and back taxes, then guiding them through the entire immigration process. Many who object to the legislation call it amnesty, implying that a crime would go unpunished, which ignores the fact that the illegal (hoping to become legal) immigrants would be forced to pay a fine before going through the process legally. Anyone who objects to a worker accepting punishment for his crime and paying restitution before seeking citizenship through legal channels has something more than law and order on his mind. One could wonder what Jack Culberson would think of thirteen million hard-working documented immigrants taking jobs from welfare recipients, and whether he would feel any differently if said immigrants were slightly less tan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)