He Pokes the Kitty

Running on adrenaline fumes

This post might come as a surprise to some, or seem hypocritical to others, given my history of cynicism and prophecies of doom, but nevertheless I have to ask:  How long can Americans subsist on a daily diet of fear?  Will we ever become immune to it, callused, or will we continue to lap from the bowl of nightmares as long as it is full?

You know what I mean when I say this.  For decades we've been told strangers would kidnap, rape, and kill our children if we so much as let them out of our sigh, despite the fact that the probability of such a horror has always been low and has only grown less likely over time.  In the fifties, sixties and seventies we were taught at a very young age how to "duck and cover" (presumably so our flash-fried silhouettes would be nicely symmetrical).  In the eighties it was AIDS and drugs, in the nineties it was -- shit, I don't remember.  In the nineties I was in my self-absorbed twenties,  I just wanted pot legalized.

As we approached the millennium it was the Y2K bug, and I think ever since that fell through the biggest bogeyman has been germs -- the phobia of which may have caused all sorts of allergies and weird brain chemistries in children.  I know the list is much longer; these are just the first that spring to mind.

And now we have a new litany: immigrants, gays marrying, terrorism (ooh, is that a juicy one), socialism, Islam, fascism, activist judges, uppity Negroes in the White House, microwave popcorn, cell phones, Toyotas, lead in toys, increased taxes ... you get my point.

I'm not blaming this on Republicans or Neocons or even Tea Partiers (much), because I don't think it's political -- at least not directly. Even our local news channels love foreboding ads like, "Which shampoo you may use every day could put you at risk for spontaneous human combustion?  Find out at 11."

Why?  Do we get off on this stuff?  Does it make our hearts race the way they used to when a pack of wolves chased or hairy ancestors up a tree?  Do we just not know how to be content and realize that we live in an astonishingly safe environment?  Are the media and politicians just pandering to our need to feel afraid?

I have plenty of worries, don't think I'm above it.  But I like to think the things I worry about are things I actually KNOW something about.  It seems like people are increasingly glomming onto conspiracy theories that don't even begin to make sense and spreading them about as if they were beamed down from the heavens. 

I ask you, my fellow thinkers, why?  Why do we allow ourselves to be this way?  Do we perhaps need to introduce wolves and bears back into populated areas so we can have something REAL to worry about?

Avidly watching the wind sock

I've always given the GOP credit for cleverness,if nothing else, but the latest push for more seats in Congress seems devilishly simple: Using polls to "prove" that the Democrats are pushing through policies that are unpopular with the American people.

For example, I'm sure everyone knows by now that Prop 8 was struck down by a federal court as unconstitutional.  Most people I know are overjoyed about it, because they want equality for everyone under the law, but as the linked article notes, sitting Democrats aren't particularly pleased with the timing because they fear it will bring bigots to the polls and give the Republicans a majority in Congress again.  I understand the reality of that possibility, but should it matter?  Should people be denied their Constitutional rights so one party or another can retain power?

Then there's this jackass.  He claims Obama is the most anti-American president ever because he is enacting policies and laws that aren't currently approved of by a majority of those polled for their opinions.  (I could talk about how political poll results are all bullshit because the only people with landlines anymore are curmudgeons born during the baby boom, but that's another rant.)  That's a pretty big charge to raise against a president, "anti-American."  The author is really only accusing Obama of not doing what the people think they want this week,  but the label he pins on Obama is much more damning; he's implying that our president is not only disregarding opinions, but is actively trying to ruin the country.  That's quite an accusation, one even I never leveled at GWB.  (At least, not that I can remember.)

Does anyone with the ability to think critically actually believe our government's job is to kowtow to our every whim?  I mean, there's the obvious argument that if it did, we'd still have segregated schools and eating places, but even aside from that, do we not elect people for their judgment and knowledge?  Or do we really think that whoever we elect is going to do whatever we want, whenever we demand it?  Isn't that an infantile view of representative government?  Or am I crazy?

I'm feelin' impeachy

Can anybody tell me what, if anything, is the basis behind all these people calling for Obama's impeachment?  Most of what  find on the interwebs is nutjob stuff like this, or Hannity's gleeful claim that Obama offered a politician a job if he didn't run for office.  The most strident of the bunch seem to all be birthers, which I have to say is the most tired and debunked conspiracy idea of the decade.

So, is there anything to this at all, aside from rampant and rabid racism?  I mean, I don't remember all these folks when we found out we'd been led into a trumped-up war that is STILL going on....

From now on I want everyone to call me Steve

I'm no fan of nationalism.  I think it causes artificial rifts and imbues people with the idea that war is a good way to solve problems.  But there's not much love in my heart for deliberate obfuscation, either.

It seems BP is upset that President Obama has been referring to the oil giant as "British Petroleum," because they haven't used that name in absolutely YEARS.  They're also indignant about a New Orleans tourism ad (talk about a tough sell!) joking about how NO has "survived the British before."

Now, I understand that the President and the ad are both trying to make very pointy points -- that BP is not an American company -- but isn't it just a tad disingenuous to get mad at someone for pointing out who you really are?  I mean, would KFC throw me out if I walked in and asked for some FRIED chicken?  I know the chicken is fried and that BP is British, so how can anyone be mad that it gets pointed out?

Another Blow to Race Relations

I imagine everybody's already heard about the white cop punching a black girl after a jaywalking stop.  After watching the video (available through the link, slo-mo and all), I'm not sure how I feel about it.  It appears that one woman was fighting against the officer (after ignoring his command to stop), and when the other woman stepped in and shoved the officer, he punched her.  It's shocking, even today, to see a man punch a woman in the face, but at that point the cop had two potential threats on his hands and he was alone.  I'm not so sure he was out of line here.  It will be interesting to see what comes of the investigation.

Thoughts?

Bigotry: It's the New Black

Seems bigotry is a running theme with me these days, or it's in the news more, I don't know which.  Anyway, it seems the Boy Scouts of Philadelphia have been enjoying a rent-free ride from the city for close on a hundred years now, but the city isn't happy about the Boy Scouts' policy of excluding gays and lesbians from its ranks and is demanding rent from the organization. 

Apparently the Philadelphia chapter has tried to change its rules, contacting the BSA main office, but the big boys in little blue suits were having none of it, so now the local chapter is exercising another option: Litigation for violation of its First Amendment rights.

Usually I hear about bigotry -- especially institutionalized bigotry -- and find myself landing squarely on the other side of the argument, but I find myself conflicted about this one.  It is wrong for anyone to unfairly discriminate, but the Boy Scouts' agreement with the city (I assume, given when it was drawn up) had no codicil concerning homosexuals.  So what this comes down to is the city strong-arming the Boy Scouts, the Scouts attempting to comply but being refused, and the chapter left in an untenable situation. 

Thoughts?

Most offensive and hilarious quote of the day

"Religion is polarizing and ludicrous, but despite what angsty atheists say, it does more good than harm. Look at the numbers: For every firebombed abortion clinic, there are 126 young Catholic boys getting all the sex they want."

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-things-that-dont-mix-with-anything/#ixzz0ptuGXXUL

Thank you , Seanbaby.

Well, duh

It seems that overprotective parenting may engender neuroses in children.  They haven't done a study on it yet, but I bet sitting in the rain gets you wet, too.

What's so civil about rights, anyway?

I already wrote about Rand Paul's refusal to answer a "gotcha" question about whether he thought private businesses should fall under the umbrella of the Civil Rights Act, and now one of Harry Reid's possible GOP opponents in the upcoming race, Sue Lowden, has dodged and then sort of answered the same question. 

Pardon the pun, but are the Republicans' true colors beginning to show?  There is no "gotcha" to asking if you believe in the Civil Right Act, any more than asking someone if they believe abolition was a good idea. 

Libertarianism is SO 1988

I just read that Ron Paul's son won the GOP primary for a Senate seat in Kentucky, rather handily, with his dad's Libertarian-style politics.  There's a video in there too, in which Rachel Maddow asks him if he really believes, as reported, that business owners should be exempt from the Civil Rights Act because it violates their own First Amendment rights.  While he never actually said yes -- he spent a lot of time explaining that he personally found racism abhorrent and bad for business -- it was clear that he did, in fact, believe that if you don't want no blacks in your store, it's your store and  should be allowed to make that clear.

The reader comments (yes, I read them, stupidly) indicate that most of the people commenting agreed with him, and believed any business that practiced racism would be boycotted by everyone, black or white, and would be put out of business by the "free market system."  How wonderfully naive.

When I was in college I thought Libertarianism sounded great -- mainly because it promised legal pot, but also because personal freedom was very important to me.  I'd just left my parents' control, I wanted the world to be my oyster even though I hate oysters, and I wanted to do everything and anything I wanted to do.  I even went so far as to vote for Ron Paul for president.  (Yes, he was even running way back then.)

As I got older, even though I still very much valued personal freedom, I began to wonder how workable nearly any part of Libertarian policies is.  Like, how do we know which company's meat is safe to eat without the FDA?  In the "free market system," the only thing preventing companies from selling tainted meat is the fear of boycott, but what if you're Tyson and you know poor people will keep buying your chickens anyway because they're cheap? 

And what about schools, utilities, roads, fire and police departments, libraries, and other tax-supported and government-administrated entities?  Would each community pool its resources and hire the best company it could afford to receive these services?  It seems to me that would only serve to help widen the gulf between the rich and the poor, as tenements burnt down and poor children were taught even more ineffectively than they are now.

And yet, adult people think all of this is a GREAT idea, and if we just didn't have taxes or so much government, everything would be fantastic.  Let me ask you this, Libertarians:  Which corporation do you trust to count your vote?  How about Diebold?