On Lindsay Lohan's belated sentencing...

WWWhy?!--You know, when I looked at her vacant expression reacting to the California judge finally shutting her down (watching it without sound the first time, for yucks), I could see someone who wasn't comprehending how and why she got to the place she was at. Was she still drunk? Probably, since the army of pink elephants would eat her alive if she went cold turkey. Most of her current troubles emanate from drunk driving incidents from 2007, but she doesn't appear to have much of handle on things, and I'd assume she's found a way to keep snorting cocaine as well.

Yes, her attorney looked embarrassed. Her mother didn't even show this time. Imagine that.

This all just underscores my opposition to the very existence of child stars. Fine, you need a little kid in your film or movie--great--but the kid doesn't get an agent, doesn't get pushed into all kinds of roles and jobs constantly by their parents or guardians; they don't get treated like a tiny adult, and they don't become a public figure. Fame isn't good for a child during their development, let alone for a grown adult, especially when it comes very quickly. Regardless of how much their parents are paid, this is de facto child labor once it's gone too far. The industry itself is centrally to blame, but the parents have bought into it all. They've bought into the capitalist lie that the only thing that matters is money, success, and fame. But that doesn't excuse Ms. Lohan's actions...

When I looked at that vacant, astonished expression, I could only gasp as she was gasping: here's an individual who has very little concept of personal responsibility, I thought. It's terrible to have to say this in such an exploitative society about someone who is most certainly just another victim, but she's a douchebag. She has no excuse for her behavior as an adult driving drunk, not showing up to her adult job that pays many times more than the average American will ever make, as well as not appearing for her counseling sessions for alcoholism that's a mandatory part of her probation. In other words, she went on vacation and didn't go to a few of them--she didn't give a shit at the time. Remind you of any former presidents?

Not going to alcohol and drug counseling sessions is not a high crime, but there is a reason for our legal system and process, and it comes into play when individuals won't accept responsibility for their actions. Society--no matter how flawed--has to intervene. But Americans know that it's all about money in our legal system, just ask someone who lost. Indeed, it's all about money and influence, Lohan probably didn't have enough to get out of it like Paris Hilton and her pot bust (had she been black and female, as well as poor, it would have been another story), but that's not the point. The point is that Lohan broke reasonably established criminal law, has shown an inability or lack of desire to deal with her addiction(s), has shown herself to be a threat to others, and therefore, has to be dealt with by civil society.

All I can think of are her expressions at sentencing. There's no remorse in the footage, no concept that she's done something wrong. I agree that people deserve a second, maybe even a third chance, however, and that even at this point the star should be treated medically. I believe in rehabilitation, and so does the sentencing judge. The lack of any sense of responsibility is a hallmark of her affliction, but it's also an American one. We're willing to do a lot for money, for material items, for luxury, but we're not willing to take responsibility for it most of the time, never mind necessities. It's a problem and a tone that I believe is set by the uppermost echelons of American society, the bad example that rules over us all. It's time for a change, and that means accepting a lot of responsibilities we've been neglecting for far too long.

But nobody wants to take responsibility for their actions these days. Not the the politicians, not corporations like BP, and certainly not Lindsay Lohan or her family. Soon, it won't matter whether we want to or not.

"Expletive written on Lindsay Lohan's fingernail raises new questions," L.A. NOW/L.A. Times, 07.07.2010:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07/expletive-written-on-lindsay-lohans-fingernail-raises-new-questions-.html

Will we see Katrina II?

The Gulf Coast--I doubt it, there's too much to lose, but never count the GOP out for screw-ups, incompetence, and indifference for the lives of other Americans. But nature is going to do her do, whether we like it or not. This is comforting.

And isn't it lovely? Isn't it wonderful that Gloria Vanderbilt's love child Anderson Cooper is down in New Orleans, readied to report rumor-as-fact again so he can get another promotion to support his materialistic lifestyle? Who said good things don't come out of disasters? They were lying, but we're used to that here.

And isn't it comforting to know that no substantial upgrades or changes have been made to the levee system in New Orleans? Can you feel it? Can you feel that American can-do spirit? I sure can, and I love it, I feel proud!!

And imagine all of the would-be documentarians out there with their HD video-cameras, poised to record more of the disintegration of America, and maybe not making a truckload of money like the producers and distributors who sell the cable rights and the DVDs, mind you, but having something kick-ass on their infotainment and McBlogger™ resumes?

No, it's a great time to be an American, especially if you have those really big-stilts and those boots to walk over the top of the wreckage. Harry Shearer, I share your angst.

Yes, there's a spirit in the air, alright...and it's time to call-in an exorcist, pronto, shit!

[Ed.--Some jackass commenter named "Anonymous" has suggested that I'm being "untruthful" in calling Cooper Gloria Vanderbilt's "love child," that he was actually born in-wedlock...as though I care about such trivialities. Right, he was born in-wedlock, but he's still a stupid, over-ambitious moronic bastard. Big deal.]

Exploiting our victims: CNN's "Youssef"

CNN--There are no words for how despicable and misguided all of the coverage surrounding this poor little Iraqi boy has been. It's just another humiliating illustration of how sick and indifferent our culture is at this particular historical moment. This is nothing new.

In 1906, we were finishing a similar act of aggression in the Philippines, murdering tens-of-thousands of human beings there so that the Navy could have a refueling station in the Pacific.

In a war of aggression, it's understood in the codes of the Geneva Conventions (beginning in 1928 with President Coolidge's and the Senate's ratification of the Kellogg-Briand Pact) and other areas of international law that an aggressor is responsible for children like Youssif. For some reason, Americans haven't been properly educated about the fact that any deaths or injuries following an illegal invasion are the fault and responsibility of the aggressor nation.

Regarding the invasion and occupation of Iraq (and Afghanistan), we are the aggressors with no legal merit to our reasoning for the attacks. We did this to little Youssef. It doesn't matter if a militia of Shia, Sunni, Syrians, Iranians, or even Bedouins, set-fire to him. It's nobody else's fault but America's. CNN and the rest of the mainstream media carried the water for the Bush administration and banged the drums of war loudly for the interests who wanted the invasion.

This is to their eternal shame, and they now appear to be showing signs of cracking-up from the guilt...in little Youssef. Notice that it's OK to show someone like Youssef and their scars if it has a propaganda value. If it was just framed as something we did to him--which it was patently not in the CNN story--it might be noble, but this is far from that. How many tens-of-thousands of "Youssefs" are there in Iraq and the region who bear scars from our aggressions? Surely, it's staggering and creating another generation of future "terrorists." An historical example is necessary.

Imagine Youssef that was a grocer's son in Chicago during the 1930s. Youssef's father is attacked and intimidated by a gang that has taken-over their neighborhood, and they want protection money or they're going to torch their home and their business. Youssef's father declines paying these extortionists and the gang eventually firebombs the grocery store, causing the same injuries to him that we see in our current real world example.

But the gang doesn't stop there--they're afraid of looking too bad, and too dangerous, so they pay for Youseff's hospital bills while the cameras are rolling, and while the press is swallowing the lie out of fear. The thugs never return to torment Youssef and his family, but the damage has already been done.

This is the essence of the term "corruption," the destruction and liquefaction of human bodies for the enrichment of criminals. Welcome to Iraq, welcome to hell, we are that gang. We learned the lessons of Vietnam alright: hide the victims, even if it's necessary to hide them in-plain-sight.

CNN on August 23rd: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/23/iraq.boyfolo/index.html