Sears, RIP

Who woulda thunk that once a libertarian hedge fund manager took over at the venerable American chain, applying his dumbo dinosaur ideology to the place (important note: make all of your employees who formerly worked together to make a business a success turn on each other, crucial, really...) would destroy it rapidly? 

The genius just had to "loan" Sears $400 million to save face, and now, now, Sears has posted a "dinner ring" with a swastika on it. My grandfather is turning in his grave, right now.

Upcoming Book Contest & Other issues from the flesh

I haven’t worked out all of the particulars yet, but I’ve set aside a few copies of the book for later. As you might have expected, I’m not making the parameters effortless, or easy for the contest. There will be a few hoops, but the winners will receive a free signed (as opposed to singed, what some of Palfrey’s former clients probably want) copy of the book, and my blessing, the latter of which means absolutely nothing whatsoever. Anyone capable of proving the DC Madam doesn’t need anything from me, not that I think that’s ever going to happen, like Jesus returning, nutty, crazy primitive-minded shit like that.

We’re only in the first week of the release of the book and I’ve already brushed up against more high weirdness. This brings me to other matters…

As a result of these little elves, pixies, and gremlins flitting about me yob, I’m going to make things crystal clear: I will not continue to live this nuttiness surrounding the Palfrey case and narrative. I am turning my back on it with the completion of this text. I will be more than happy to answer any serious questions. However, I don’t want to hear your gossiping about people who were part of or related to the case itself. Any logical corrections that can be proven/corroborated (your job, not mine) will be appreciated and noted. I don’t give a shit anymore about the story and owe nobody nothing regarding the DC Madam. That responsibility was discharged writing the book.

My role in this is over, done, unless there’s some burning reason otherwise. If you have questions, ask the book first, consult it. This isn’t to slam anyone with good intentions. I will discuss the case and am open to interviews. However, I’m not tolerating any bullshit, and it’s literally no effort for me to ignore you, the easiest thing in the world in fact. This isn’t my usual jokiness, it’s dead serious. If you don’t get it, I don’t care, but you’re going to be humiliated twice, first by yourself, then by me, and I will air it publicly naming names.

Anyone I’ve communicated with recently has nothing to worry about. The book is the best bargain the American public are likely to have for some time. You’re most welcome. Witche, ye haave been foun' guilty 'a commerce with thee Devile.

and another thing (Libertarians)...

Your boy Grover Norquist is about to look as nebbish and stupid to you as he is to the rest of us, the majority of the human race. Now that Saxby Chambliss (a girl's name?), the Foghorn Leghorn from Geor-gia,  has kicked your boy's dumbo "no-tax pledge," your time in the sun is over. Anyone with more than two brain cells knows that American Libertarianism is a white boy fixation, and not many of them at that, in reality. That same demographic wave that's going to consume and destroy the GOP is going to take you down, because you're really extremist Republicans. Maybe that's too fair. I think what you really all are is a textbook example of emotional and intellectual retardation having a political expression. Over, done. Enough with the delusions of adequacy.

Ronald Reagan Hologram to Address 2012 RNC Convention in Tampa?

That's great, lovely. I was in a mall in Chicago in 2002 and they had a static hologram (didn't move, like the real one, and just as intelligent) of St. Ronnie's well-coiffed-and-empty head. That wasn't the first time I'd seen one: the Museum of Science and Industry had the one Salvador Dali did of Alice Cooper's head, with an exposed brain, so I knew he had one, his own conservatism aside. Holograms aren't very convincing up close--the Cooper one was greenish, and it photographed badly. I believe it was made in 1973, when the Watergate hearings were reaching a crescendo.

That Ronnie-the-vegetable one, however, was impressive. They'd shot a close-up of him that had close to a 3/4s wraparound of his head. Every hair (the fucker had dandruff and trout eyes), every pore, every liver spot, every wrinkle, and every glint from his Irish eyes (yes, they were-a'-smil'in, yes) was there in incredible photographic detail. Now, from some angles, sure, the color spectrum started to shift, and it looked transparent--a hologram. Of course, for laughs, I was miming the same moves that put John Wilkes Booth into the annals of history, really milking it for a friend, a lot of yuck-yucks. And yes, there were laughs, 9/11 (the American public) hadn't ruined things as badly, there hadn't been enough time for that yet.

Fox News (entertainment for the emotionally challenged) is throwing around a rumor of a yet-to-be-revealed speaker at the tail end of the GOP mosh pit in Tampa, after all the lawful demonstrators have been brutally, criminally beaten and pepper-sprayed by dirty cops and private security, and after most of the drinking and whoring has sated the...uh, bought press, the delegates, candidates, incumbents, and key SuperPAC donors, maybe a few Rotarians, heh. Because I think their corruption is, in the words of one of the Founding Rapists, self- evident. Why bother writing about it? Because someone in the back row couldn't hear last time, so shut up you loud-mouthed assholes in Section A seating, you animals, you rabble, Jesus. 

So, they had this two-dimensional Tupac on stage not more than a few months ago, and creepy it was dear readers. From what I could see, an actor's body was composited with footage of Shakur's face from a variety of visual sources, but it could have been modeled from imagery too and made lifelike. Either way, the head was generated, the body was not, making this a sentence that was destined to be written one day. Top that, Cybermen. You know, the GOP isn't doing anything new here, as always, but putting out their usual historical revisionism onto vulnerable people who don't know shit about where the country's been in the first place.

They've been flogging everyone with this moronic, delusional (delusions of adequacy, Republicans aren't even that) "no new taxes" bullshit for over 30 years. What does it say about someone when they keep falling for it again and again, expecting different results? Those are gamblers stabbing in the dark, looking for what? A Leader, a dictator, to tell them what to do, and that's a lot of Americans who harbor these authoritarian tendencies, many of whom have convinced themselves otherwise. The old models of male-headed authoritarianism are at a crossroads. These clowns down in Tampa are at a funeral wake, America died long ago, back when they sold out after the sixties and became the most irresponsible citizenry in modern history. Watergate gave millions of Americans what they always wanted: an excuse to no longer be engaged in the political process. Voter apathy gave us Ronald Reagan and while it probably won't give us Mitt Romney, it's given us weak and compromised candidates for well over a generation. That's the fault of the public, and so is the decline of the unions, out of selfishness, laziness, and stunning stupidity.

Everyone knows that a computer generated hologram of a dead corrupt president isn't going to change the fact that everyone owns a piece of this economic and political crisis, no one is immune, not me, not anyone. The wealthy, the criminal management class, and the politicians own the lion's share of this. Every branch of government is to blame. From this, one should get that we have a fundamental flaw in how our society is ordered, what it's centered around. Now go have fun watching the dead guy who gave us a lot of this crisis, the one with the CGI stick rammed up his ass.

"What's it all about? Where is this all headed?"

Hey, fuck if I know. Why you askin'? Because you want answers, right? The key is knowing which questions to ask. Right now, as I write this, the world economy is on the brink once again, the for the second time in under five years. Why? Because we won't change, we refuse to, we're creatures of habit. The yammerers will go on about how we need to "get back on the gold standard and eliminate the income tax," which was all disproved and thrown on the shitpile of human history, gone, over, done. I could say I believe in unicorns, but that gets as many laughs from people with a real education. Good luck on the last one in these here U-nited States.

Does that faze the terminally ignorant and insane? Of course not, and now you know why wars occur, and some very big ones are coming. "There will be wars, and rumors of wars," was perhaps the easiest prediction ever made, human beings are an incredibly stupid species, yes we are. You irrational dummies are really the death of everything, you reactionary fools on the right.

I've been talking about a collapse on this page for the last six years and have seen one coming for far longer. 2008 nearly did the job, or rather, we nearly did it on ourselves letting criminals in DC and on Wall Street to run amok with their thirty year crime wave. Finally, this shit is coming to a head: we either reform our financial and campaign systems, radically scale-back our military, and reinvest in our workforce, or forget, show's over. As horrible as I imagine things are going to get, this is fair, this is just. We should pay for our apathy, our ignorance, and our tendency to fuck everything we touch up. No touching, no more. 

South America saw the writing on the wall decades ago and has succeeded in cutting away our influence in the region, which is good, democracy and empire cannot coexist. Neither can democracy and vast, unchecked wealth and influence, power. In less than one generation, America will become a shadow of its former self, and if you think you have, you really haven't, you ain't seen nothing yet. We will become a true pariah state that no one in their right mind will do business with without major conditions. The scales are really going to fall from the eyes of Americans once they realize that all this "freedom" was only the power to buy stupid, plastic crap they never needed so some asshole can get rich and to then take the money to dismantle democratic traditions and institutions, that's where we're at, the final stages of capitalism.

Are we too far gone? I believe so. This doesn't mean there aren't things that can be done to save what's worth saving, but collapse appears to be the only way left out of what's becoming a very ugly, scary place to live. We currently incarcerate more people than Russia, China, and all the other worst human rights offender nations on this earth combined, and we enslave them in what's called "privatized prison labor." The war on terror has eroded so many rights I've lost track, maybe even the surveillance state has too, let's hope so. 

Where is the outrage? It's where knowledge would have been in the minds of an ocean of profoundly ignorant Americans, waiting to be informed and  activated. Now you know why the Republicans and Democrats are defunding education (who wants to read anyway?). Ignorant people are easily controlled. But enough about the right, Libertarians, and irrational Obama supporters who refuse to criticize him for what is wrong.with his shredding of the Constitution in the war on terror.

For similar reasons, we're going to collapse as the former Soviet Union did a little over two decades ago. It's overdue without reform. What happens in the aftermath is determined by what we do now, and then. It had better be logical, natural, disciplined, united, and constructive. The alternative is everyone killing each other. When the rich have kicked away the social contract, this becomes not only possible, it can become inevitable. Without a sense of a whole, connected polity--a society--there is no point, and all will be lost. All the luxuries many enjoy, perhaps even the ability to feed oneself adequately, the right to vote, to be safe in one's person, to be able to travel without restrictions, to be able to assemble with others for political expression--all this can vanish in the blink of an eye in the current atmosphere. 

Will some get richer from a collapse? I don't think so, this is going to be more fundamental a collapse than that, what could have occurred had there been no FDR or New Deal, and that's where we're at right now. Yes: even the rich are going to lose their asses on this one. It will at least be worth it for that one. Everyone with a patch of dirt might consider taking up gardening since that could be all that's going on in the US soon.

On the windborne devastation of Henryville: Mitch Daniels has made more homeless than all the recent tornadoes combined

Still don't believe in global warming folks? It's my opinion that this is a warning, like Joplin, Missouri last year, from the earth. We cannot keep using fossil-based fuels, we cannot keep using petroleum, period. A consensus is forming in the scientific community that 2017 might be the year of no return, however, with carbon dioxide emissions exceeding all predictions, and with the reaction in the atmosphere growing geometrically, that window might be closing sooner than we think. Do we really want to gamble on that? Everyone with their finger in the oil pie says yes. You sure? I know, I know, Jesus is coming.

Speaking of the Naz, crazy Pat Robertson made one of those predictable remarks one usually sees from slavering goobers when someone "takes the Lord's name (What's his name? We don't know) in vain: "Something's going to happen to you for that," always a popular comment at keggers. Yes, yes, Robertson was doing an "I told you so!" version of it when he said tornadoes wouldn't reap destruction "if we'd pray more" as a nation. This is true: there was no weather until the fall of  Man, the fossil record illustrates this clearly. Yesterday I was running the van on some remnants of Adam and Eve (not Adam and Steve, surely), it's true, I saw it, I smelled it. Souls have a smell, after all, especially American ones, which is why we shower so much. Speaking of stink...

How about that outgoing Republican asshole Governor, Mitch Daniels visiting the devastated Henryville, Indiana on Saturday? A journalist asked the small government asshole what he would tell the families of the town who were now homeless (OK to become homeless through natural disaster is acceptable, not so through man-made lay-offs, downsizing, etc.--your fault). Daniels had this empty comment which he feebly blurted out as though someone had told him he'd lost all of his money, or that someone had photos of...you know:

"Well... we love you...and we're with you. And... if it isn't already obvious... It's not just government, it's their neighbors here to help. I would just say to those families that we're going to do everything we can to get you back on your feet, to get you back in business and in your homes."

After being faced with his own general inhumanity because of the destruction around him, the Governor couldn't resist making his inappropriate political statement and experienced premature ejaculation.

Anyone could envision him having difficulty achieving a erection merely by his nebbish appearance. Goober was painting a neocon portrait of America that's never going to work, never did, common knowledge since the end of 2008. He knows better than anyone; it must be at the back of his mind at all times. Yes, in such events we get to see what people are really made of, Daniels being no exception. As predicted, he's comprised of ineffectual bullshit as all Republicans and Libertarians are. "Neighbors" will never be enough, and for the Ron Paul crowd (mooks), neither will churches.

"Well...we love you...and we're with you." Fuck you too, asshole. This scumbag has never cared about the fate of the homeless in this country, and then suddenly he does? What's he been doing for all of the unemployed during his unfortunate tenure as an officeholder? Working, as one example, with his fellow Republicans in the state house to end their unemployment benefits, actually hurting them, driving the economy down, destroying jobs. On his way out the door Daniels and the Indiana GOP have passed their right to work law, because "Well...we love you...and we're with you."Even in the aftermath of natural disaster, these people never let up, these lunatics, these criminals, these Republicans.

This guy is the "hope" of the GOP? They want to draft him to run for president? They've finally lost their minds. Expect the Republican Party to die soon, of a self-inflicted wound, so be it. The problem is that their "love" will be "with you" in the form of a shattered environment and economic malaise, maybe even social chaos. Do we ever learn? Of course not, this is America. How many times does it have to be said? Daniels was George W. Bush's budget chief. If we were to be honest, he's greatly responsible for the economic crisis we're in and likely will for years to come. He's made more families homeless than all the tornadoes combined. But he's not a total idiot like others.

Unlike Governor Kasich of Ohio, he took the help from FEMA, and the federal money, anyway. This time he had to dole out money to help people. There are limits to venality because, unless we're mentally ill or damaged organically, we all have an inborn sense or right and wrong. Not helping people after a natural disaster is our moral line in the sand. Why is it alright for government to neglect people rendered homeless as they were in Henryville, but not for everyone else who experienced the same through no fault of their own? That's why he made his little government comment--he was busted outright and he knew it. A good thing for him and what he represents that most Hoosiers and Americans are too stupid to notice it.

Of Mice and Not a Man:

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/05/14/mitch-daniels-architect-of-us-debt-crisis/
 

You ever noticed (FEMA)?

You ever notice that all those rednecks and meth-heads (often inhabiting the same body!) who are yammering about "We're all going to be dragged kicking and screaming to FEMA camps man, any day now!" are all white? Did you ever notice that none of them gave a shit about all those African-Americans languishing in FEMA trailers for roughly two years except when they thought they were getting a "free ride"? Yeah, me too, but really: where was the outrage over many of these same people having to inhale formaldehyde for months? No conspiracy there, agreed, just not for the same reason they might unthink it was so.

Imagine had these refugees been white, middle-class. Imagine that they had been taken there, sometimes against their wills like in 1927 when another storm ravaged the place, to be held for a a very long time with few rights to speak of in toxic surroundings. The Libertarians, the rednecks, the red-headed stepchildren of the American Left who have smoked too much dope for decades with predictable results, have an erection (nipples too) over FEMA this, FEMA that, but the slant is always the same: an anti-government agenda that's arch-conservative, almost certainly baseless in the terms their putting them in and basically racist at heart.

Seriously, where was the alarm over these poor black families being forcibly relocated, permanently in many cases, away from New Orleans? Wasn't this your legendary FEMA camp theory based on your own criteria? No, these were only a gaggle of dirty niggers (to you), so it didn't matter. It didn't matter when a naturalized Middle Eastern businessman was detained by private security in a bus station...that was OK and then repainted by assholes on the right like Alex Jones as a purely government move. The message must always be that it's the big, bad Boogeyman "gubmint," never the most serious threat to liberty across the globe, multinational corporations.

This shit is a ploy, conscious or not, it is code. We know you have an agenda. We know you're afraid of black people, of minorities. We know you're ignorant, that you're the boring crank at a party that everyone ignores for good reason. Now shut up about FEMA camps you racist, yammering retards.

The Tower of Babel: An exegesis in less than 1,000 words

Almost everyone living within the suffocating confines of Western civilization (and beyond, except the American Class of 2014) knows this tale, coming from a blurb in the Book of Genesis and other books: after the Flood, the survivors, sharing one language, decided to build a great tower to impress God. There was a unity of the people, really called "Shinar" in the Old Testament version. But God wasn't pleased with their work, and "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." (King James Version)

Once the tower ended, so too did the city of Shinar, it was over, and the people dispersed. There was no more society, just brigands, raiders, chaos. This is about the fall of a civilization. But why would "God" do this? There doesn't seem to be any logical reason. "God" just wanted to show who was boss. What this is, is allegory, once again.

The Priests and Sovereign of Babylon would do these things, more specifically to the captive tribal Jews, but could also be expected to have done the same to anyone under their sway. The Tower of Babel is about human hierarchy and how people tend more towards unity naturally, but that hierarchy is also natural and that it has a tendency to divide. The Priests were usually the only ones who could read and write, therefore, they controlled language, and they knew how to corrupt its use through religion to render communication between ordinary people almost useless.

That's where we're at right now as a society, a civilization. The Priests--the economists, the rich, the managerial class, the media, rotten lawyers, the military officers, the pundits, and so on--have corrupted language to the point that things are unraveling, society itself is coming-apart. A great deal of it is owed to this manipulation of language. Hierarchy might be inevitable, but its dysfunction can be controlled, my take. I'm sure this isn't the first time someone has "found" this interpretation, I make no high claims.

Once again: on the non-existent "Tea Party"

I'm not understanding what so-called liberals, Democrats, and the rest of us on the left and throughout the public aren't getting about these people: they're not a real political party or a movement, they're really just Republicans with no sense of irony or satire.

What don't you people get? They're still Republicans, they haven't changed at all, and no, it's not all about the fact that they cannot emotionally cope with a Black American president. It's not the entire picture with these clowns. Yes, I agree with the logic of the question, "Well, where were they when Bush was wrecking the country?" Where indeed?

I'll tell you where: they were yelling that they were part of his camp, crowing "WE'RE driving the bus NOW!" and making general asses of themselves as is their wont to do. They can't help it. This is why they're continuing on their Children's Crusade over a cliff, and once again, parading their insufficiency as functional, reasoning human beings. We already know that many of them are small businessmen over 40. When you look at the composition of their rallies, it's not inclusive. The majority of the faces are white, male, and middle-aged. What it comes off as is a last, dying gasp of the worst elements of the Baby Boomer generation, a generation fixated on their own entitlement, but not especially atypical in such regards.

None of this flailing, posing, and of course, yelling, is going to fix America anytime soon, but that's why billionaire far right extremists like the Koch dynasty are bankrolling many of these fake populist gatherings. They know that these are the inevitable deficits of humanity that one finds in all modern societies, the eternally lost, the naive, the stupid. None of this is truly real. Yes, some of these people began at the urging of the small-minded Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul, but this was never a spontaneous rising of the public.

An admittedly compacted and generalized schematic is in order:

1. A segment of fiscal and socially conservative Republicans feel burned by the Bush II administration at its endpoint. They got even more government under his term, and Roe v. Wade is still standing. They begin denying in public that they're Republicans, and frequently misquote the Constitution for no apparent reason.

2. Barack Obama is elected the first African-American President of the United States because he is not George W. Bush or a Republican.

3. Shit hits the proverbial fan and freaks like Ron Paul and Dick Armey begin the push to stimulate what has been mislabelled ever since (by the very people within it and backing it) as a "movement." It is not a movement, more a controlled rabble. The fragmentary "group"is really just a demographic of mostly petty bourgeois held together by one thing: they don't like that the Democrats won the election (some even hinting at insurrection, no less), but that they really don't like Barack Obama. Oh yes, and they don't like paying taxes...at all. Many of them also have a weird emotional attachment to the rich and perversely fight for that group's right not to pay any taxes.

4. No need for a replay of the health care debate.

5. Meanwhile--back at the ranch--all these "Tea Baggers" are denying that they're Republicans.

6. The 2010 midterms loom, and people denying they're Republicans vote once again for Republican candidates, most-of-whom are chosen by the RNC to run, to serve the interests of Wall Street and the rest of the Lollipop Guild.

Now, exactly why are they any different and what are they doing that's any different, ultimately? This is truly impossible to satirize. There is no Tea Party. It's not a party. It's not a real group. It's a Shibboleth, put out there as a distraction. Mission accomplished.

"It's wrong to speak ill of the dead..."

Can those of you who believe this stupid notion take a running jump at yourselves? Do you pine for the lost lives of Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Attila the Hun, Ronald Reagan, Julius Caesar, the Borgias, J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Nixon, Ted Bundy, Quisling, Sidney Reilly, Aleister Crowley, Roy Cohn, Gilles de Rais, Eichmann, Himmler, Beria, Custer (don't get me started), and every asshole that ever lived that drew breath for too long on this rock called earth?

Are you really that stupid? Sadly, the answer is a resounding "yes," you are that fucking stupid, and it shows, like a pregnancy in its sixth month. As stupid as you are, you'd have a mountain of excuses for these bastards while they were alive, and in slave-like manner, in death. You're a bona fide idiot, a moron, and an asshole. How does it feel?

Here's how it works in the real world, with people who are well-balanced and don't possess your superhuman skills of assholism and rationalization: They point-out when someone's been bad.

I know this is somehow a mystery to you, and you usually make excuses that you're "clumsy" when your significant other beats the crap out of you, or you keep voting against your interests, again and again, like an animal (OK, that's unfair to the animals). This is because you don't get it, or much else. I have witnessed the family of the deceased chanting at a funeral parlor that, "Finally, the son-of-a-bitch died, praise God!" Were they wrong to do this? Who the fuck are you to say otherwise? That said, who are you to tell people who have been affected by recently deceased politicians--very negatively--to make it clear what they did to them and what they think of them? Your only care, frankly, are how the comments affect Y-O-U. That's not as enlightened as you present it, but we already know you're full of shit.

In short: who do you think you are?

No, one shouldn't speak ill of living dead either, the real message.

President Obama is changing his name...and color.

Barry White. Barry White of you. Fuck you Wolf Blitzer. Fuck you Andrew Breitbart.

Misinterpreting events on purpose, so you don't have to!

The South Bend Tribune--and I'm not laying the blame entirely at their feet on this one--had an article today titled, "Teens taping fights: 'It shocks the conscience,' " a tale of teen bullying in South Bend (specifically between girls) and the recording of fights on cell phones and camcorders by other teens that are then uploaded onto the Internet for a variety of reasons that even the piece itself misses, or somehow ignores at its own peril. The reporting in the piece is generally very solid by all appearances and journalist Mary Kane Malone appears to have covered all of her bases, but as usual, the analysis and general thrust of it is all wrong, and that's the fault of a newspaper editor.

As a matter of fact, that's usually the case, but it also takes conglomerates reminding editors that they too have a mortgage to pay, so hyperbole it is.

I'm not going to name the names of the victims again and don't think that it was appropriate for the conglomerate-owned Tribune to list them but not their attackers. What is the precise hyperbole, or the hype of the article? This is incredible: the immorality of other kids standing by and recording the attacks/fights on their cell phones and posting them online, ostensibly to inflict more emotional harm and humiliation upon the victims. I'm certain most of these kids were acting in concert with the bullies, no argument there, but why is it a bad thing ultimately? The fact is that it's a good development regardless of the motives of most of the players.

Thirty years ago--and even as recent as fifteen--these acts of violence by children directed towards other children went unnoticed, they were rampant, and adults didn't want to deal with it anymore then than they do now--and that's the real heart of the article. People, especially authorities like principals, parents, police, and even juvenile professionals, don't want to deal with the issue of children inflicting violence upon each other. The trick is to change the subject or the focus:

The video of the fight had gone viral, the girl says, spreading from cell phone to cell phone. In less than a day, it seemed everyone in school had witnessed Chastity's humiliation. Teenage fights now include a new weapon: the camera phone. For parents, school administrators and law enforcement officials, the recorded fights provide a disturbing portrait of teenage violence that, until now, was only seen by those who witnessed it directly. "It shocks the conscience," said Capt. Phil Trent, spokesman for South Bend police. Parents of the victims say they are horrified at the gall of witnesses to flip out their phones and press "record" rather than intervene. But the kids? They call it entertainment. ... (The South Bend Tribune, 05.09.10)

This may or may not be true that it's "entertainment" and they're casting a blanket over the kids generally, as an entire demographic when there's no solid evidence--just a couple anecdotes--being proffered that the phenomena is widespread. Even if it were, how would they know why every kid recording an event was doing so?

But then, the article breaks down and admits that youth experts don't really know why the kids record the fights. Is that really the point? Again, from the article itself, this is the real point (my emphasis): "For parents, school administrators and law enforcement officials, the recorded fights provide a disturbing portrait of teenage violence that, until now, was only seen by those who witnessed it directly." Correct. Until very recently, the technology to record these events in a portable and easy manner was too expensive. Now, there's no running away from the problem since kids are unwisely (or very wisely) posting what is essentially incriminating evidence of children violently and criminally attacking other children. Before, this was impossible, and authorities could only rely on the hearsay of children, a morass of "he-said, she-said" recriminations that were once almost impossible to confirm, to corroborate. That's all changed now.

In short, many of these kids are doing the "right" thing, knowingly or unknowingly.

Some of these kids are alerting the rest of society that there are vicious sociopaths in our midst and showing us their actions. When it's done in the interest of society, of others, it's a very positive social act, a civic duty to report a crime. In the "wrong" hands they're also incriminating themselves and will probably be dragged into the tidal wave of civil suits that are likely to come out of these new technologies of easy dissemination, the power of the Internet writ large, as large as you can get.

"The (bullies) are basically making a recording of the evidence," providing a clear picture of who threw the first punch and how it ended, said William Bruinsma, director of the St. Joseph County Juvenile Justice Center. Police say a videotaped shoving match posted online might be handled differently than one that is not recorded. "The same shoving match, being turned into a form of entertainment by a third party on the Internet is enough to make parents, school administrators and law enforcement" take a second look, said Trent, the South Bend police spokesman. ... (ibid)

It's not about entertainment. It's about adults not wanting to deal with it, but knowing that they now have no choice in the matter. That's called fighting change. In the past it was easy because there was no way to document these behaviors. Now there is. So, yes, the kids have a "new weapon," alright: they can document acts of violence by other children, even under the guise of indirect participation. Indeed, St. Joseph County prosecutor Michael Dvorak "...said video can provide useful pieces of evidence when building a case." Yet, the Oklahoma state legislature has recently made moves that would make posting the footage online illegal and could likely pass it soon.

The article tries--vainly--to suggest through implication that there's an upswing in violence by American girls, something that it has to admit isn't the case from FBI statistics covering 1995-through-2008. You can almost hear the editor of the South Bend Tribune trying to argue their twisted logic and simply capitulating to the facts in the end since they were and are irrefutable, leaving the remnants of the their thought process (if you want to call it that) in the body of the piece. Missing the point is the entire point. Society-at-large has never wanted to deal with the fact that the genesis of bullying in many cases is child abuse, usually by adults, often by relatives. America is hardly the only nation with this problem, and denial is part-and-parcel of the behaviors surrounding the phenomena.

When the economy is already divesting adults of their rights, those of children don't figure highly either. However, children are a powerful moral symbol of the future, the canaries in the coal mine of where we're going wrong with the social contract and where we've been going wrong since time immemorial. Most importantly, the Tribune article commits the cardinal sin of blaming the victim: "But what might appear to be a clear assault on video could have an untold back story, he said: How can police be sure the victim was not the attacker a day earlier in an unrecorded fight?" They never care about that in other circumstances. The real issue is that they don't want to deal with the problem, the real heart of a very poorly-constructed article that carries a sadly commonplace logic in our culture, a culture in denial on most fronts. After all, nobody likes getting caught...

One last thought: should we embed journalists in our nation's schools? It's not necessary. Soon, very soon, the coverage of domestic violence will surpass that of the wars in the Middle East. Think about why.

http://www.southbendtribune.com/article/20100509/News01/5090310/1129/News

On the Tea Party crowd and the tantrum throwing right generally

In reality, they're a tiny minority who don't truly matter, but the economic elites are having their little puppet show with their silly asses before the curtain closes on their mutual dumbshow. Fuck 'em. The economic elites and elements of the poor and working poor are some of the most dysfunctional people in our society and are dragging the rest of us down, it's a fact.

This doesn't fit into the accepted identity politics and victimology, but that's all a bunch of crap anyway. It's not politically correct to say or write it, but since when have I given a fuck? The Democrats? Are they even an opposition party at all? Is there any difference between them and the Republicans anymore?

No, there's hardly any difference these days, and everyone thinks they have all the answers while our rights are being rolled back. I mean, really, it's more important to argue and split-hairs about bullshit while the Supreme Court passes a ruling enabling corporations to spend whatever they want on candidates without us even being able to find out who donated that money, I know. Being right, is being right, and wrong. And, really, quit calling yourself part of "the left" when you don't even know what the fuck it means or where it's been, quit fooling yourselves.

Coming eventually: Comcast, race-baiter Tony Zirkle, and campaign ads

WWW--There will be mud, in the face, and in the direction of Zirkle and Comcast.

Why do we need Huffington Post at all: top stories today at Huffington Post...

WWW--Besides the fact that Arianna Huffington's incapable of making love to the Hollywood sign or George Clooney (she deserves both jabs, puns doubly-intended, double entendre), or exhibiting as much partisan loyalty towards the Democratic Party as she did the cuddly Republican Party, there is no real reason for Huffington Post to exist at all, it's hardly ever been substantially "progressive."

But it's gotten her lots of attention and new friends, and it's brought her a lot more power and influence. Sad, considering her parents were Greek Communist partisans in the aftermath of WWII...

If you look to-the-right (as Arianna's true self does) of each page, you'll a sidebar that says "Popular Stories on Huffpo," which is almost always a depressing statement on the state of things in American culture and politics.

Today--at this 2:27 PM EST writing--the top stories are:

1. Miss Universe Swimsuit Competition 2009: Who's Hottest? (PHOTOS, POLL)

2. Short Skirts And High Heels: Brit, Miley, Leighton & More: Who Wore It Best? (PHOTOS, POLL)

3. Ashley Greene NUDE PHOTOS: Naked Pics Of Twilight Star 'Unlawfully Displayed

4. James Rucker GEICO Pulls Its Ads from Glenn Beck Show

5. Rufus Lusk Nowhere in Manhattan: Vote On These Unbelievable Photos

6. Howard Dean The Media's Treatment of Palin's Outrageous "Death Panel" Claims

7. Gabrielle Giffords Town Hall: Gun Left Behind

8. Jon Stewart Vs. Town Hall Crazies (VIDEO)

9. Levi Johnston And Kathy Griffin Hold Hands At Teen Choice Awards (PHOTOS. VIDEO)

10. Dr. Andrew Weil The Wrong Diagnosis

11. Olbermann Slams Palin For "Death Panel" Claim, Calls Her Dangerously Irresponsible (VIDEO)

12. GM: New Chevy Volt To Get 230 Miles Per Gallon

13. Target Of Obama-Era Rendition Alleges Torture

14. Women Walk In Fall 2009's Most Punishing Heels (VIDEO)

15. Obamas Visit National Parks: Send Us Photos Of Your Favorite National Park

A good friend pointed-out that (I'm paraphrasing them), "You can look at it two ways: either Huffington Post has assigned the list, or the readers have. Either way, it's pretty sad."

My one act play on social mountaineer, Arianna Huffington (truly, a bourgeois hoot!): http://chickasawpicklesmell.blogspot.com/2009/01/arianna-satirical-play-by-matt-janovic_31.html

A note to anonymous commenters...

WWW--Hey, read the comments policy: if you want to sling, you gotta sing. If you don't post under your own identity and you have nothing relevant or constructive to add to the dialog, it's not going to published, period. Don't like it? I don't care.

I'm "restricting [your] rights to free speech"? Puerile (look it up) B.S., go create your own blog and write about what "an awful human being Matt Janovic is," go for it, I might even agree with you in-part and help you out! ;0)

However, if you're entertaining enough, I might just publish your comments to make yet another example of you and the typical moron demographic overpopulating A'murka today. If none of this makes any sense to you, I don't really care and find most of your comments very amusing indeed.

But if you think yours truly is as stupid as you are and that I'm going to get into a fistfight with the Invisible Not-a-Man (or woman, thanks Monty Python!), you're mistaken, and recall that I've got a bag of flour for just such occasions. You're hopelessly outgunned here, you will lose.

All death threats will be forwarded to local law enforcement authorities, and I will come after you. But rest assured that I've had them before thanks to my own past antiwar activities and that I wasn't deterred then and won't be now, so don't bother. Also, if you think your comments are demoralizing, you're mistaken, they're going to have the opposite-effect--just as the federal government's prosecutors...

Today's postscript: Apparently you morons down in Indy have reading and comprehension problems. I don't care about your comments and won't be posting any of them without an identity, period. However, if I feel like making an example out of you, I will, so you might watch what you write--you will live to regret it. Literacy: it's not just for breakfast anymore. Edumacation ist gut!

I'd ask what Reason magazine has to say about this, but I don't care what they or any Libertarian thinks or has to say.

Do the Wrong Thing: My experience watching Spike Lee's "Do the Right Thing"

Michiana--It was twenty years ago this summer that I first saw Spike Lee's "Do the Right Thing" at a local theater. At the time, I was a pretty big fan of his film, "She's Gotta Have It" (1986), which miraculously came to a local theater, and it was projected in its original 16mm format, a rarity!

I never got to see "School Daze" (1988), it never came to South Bend, and that's probably a good thing since it sucks and doesn't hold-up very well.

Now, it wasn't as though I thought Lee was a racially progressive director by any stretch of the imagination, but it wasn't yet clear that he was (and I assume still is) a dyed-in-the-wool bigot, possibly even a racist. I'm sure that he still is a borderline racist, but he has bills to pay, so he's shut his big mouth about it over the years and that's good since the largest proportion of his audience is white (as opposed to Tyler Perry).

I went to see Do the Right Thing at a theater I'd seen more than a few great films at, including another one dealing with race titled "Mississippi Burning," and it was a very unique experience indeed. There was an old black couple there who had most definitely lived through the horrors of Jim Crow, the lynchings, the terror of white hate, and all the rest, because in the first lynching they could no longer take it and had to leave. The wounds were still very deep indeed in the late-1980s and it had been less than twenty years since the Civil Rights era as we know it had ended. Talk of the Vietnam War was still common as well, and it was equally contentious.

And so, 1989 rolled-into-place and I was finally going to get to see another "Spike Lee Joint" (a phrasing I still find stupid). I was excited, and the movie didn't disappoint...until the ending. OK, it was bad enough that Lee sloppily copped the "good hand," "bad hand" metaphor from Charles Laughton's "Night of the Hunter" (1956)--that was pretty close to plaigiarism. And the bigotry of several of the black characters was certainly offensive, with much of it going either unpunished or without much or any comment at all. That wasn't Spike Lee's greatest sin, but it was equally as intellectually dishonest as the ending.

1989 was the very end of the Koch era in NYC, and the allegations of police brutality at that time were flying. Many of them were reasonable. As is often the case, one specific incident is usually enough to spark protests, even riots, in NYC's boroughs, and it's safe to assume that police brutality is an ongoing phenomena not only in the Big Apple, but throughout America at any given political moment. Towards the ending of the film, Lee portrays a choke-hold death that actually occurred in Brooklyn not long before it was written and produced, it's a horror to watch, and it's as ugly as it should be--no arguments here.

The problem rests with the fact that his character "Mookie" (played by Lee himself, the author & director of the film) then decides to throw a garbage can through the window of his employer's Pizza joint because he's thinks they're to blame for the entire mess when they clearly are not within his own narrative. Not only is this wrong, it's dishonest and poor craftsmanship, bad writing.

The reaction by my fellow moviegoers who happened to be African-American was resounding: they cheered-him-on. But it gets worse. A number of young black kids kept milling around as the credits rolled, giving me the evil eye. It gets even worse from there. Outside of the theater, in broad daylight, several of them made motions that they were going to move on me and commit an act of violence. It was clear that they had been emboldened by the message of the film, and there's no excuse for this. To put it bluntly, I looked at them with a stance of, "If you touch me, I'm going to seriously hurt you," and it worked...but barely.

These kids were simply wrong. I had been scapegoated as a child by our educational system and was swept into the same shoddy classes as the black kids. Lee suggested by his act in Do the Right Thing that indiscriminate, racially-based attacks on others in retaliation for acts in-kind by others was and is preposterous, and those kids took his cue.

I know what it's like to be discriminated against, you bet.

W-W-II, a satire of the American mind

T'was back in W-W-II, when Columbus crossed the ocean blue.
"Seriously, who wants to go hunt for bigfoot with us in the Sierra Ancha Mts.? " said
the social networking status update.

Wouldn't you? If it was true.

For years and years nobody thought the Japanese and Germans were funny--
were I kidding--but it's true.
But read haikus,
you'll get the news.

I decided to write a murder ballad about bigfoot in the shower,
a daunting task sure to bring derision.
But that was my right,
my decision.

"That was nobody but some Mexicans," said the Colorado naturalist,
but no one would listen.
We murdered the neanderthals,
and they haunt us with precision.

Wouldn't you? You know it's true. It wouldn't do.
Someone might sue, but I paid my dues.
Because back in W-W-II,
Columbus sailed the ocean blue.

I believe it because I want to.

More cries of "coup," this time regarding AIG from Rolling Stone

Rolling Stone Magazine--I haven't read a copy of RS since 1992, so you probably know from this fact that they don't elicit much respect or admiration from me.

At best, the publication has been patently mainstream from its inception, a cheerleader of the consumer model, and a part of what's gotten us into the economic crisis we're now inhabiting.

Occasionally, the dinosaur ownership realizes at RS how inane and unimportant that they've become (once, the criticisms came from old school RS writers like the late Hunter S. Thompson) and pays someone to write something substantial about where things are at.

Their political articles are often belated pieces that would have had a better impact had someone commissioned them when the corruption and crimes were everywhere--occurring literally out in the open, down the street from RS's NYC offices--but advertisers don't like political coverage, especially when they're involved in the mess, and that would mean spending the money on a full time investigative team.

This doesn't fit into all the wonderful business models of recent times, so they don't have one, because since the introduction of CBS's "60 Minutes," the news is supposed to be profitable and entertaining.

Somehow, in this peculiarly adamant pro-business environment, we're being entreated to ditties from the Fourth Estate itself that "democracy will be inhibited without newspapers," yet when we had all of them they did little to protect it, making for a zero-sum loss in the age of the Internet. Yes, coverage will definitely become deeply "impaired" for a time, and there will likely be further consolidations of media, but what future will the survivors have in a generally wrecked economy? Being king is fine, but king of the garbage dump doesn't sound very grand to these ears.

One might also factor-in how hard it is to do business during widespread strikes and insurrection, but that's what defense contractors are for.

Into this bloody fray comes a Rolling Stone article by Matt Taibbi on AIG and--please bear with me--the notion that the Wall Street bailouts have been a "coup."I don't believe that it's that simple, that many of these critics have been dangerously naive about our system and its promises because of their own "successes" ("You're just jealous."), and that they're finally discovering how America really works. You know: the American people are usually the last to know, because there are "unknown knowns," in the thankfully inimitable words of Donald Rumsfeld.

...["]When one considers the comparatively extensive system of congressional checks and balances that goes into the spending of every dollar in the budget via the normal appropriations process, what's happening in the Fed amounts to something truly revolutionary,” a kind of shadow government with a budget many times the size of the normal federal outlay, administered dictatorially by one man, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke. "We spend hours and hours and hours arguing over $10 million amendments on the floor of the Senate, but there has been no discussion about who has been receiving this $3 trillion," says Sen. Bernie Sanders. "It is beyond comprehension." ... ("Back to the Big Takeover," Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone, April 2, 2009 issue)

If it's a "shadow government," it's only because Congress delegated those powers to the executive branch and consciously did so over a period of decades. The article at least makes this point clearly enough. It should be added that Sec. of Treasury Bernanke has to answer to the President of the United States, ultimately, since he might have problems with how the money gets spent...or not. Taibbi is wrong--it really is all about money, the only thing Americans can be roused to action by. In other words, the Treasury Department isn't a separate branch of government, although Taibbi and others seem to be suggesting that it is. Were it that simple.

But this has been a real point-of-contention with me, since a "coup" means a real world transfer of power, generally to people who weren't originally "in-charge," with at least some essence of "finality" to it, however fleeting. Paradoxical--yes--and welcome to the world of power politics where language and logic break down above the atomic level. Sure, the Treasury Department and the Fed have significantly more power at the moment, that's true, and that's really an expansion of the power of the executive branch in the end. Former Vice President Cheney must be proud of his contribution to all of this.

Not since Hitler has so much confusion been sown in the halls of a modern government. It helped to have enablers and other fellow travelers along the way. So, these calls of a "coup" are more than a little belated--they actually sound weird coming at this moment. Habeas corpus has been nominally restored through the courts, but significant breaches in our Constitution are still there. There were many voices on the left who warned about the economic crisis and the war on terror's rollback of our rights from the start, and a few on the right, and so on.

But they weren't especially passionate voices, and they were ignored as they usually are.

Where were all these cries from the right and the mainstream media during the passage of the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act? Off making money at the time, they couldn't be bothered to care at the time. When I question some of the "coup counters," they tend to settle on the term "paper coup," and neglect to go into any further details. A real world analog would help, like Yeltsin's creation of the Oligarchs through the Russian State granting them mineral rights, or similar moves in South America during the last sixty years. That would have been a business luncheon for the Bush II administration.

Perhaps it just sounds good to the ears, that "c-word." It gives one the appearance of being prescient, prophetic, like Ronald Reagan (in appearance only). Granted, the term "coup" is taking over (pun intended) throughout the political spectrum.

Taibbi continues:

...The state is now being asked not just to call off its regulators or give tax breaks or funnel a few contracts to connected companies; it is intervening directly in the economy, for the sole purpose of preserving the influence of the megafirms. In essence, Paulson used the bailout to transform the government into a giant bureaucracy of entitled assholedom, one that would socialize "toxic" risks but keep both the profits and the management of the bailed-out firms in private hands. Moreover, this whole process would be done in secret, away from the prying eyes of NASCAR dads, broke-ass liberals who read translations of French novels, subprime mortgage holders and other such financial losers. ... (Ibid)

And this is new in American history, because...? Frankly, I don't get it--these are the very same people in control of the system in the end (the original ones, the ones whose names are being withheld on TARP payout papers), the same super rich "investors" and business bureaucrats inside and outside of our government who played, and lost. Welcome to the inherent ( il)logic of our economy, you missed the memo. Was there some arch-conspiracy, or some kind of a plan to this? Were you paying attention?

This makes a grand leap of logic that these people on Wall Street were and are competent.

Are you kidding? Does it really look like they're good at anything done above board, legally? They aren't good at business, they cannot rule or govern effectively or sustainably, and it will all crash no matter how much they attempt to leave the rest of us with the bill. Their time is up, it's a given, even with these machinations that induce the apathetic, cynical, and gullible, to ascribe godlike powers to a bunch of Wall Street (and truth be know, Main Street) clowns.

That they're not good at business is a given, but that most of them are criminals has yet to be proven, but will be. They're going to keep playing the same games because it's all they know, and when the rules don't favor them they change the rules. Does that sound sustainable? Let them have their fun, playing with their Monopoly money, but if they get their way, any recovery is going to be short-lived in a system whose time came at least a generation ago, the rest being mythology.

Americans have often wrongly measured their freedoms and liberties through economic indicators and their ability to purchase while neglecting the very existence of a quality of life and the social contract. There will be plenty of time to reflect on that now.

"Back to the Big Takeover," Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone, April 2, 2009 issue: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover

The Horror: E!'s "Hot Girls in Scary Places" and the "Ohmigod" factor

tv--I don't know whether this show is the worst/best thing on television now, or if it's just total crap. Are they kidding? Surely, they are, but don't be so sure. That "reality tv" has that same revolting-yet-hypnotizing quality that infomercials once--once?!--had is one of its hallmark features.

I've had the misfortune to (un)watch several of these so-called paranormal investigator programs, and like most people over the age of 13, I think it's all faked, played-up, and basically a bunch of aspiring actors doing a very bad job at appearing to believe it's all real. That's called "acting," by-the-way.

The premise is exactly what you would think: a bunch of vacuous models are taken to some "haunted" building for the night where lots of people were alleged to have died violently, or whatever. Yeah, whatever is right. OK, so it's just a pilot, so let's hope it dies the death that "Survivor" should have nine years ago. Give them a head full of acid, I say, then those gals will believe the place is haunted. Viewers might try the same, but I don't advocate the use of psychedelics.

But I should really be fair here...and brutally crucify the creators of the show. A brief explication of "Hot Girls in Scary Places" is in order:

The show stars three University of Southern California cheer squad friends challenged to spend the night in a supposedly haunted abandoned hospital for a cash prize of $10,000 (which would pay for maybe half a semester at USC). To get the prize, the trio will have to complete a series of challenges.
“They’re totally scared, and totally believe experiences they’re going through,” says executive producer Gary Auerbach [Ed.--He has a Facebook account!]. “They’ll get scared and then be talking about a sorority party coming up. It’s a little bit 'Scooby Doo'-ish.” ("E! orders 'Hot Girls in Scary Places,' " The Live Feed, 02.12.2009)

So it's definitely "ish," at least. Today, I got to see some of the rerun from Friday night (the 13th! Eeek!), and I have to at least say that the sensations experienced were both unique and alien. That doesn't mean they were good.

OK--they're all in a hospital, they don't seem scared at all, and nobody got laid--at least on-camera. The majority of what I witnessed--and it was all blood-chilling, just not the way you might think--was a gaggle of very bored coeds giggling and jiggling, a faked series of EVP (electro-voice phenomena, allegedly recordings of "spirit voices"), and not a hell of lot more. In reality, it looked like dumb outtakes from Jackass. Yet, we Americans love having things lying around that we don't need, so I assume the show will get picked-up as a series, mainly for its obvious camp value.

Where's Fred and his gay-sash in all of this? Will they have the old guy at the end exclaiming, "And I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you doggone bimbos." Perhaps, perhaps not, we'll see. My bets are on the old codgers. Some news outlets are saying that this show is a conscious "send-up," but do we really believe this? Perhaps, but why not make a drinking game out of it anyway, for every time one of the girls says "duhhhhh," "like," and "Ohmigod!" Yes, the dreaded "Ohmigod!" factor.

Executive producer Gary Auerbach has produced at least a dozen of these kinds of moronic reality shows, but his shows that bear the most obvious relationship to "Girls" is "Paranormal State" and "Lost Tapes," both-of-which are equally boring and impossible to accept or believe as anything but staged boredom. Even the "participants" and "investigators" appeared bored and incredulous. Well, right, because there is no supernatural anything and nothing after this life and no Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. Sorry.

Auerbach also produced "Punk'd" and several other MTV shows that are boring, so "Girls" was no real surprise here. But really, it is a soul-sucking and Satanic thing, this show. Just the mere existence of a show with a title like "Hot Girls in Scary Places" is enough to cause the dead to rise from their graves and seek revenge...on the barely-living, the barely-conscious, and that's not even dragging the viewers into it (that would be the show's backers). Did I mention he directed the early-1990s "Jon Stewart Show"?

Hey, everyone has to start somewhere, and I don't blame the producer for the state of the entertainment business. No, somehow, I can't blame Auerbach entirely. That blames rests with the money people in the entertainment industry who want to jettison troublesome union actors, crew, and writers, so that they can make lots of money and...crap. If they really want to entertain us, why not airdrop a pile of these social darwinists in Darfur, Afghanistan, the tribal regions of Pakistan, or over the borders into Iran? Or why not just let set "Girls" in the bad-parts of Oakland or Watts?

Best yet: airdrop these entertainment backers into the aforementioned places along with the rest of the CEOs of America. That would hardly be a boring show, that.

"E! orders 'Hot Girls in Scary Places,' " The Live Feed, 02.12.2009: http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/02/e-orders-hot-girls-in-scary-places.html