Things That Make Me Want to Punch a Kitty

If you pay any attention to modern media, you face a daily deluge of idiocy that I fear our society may be growing numb to. Every self-proclaimed “expert” gets an op-ed piece or five minutes of air-time to preach on some supremely important cause, prophesize about our inevitable demise, or take umbrage at some perceived affront.

The latest example I submit to you comes from the op-ed pages of the esteemed New York Times. Our expert for the day, Steve Ross, is the “supervisor of behavioral and cognitive research at the Lester Fisher Center for the Study and Conservation of Apes at the Lincoln Park Zoo” (this wording is taken directly from the article, and makes it impossible to discern whether Mr. Ross and the Lester Fisher Center’s mission is concerned with the study and conservation of apes as a species (and the center happens to be located at the Lincoln Park Zoo), or merely with the study and conservation of the apes housed at the Lincoln Park Zoo. In my humble opinion (I concede I’m not an expert), if they’re having conservation problems at the Lincoln Park Zoo it may be a terrible zoo, and perhaps the animals would be better off in the wild.)

This little ambiguity aside, the aforementioned op-ed is perhaps the most…what’s the word I’m looking for…inane thing I’ve ever read. At first it didn’t even occur to me to take it seriously. I forgot where I was on the WWW and assumed I had somehow stumbled upon The Onion. But then I realized that Mr. Ross was serious. And this article was written to be read seriously. And it had been deemed serious enough by the NY Times, a traditionally serious publication, to consume valuable real estate on its pages.

They can’t be serious.

Read it for yourself here http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/opinion/21ross.html?th&emc=th and form your own opinion, but for those of you with actual things to do, or those reluctant to fill limited brain space with absurdity, I’ll sum up: In Chimps Aren’t Chumps, Mr. Ross finally takes a stance against that greatest of all evils: dressing Chimpanzees like people. That’s right, CareerBuilder.com, PG Tips Tea and producers of Ed (though they ought to apologize for a number of offenses beyond chimp exploitation), you people are monsters. My eyes have been opened to a new wickedness threatening the very fabric of society. Yes people are starving, being slaughtered in wars, sold into slavery. But these chimpanzees are wearing hats, sunglasses; are being put in humorous, personifistic situations for a cheap laugh (or more poignantly, to ask the age old question: what if people were monkeys? Or monkeys people? Oh the humanity…). It makes me sick. And if you’ve ever sent a Monk-e-mail, welcome to my shit list (kidding, I love ‘em. Please send more to grueri@bethel.edu).

Alright, I’m not being fair. Mr. Ross is looking to make an important point: chimpanzees are still an endangered species and people often forget this fact because commercials make their lives look so comfortable. They are intelligent, thoughtful creatures that should be afforded a degree of respect.
Perhaps I’ve keyed in on Mr. Ross because his sincerity on this (to me laughable) issue makes him an easy target. He’s vulnerable, there’s a chink in the armor, I can smell blood in the water (insert your own predator/prey metaphor). But his belief that chimps dressed as people are a major problem shows that he’s woefully out of touch with the real world.

And here’s the real kicker: Mr. Ross is hoping to protect chimpanzees from being dressed up in business attire and forced to sit in cubicles. It’s inhumane! It’s degrading! It’s beyond cruel! But I dress in business attire…and I sit in a cubicle. So who’s the real chimp (or chump?)

Mr. Ross believes that chimps deserve rights. They’re not that far removed from humans (on an evolutionary scale, a debate I’m not looking to start here) and should be granted certain civil liberties. But, not to be an unsympathetic bastard, if chimps deserve the same rights as me they also deserve the same responsibilities. If I can’t pick bugs and throw feces all day long, neither can they. Hear that, chimps of the world? Get a job. Maybe in advertising…

Now, my favorite passage: “Would we condone putting funny clothes on human children so that we could laugh at the way they look like subhuman buffoons?”

Yes, we would. It’s called Halloween.

Thanks for reading.

P.S. I’m considering making “Things That Make Me Want to Punch a Kitty” a recurring series. Thoughts?

The News

Over the weekend I enjoyed a spirited discussion with Cassel concerning the value of news, and I think it would be interesting to get the rest of you dudes in on it.

The conversation started when I mentioned that I was considering going to grad school for journalism, a pursuit I consider noble and important. It’s long been my belief that as living, thinking and functioning members of society, as well as active participants in history, it’s our responsibility (and right) to be socially aware. To this end I’ve made a concerted effort over the last several years to become a tireless consumer of current events, scouring multiple sources daily to educate myself on global injustices, government processes and notable figures. I often find myself lost in a world of bylines and inverse triangle story structure, breaking news and continually updated feeds scrolling across the bottom of my computer screen. At times I become irritable, too busy inhaling policy discussions and opinion polls to take a minute to breath. Too distraught by death and tragedy to live my life in the here and now. And when people around me are oblivious to the world and don’t see the harm in their ignorance, I’m disgusted.

It boils down to this: the news makes me a pessimist. Politicians are lying snakes. People in general are cruel, bigoted, and irredeemable. We’re all fated to die by war or murder or natural disaster or reliance on foreign oil. Every corner of the globe is rife with hatred, greed, jealousy, rage and violence. And I’m in Minnesota, living my life, not saving the world, and too powerless to know where to begin.

Awareness of mass injustices that I can do nothing about only raises my awareness that the world may be utterly hopeless. My righteous indignation, diluted as it sprinkles over the planet, doesn’t save lives, doesn’t right wrongs, doesn’t change the hearts of the oppressors or lift the spirits of the oppressed. My skepticism over the validity of even “just wars” will never end war (I read somewhere that in 3500 years of civilization there have been a mere 230 years of peace). I fill myself with stories of wrongs that I can’t right, that have no outlet. My outrage is internalized, and I fear I may one day explode. I’m like Mr. Furious from the movie Mystery Men (obscure reference alert).

Thus I arrive at this proposition: perhaps ignorance truly is bliss.

What do you think?

Thanks for reading.

Tyrannical Stupidity

On May 3 Cyclone Nargis ripped through southern Myanmar, devastating the Irrawaddy Delta and Yangon, the country’s main city. The definitive body count is still sketchy, but most estimates put it in the 30,000 range (the “official” government count is 32,000), with that number potentially escalating into the hundreds of thousands should food and water not expediently reach the hard-hit masses (the UN is now estimating as many as 215,000 deaths should current trends continue, more than the powerful Asian tsunamis of 2004, and are saying the government is drastically and intentionally underestimating the toll).

As villagers struggle to clear debris and the trail of bodies flowing downstream, rebuild their homes and some semblance of normalcy, the oppressive government has done everything in its power to prolong and exacerbate the suffering.

Myanmar has been under military rule since 1962, when General Ne Win staged a coup and toppled the civilian government. Ne Win ruled until 1988, first as military ruler, then as self-appointed president, then as political overlord. The current junta, led by Senior General Than Shwe, took the reigns in ’88, turning over democratic parliamentary elections as a first order of business.

General Than and his cronies are insular, paranoid, and power-hungry. They maintain vigilant watch over media influences and potential dissent. They crush uprisings with brutality and efficiency. Witness, for example, the 2007 protests staged by Buddhist Monks over rising fuel prices. The government’s response was swift and merciless. The military arrested, beat and murdered hundreds of the peaceful spiritual leaders.

Their isolationism has led to what can only be labeled a humanitarian crisis in the country. Thousands have unnecessarily died due to the government’s slow response, leaving many wondering why the military, so quickly mobilized when sent to murder and oppress, is now dragging its feet when asked to help the people it, theoretically, exists to protect. They have cut off the flow of foreign aid to the people by refusing to accept aid workers (there is a standing order to detain foreigners), making it difficult for aircraft carrying necessities to enter the country, and confiscating the few supplies that successfully penetrate the borders.

Their motivations are clear: they want to prevent the democratically-tinged whisperings of westerners from reaching the susceptible ears of their disillusioned citizenry, and they want to make their junta the embodiment of benevolence by acting as the sole faction serving the people. Accepting foreign aid would make the government look weak, unable to provide, and foreign workers would highlight the gross failures of General Than’s “leadership.”

But at these goals they are failing miserably. Most of the country is still without power. Homes that were decimated remain decimated. It has become clear that the confiscated food is feeding the military ranks, with only rotten leftovers reaching the people.

Apparently, General Than needs a primer course in tyranny: to rule with an iron fist the people must, at the very least, be placated. If you can convince the people that your oppressive rule is in their best interest, even better, but the masses must be apathetic: “yes, our freedoms are limited and our dignity is degraded, but we have food, water and a roof over our head.” You must keep them in psychological and physical limbo: weak enough that they live in constant fear of your crushing power, but well-off enough that they’re thankful it isn’t worse.

But the people in Myanmar are now without food, water and shelter. A beleaguered population denied basic necessities is a recipe for revolution. When a man is deluded into thinking he has something to live for: a pathetically low paying job, a meal a day, the illusion that he’s providing for his family, then that man can be made to crawl on all fours like a dog. But when that man is forced to sleep outside in the rain, to watch his children starve to death, then that man realizes there are things far more important than physical preservation. And when many men who no longer fear death converge on a time and place, there will be revolt.

All that remains to be seen is whether the people’s rage will overcome their despondency; whether they can rise above mental and physical trepidation long enough to deal a crushing blow to a weak and arrogant government.

If they don’t, they’re even dumber than the tyrant who fails to grasp even the simplest tenets of tyranny (I wonder if General Than wants to borrow my copy of The Prince…)

Thanks for reading.

Shouldn’t it be Warmer?

I woke up on Saturday morning to a winter wonderland. The ground was covered with snow, my car was covered with frost, and I was cold, literally and figuratively (as in, the numbness in my outer extremities was outdone only by the numbness of my summer-lusting soul). We do live in Minnesota, so such weather occurrences are to be expected. But it’s the end of April. And I was promised global warming.

Scientists have been telling us for years that the arctic ice is melting, polar bear habitats are disappearing, penguins are sipping Mai Tais while lounging in Tommy Bahama cabana wear. The warming trend is now reaching catastrophic proportions. Stronger weather systems are creating increasingly destructive tropical storms. Lengthy droughts are leading to widespread famine. Aforementioned melting ice is leaving elevated water levels. The apocalypse is nigh.

But really, April 26 and I can’t get a barbeque worthy day? I want explanations, damnit.

I’m no scientist and on the facts I’m sketchy at best, but I can’t help but suspect that global warming is a whole heap of rubbish. Throughout the history of the planet Earth there have been countless climactic shifts. These are well documented and scientifically accepted.

What caused the ice age? Methane emanating from Mammoth asses? And what about the warming that inevitably arrived with the end of the ice age? Would today’s scientists have spurred a panic then? New research reveals that 70,000 years ago the human race nearly went extinct due to a massive drought. The entire species was confined to small pockets of Africa. Did this die-off coincide with the discovery of fire?

No. These shifts were the result of the ebb and flow of the planet’s climate. Natural causes. Unfortunately, a focus on long-term patterns doesn’t win grants, voices of reason don’t get air time on the evening news. So even in the world of science we’re left with fear-mongering and panic-jockeying.

I’m not suggesting that global warming is pure fiction, but I am suggesting that it’s far too soon for us to fully understand the repercussions of our beloved chlorofluorocarbons, and it’s awfully presumptuous of us to believe we fully understand the whims and subtleties of our 4.5 billion year old planet.

The basis for global warming theory is the idea that “greenhouse gases” prevent warm air from dissipating in the atmosphere, leading to a rise in temperatures globally. But why do we assume that greenhouse gases trap warm air in? Couldn’t they just as plausibly keep the sun’s heat out? Could global warming be explained, at least partially, by the booming population? I’ve got to believe that billions of extra sweating, farting human beings heats things up pretty quick. Would scientists then advocate mass executions (won’t somebody show a little mercy for the polar ice caps)? Hell, maybe Mother Earth is trying to reduce us to ashes because she’s tired of our egoism.

It’s a poignant demonstration of our self-important, narcissistic nature to believe that our actions can irrevocably alter the course of the planet, while in ages past dramatic events (obscene, inexplicable climate changes, mass extinctions) were completely attributed to natural causes. We’re so refined and sophisticated and smart that our insignificant little deeds must have some impact. Right?

This, in my opinion, remains to be seen.

But really, what difference does it make? Stewardship of the planet is a shared responsibility that we are born into. We all know that pollution is a problem. The smog that hangs over major cities is real, as is the startling asthma rate. The extinction of species caused by blatant disregard hurts us all, and deprives future generations of their right to live a fully realized life. There’s no excuse for lining the ocean floor with plastic grocery bags and dirty diapers.

Why is this not enough to shake us from apathy? Why do I need a cataclysmic event to spur me into action? Threats of incineration shouldn’t be necessary to convince me that I should ride a bike every once in a while.

But truth be told, even such outlandish threats prove insufficient. You could tell the general population that they would die immediately if they neglected their environmental responsibilities, and I’m betting a quarter would still refuse to walk 50 extra feet to find a recycling can. We are an odd species.

Thanks for reading.

Boycotting Beijing

NOTE: I'm posting a day early because those bastards over at Slate Magazine just put out a story on the same topic, and I want it to be known that they're ripping me off (I wrote this over the weekend). I'm not sure how they hacked in to my computer, but I'll get to the bottom of this. Enjoy!


The recent turmoil in Tibet has brought to the forefront, yet again, China’s abysmal record on human rights and its desperation to cover up said record. Following days of protest and civil unrest over Tibetan autonomy, the Chinese government hurriedly tidied up the messy affair, clearing streets of debris and downplaying reports that over 80 civilians had been killed by Chinese forces (their official report is 16). And to a large extent, their public relations efforts seem to be working (they’ve been removed from the United States’ top ten list for most egregious human rights violators).

This in itself is a sickening display of political pandering. It’s clear that America, and the international community as a whole, tip-toes around China for fear of awakening the beast. They have developed into an economic powerhouse with intimidating military might. From a sheer numbers standpoint, it seems essential that our governments remain on good terms, and for this reason we choose to ignore the repressive regime of Hu Jintao.

What’s more despicable is we are providing this government with our tacit approval by allowing them to host the 2008 summer Olympics. This international event is intended to serve as a display of global goodwill, connectedness, humanity and equality. By allowing China to host the games, and not uttering a word in protest, we have turned them into a PR farce made possible by China’s deeply disturbing habit of employing brutal tactics to silence dissent.

Jintao and his cronies can imprison every journalist, murder every protestor, and the fact remains that the Chinese government represses and/or exploits citizens in the name of progress, illegally detains vocal opponents and crushes potential uprisings with an iron fist. They fund tyrants, provide genocidal governments with advanced weaponry and implicit approval (most notably in Sudan) and are indignant of international pressure to change these practices, let alone intervene.

We have at our fingertips a unique opportunity to tighten the screws on the Chinese. Their international awareness is unprecedentedly sensitive, and it is crucial to this still developing country that the world takes them seriously. If we were to take the lead and even hint at an Olympic boycott, the global community would follow and force the Chinese to make their first ever good-hearted effort to improve their policies on human rights.

To start, they need to play hardball with Omar al-Bashir and the Sudanese government. If China pulled its economic support the Sudanese government would crumble. There would be no more supplies (military or otherwise) to be funneled to the government-supported Janjaweed militias. Al-Bashir knows this, and would fold at the suggestion. In addition, China should be required to send peacekeeping forces to drive the militias from Darfur. Next, China must free imprisoned dissidents and grant greater freedom to journalists. For a government to be legitimate, the people must have access to at least a rudimentary picture of its practices. Finally, China should allow the Dalai Lama to return from exile and should grant Tibet greater autonomy.

We have the power to make this happen with a simple phone call: “Good morning, President Jintao. Take human rights seriously, or we boycott.”

But, as usual, we’re far too short-sighted for such a proposition. For the boycott to work the threat must be real; we must be ready and willing to pull our athletes out of the games, to bar our television stations from airing any portion of them, to prevent any of our journalists from reporting results. But for economic reasons our threat to boycott would be a bluff, and if China called us on it the result would be disastrous.

So, as usual, we’re behind the game. A number of prominent figures have already either officially boycotted or hinted at boycotting the games. Steven Spielberg, originally slated to serve as art director for the opening ceremony, has backed out, saying that he could not in good conscience support the Chinese Olympics. France’s Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has urged the European Union to consider boycotting at least the opening ceremony (though in my opinion this would serve solely as a publicity stunt. We must be willing to boycott the games in their entirety). Several international groups reportedly have plans to protest at various sections of the torch lighting ceremony.

In the span of a lifetime, the opportunities to truly stand against injustice and to better the world for future generations are few and far between. This is one of them. And think, it would require no bloodshed, no armed conflict. All it would take would be a unified international voice shouting “we don’t approve of your oppressive government, and we won’t participate in the charade.” True passive resistance.

On the other hand, let’s review America’s record on human rights. We, too, fund governments that have horrifying habits of repressing citizens (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) and genocidal madmen (Saddam Hussein in the ‘80s). We, too, illegally detain citizens (think Guantanamo), spy on citizens (the Patriot Act), and attempt to silence opponents (look at the Scooter Libby scandal).

We didn’t put up too much of a fuss when Nazi Germany hosted the summer Olympics in 1936, which makes me suspect that, despite all of our high-minded rhetoric and efforts to play the global moral authority, we just don’t give a shit.

So maybe an American protest would just be a grandiose display of our own hypocrisy.

You decide for yourself, but Zizzle-Zot,etc. officially boycotts.

Thanks for reading

Victor Bout Arrested

To keep you all updated on former Zizzle-Zot People of Note, Russian arms dealer Victor Bout (http://erikgruber.blogspot.com/2007/09/people-of-note-victor-bout.html) has been arrested in Thailand as a result of an American led sting operation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/world/europe/07dealer.html?th&emc=th

Scary Movie 5: Can I Panic Yet?

P Corcs, thanks for bringing that delightful video and all its paranoia inspiring, New World Order preaching, speculatively reasonable conspiracy theories to our attention. Conversation was inevitable, and that’s exactly what we here at Zizzle-Zot, etc. thrive on.

I’ve seen some of these theories in the past (the North American Union, implanted ID chips) and some are new to me (the involvement of the Rockefellers).

Some I agree with, particularly the opening segment concerning the educational system. Government regulated education, most notably questionable legislation such as No Child Left Behind, has served the sole purpose of making us stupid. By forcing educators to neglect the passage of actual knowledge because the emphasis is placed on preparation for standardized tests aimed at the lowest denominator, the government has repressed the maturation of bright young minds and subverted the ability of teachers to do what they do; that is, teach.

Some of the theories are absurd. A North American Union will never happen. We’re much too proud, much too nationalistic, and quite frankly, much too powerful to ever align ourselves with Canada and Mexico. The European Union was formed because it was mutually beneficial for the countries involved. It took a number of small, relatively insignificant countries and bound them into an economic powerhouse. What would the US have to gain by partnering with Canada and Mexico (aside from access to a few natural resources)? Mexico would quickly become a financial burden, Canada, I imagine, would continue to operate as it does now (autonomously, but by following our lead). There’s simply no incentive.

And some of the theories exist in shades of grey. These are the theories that hold the most interest.

Late Night, you seem awfully convinced that we are too “smart” to hand the government our liberties. But are we really?

One of the primary DFL issues in the upcoming election is universal health care. I’ll admit that I’m an advocate. But what does this legislation really do but strip us of small freedoms: the freedom to choose what doctor we see, what hospital we visit?

After 9/11 there was overwhelming public support for the Patriot Act (you were anti-American if you opposed it – but don’t look at me, I screamed foul all along: http://erikgruber.blogspot.com/2007/08/shhhtheyre-listening.html). This legislation gave the government the right to spy on Americans without a warrant, amongst other things. Again, we willingly gave up our freedoms.

Every year the government takes a large chunk of the money that we earn, and ultimately we have no say about where that money goes. I don’t want my tax money supporting war, but the powers that be don’t care. They take that money out of my paycheck, depriving me of the liberty to choose where I spend the money I worked for.

We willingly give up our liberties on a daily basis.

The government controls fiscal policy, ranging from interest rates to (I suspect) the price of gasoline. We’re prisoners of fear, and on a practical level our greatest fears are economic.

Think about this: we are prisoners of debt.

What are the real necessities of life? Food, water, shelter. Let’s focus on that last one: shelter. How do we provide shelter for ourselves, or more importantly, for our families? There are two options: we can rent, but if we don’t own our shelter we don’t own our lives, or ourselves. We are at the whim of landlords, developers, and the government. We could be thrown on the street at a moment’s notice and have nothing to show for it. It’s essential that we own our shelter, so we buy, and by doing so we go into debt.

How will we pay off that debt? We need a job, but in order to get that job we need education. More debt. Now we have the job, how will we get there? We need transportation. More debt. It goes on in this manner to infinity.

Living this way, constantly struggling to catch up to our debts, constrains our world view. We can’t see beyond “I need to work to pay off my debt or I won’t be able to buy the next thing I need.” We sacrifice our connection to reality and life at the entirely theoretical altar of money.

And who controls the money that we have sacrificed our liberty to? That’s right, the government.

Let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that we have ownership of our lives. As long as we’re buried beneath debt we are simply on loan. We’re owned by the banks, which are ultimately owned by the government. We already have chips, but instead of being implanted they come in the form of credit cards, bank statements and bills. Don’t be overly confident that the government can’t already turn your “chips” off as they see fit. They have the authority to freeze your assets. Are the two not synonymous? By giving our consent to taxation (over which we have no control) and our participation in the American economic system, we have willingly and readily given up our liberty.

Now think about this: we are blind participants in perpetual warfare. Following WWII we established Israel; superficially to allow the Jews to return to their homeland and to right the injustices that had been inflicted upon them, but secretly to place a proxy army in the heart of an extremely important economic zone. Surely we must have known that displacing millions of Arabs and allowing Jews to move in would inevitably lead to bloody conflict and was, lawfully speaking, dubious at best. But we also knew that by creating and funding a powerful army in this region we could propagate division and chaos, allowing us to maintain an iron grip through our own wealth and military might.

I’ve written at length on this topic in my “A (Very) Brief History of the Middle East” series, but to revisit: what was our reasoning when we invaded Iraq? The country was not a terrorist hotbed until we got there. Compared to some Middle Eastern nations they were relatively stable (see Afghanistan, Pakistan). Yes, Saddam Hussein had committed crimes against humanity, but so have Kim Jong Il, Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, and countless other leaders throughout history that the US hasn’t hastened to remove.

I won’t take it so far as some and suggest outright that 9/11 was a conspiracy. But I will suggest that our motivations in the Middle East are more insidious than we would like to imagine. And who is it that funds these conflicts? That’s right, we do. MLK once said “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.” By helping to fund war, I am consenting to war, and am being made an unwilling participant in war.

Liberty my ass.

Well my friends, we’ve been many places together, and for today at least we’re firmly entrenched in the fringes of society. If later tonight you’re on the phone and you hear an extra click, be very careful. They’re listening.

Thanks for reading.

PS I didn’t get a chance to watch the extended videos you linked to, PCorcs, but have every intention of doing so today. I’m sure they will spark more discussion.

Repewwwwblicans

This started as a comment, but got a little long. So surprise…Bonus post!

I’m F$#%ing Ben Affleck is my favorite Ben Affleck role of all time. And a Josh Groban cameo?…genius.

To briefly respond to P Corc’s comments (starting with your first post): the “experience” issue is something that has bewildered me since the outset of the primaries. Why is Hillary trying to make this election about experience, when all this does is undermine her campaign should she actually get the democratic nomination? She’s a first term senator that has been elected to office a grand total of once. What is this experience she speaks of? Where does she get off saying she would hold up better against the Republican attack machine in a general election? Barack has at least gone through multiple elections.

Not to mention (and I’ve said this before), McCain was a POW while she was attending her senior prom. He was a senator when we were still in diapers. Experience doesn’t bode well for either democratic contender.

Moving on to your second post (responding in numerical order):

1) It’s no secret that I’m an unabashed Obama man. That said, what I’m about to say puts some pretty serious holes in his campaign, and I only bring this issue up because we’re all serious thinkers who either A) know which way we’re going to vote and are unlikely to be swayed much either way or B) are open-minded and intelligent enough to consider all the facts and weigh multiple perspectives before making decisions. Also, this is something that Obama will inevitably run up against should he survive the primaries (which he will), so we may as well start discussing it now.

Barack appeals to independent voters with his talk of change, and these independents (who see him as a like-minded independent) provide a considerable amount of his support. But if you look at his voting record (or just take a look at his Maverick points in Fantasy Congress), you will find that he rarely strays from the party line. He votes with the democrats 97% of the time (a party unity track record surpassed by only 5 other dems). Where’s the independence? This is something that concerns me quite a bit (as I am one of those independents currently propping him up). It’s an issue that he will need answers for come general election time or he may find himself bleeding independent voters to McCain.

On the other hand, he has crossed party lines to work on legislation, including working with McCain on ethics reform.

To get back to your response, PCorcs, will Obama be another party puppet? (I know how DC really works) Why buy into what he says? Because at some point we have to believe in the possibilities of the American Spirit (it is, after all, the very thing that has made us the most powerful nation in the world). The success of Barack’s upstart campaign has shown without a doubt that Americans are hungry for a change: that we are ready to hold our politicians to higher standards and are looking to individuals willing to move past prejudice in order to accomplish goals for the greater good. Barack himself has elevated his campaign (and potential presidency) to this lofty standard, and if he gets to office and fails us, there will be a public outcry (maybe the very catalyst we need to push us into revolution – not to sound crazy or anything). Business as usual will no longer do, and at this point, if Obama gets elected and doesn’t push towards change, I think we’re ready to do it for him. This segues into comment 2.

2) Will McCain be George Bush III? Yes and no. He’s less worried about peer approval, less apt to be coerced by an overbearing VP, less inclined to lie to the American people (whether it be by arrogance or ignorance). I like that he speaks and votes his conscience, seems to despise party lines, and irritates Repubs and Dems alike.

On the other hand, he shares the Bush foreign policy of threatening, bullying, and blowing up countries with worldviews that don’t align with ours. I, for one, think diplomacy can go a long way, and by extending a little respect to foreign leaders that we don’t see eye to eye with (yes, I feel American leaders should meet with the likes of Raul Castro, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and hell, even Kim Jon Il, without preconditions), showing a little sympathy to foreign cultures, and advocating peaceful resolutions, we can do wonders for our global image and start moving towards a nonviolent world. I realize these men and their regimes are guilty of human rights violations, treaty violations, nuclear violations, et al, but what is the aim of foreign policy? I personally think solutions are more important than retribution. What do sanctions and war accomplish other than punishing the very innocents that we are trying to liberate?

Let’s face it, the assumption that all countries will be best off with a democracy in the American mold is unrealistic. And the best way to urge a country towards civil liberty is not by killing everybody in it. Democracy by death will never work, and makes us little better than 21st century Crusaders.

To wrap up, George W. Bush has been a horrible president.

Thanks for reading.

Clinton Refocuses Attack Ads on America

In an unprecedented and arguably risky late-game alteration in campaign strategy, New York Junior Senator and presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton has indicated that she will shift the focus of her largely negative campaign from her surging and overwhelmingly popular opponent, Barack Obama, to the American people who have failed to lift her to the presidential nomination to which she feels she is entitled.

The tactical shift was announced Late Tuesday by Clinton’s grossly overpaid chief strategist Mark Penn after yet another shellacking by the formidable Obama, who has proven beyond a doubt that American citizens would rather entrust the future of the country to a charming and inspirational newcomer than subject themselves to four (or heaven forbid eight) years of nagging by a heartless dominatrix who “reminds them of their mother-in-law.”

The Clinton camp’s planned advertising blitz will include a series of TV spots juxtaposing images of uneducated, unemployed, snaggle-toothed hillbillies, sweaty, overweight cube monkeys, celebrities gone wild, and death row inmates. The unifying theme will become apparent in the final screen shot, which reveals the new Clinton campaign slogan: America ’08: Hopeless.

“With this new campaign strategy, we’re trying to beat the optimism out of the American people,” Penn explained. “By showing them that they are degenerate, powerless and ultimately hopeless individuals drowning in seas of their own misery, we hope to instill in them a fear akin to that of a meek husband terrified of losing his overbearing wife. These people need to understand that they are embarrassingly pathetic, and without a strong female figure telling them to clean out the garage on Sunday during the biggest game of the season, nothing will ever get accomplished.”

Clinton disgustedly added “these dolts have failed to vote for me time and again despite empty promises, shameless pandering, and misguided attempts at sincerity. I’ve pretended to think the elderly don’t smell funny, I’ve pretended to like poor people, I’ve even cried like a sissy for you, America. I’ve been down in Texas eating nothing but taquitos for two weeks. I’ve got a case of the runs that won’t quit and my asshole is rawer than steak tartare. Well now you’re gonna hear about it. Screw you all! Screw you all! Come on, everybody say it with me. Screw you all! Screw you all!”

The ads are slated to begin early next week, at which point America will reportedly need a stiff drink.

Thanks for reading.

P.S. The Oscars were on Sunday night and I, for one, watched them from beginning to end. Then again I’m a nerd and get a kick out of that sort of thing.

Overall, the entertainment value was a little lacking (maybe a symptom of the recently settled writers’ strike), and noticeably absent were any pre-produced sketches, spoofs, etc. This was either a blessing or a curse, as these attempts at comedy can either border on brilliance or bomb in spectacular fashion. It’s odd that even without these, the ceremony was inexplicably long.

Highlight of the evening: Anything involving Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova (winners for best song with “Falling Slowly” from Once). These two were genuinely excited to be there, their performance of the song was transcendent, and John Stewart inviting Ms. Irglova back onto the stage to finish her acceptance speech was one of the night’s few endearing moments. Speaking of John Stewart, I’ll forever be a fan and he was once again a solid host (though at times his cynical wit must have been borderline offensive to industry insiders).

The other bright spots were the Coen brothers’ acceptance speeches (particularly the second). The brevity of their thank-yous highlighted their general disdain for the Hollywood machine, which is the very reason I’m a huge fan of the Coens.

Letdowns of the evening: Seriously, enough with the montages. Every single award came with a montage of past winners. And the PricewaterhouseCoopers “how we vote” segment…who honestly gives a shit?

The parade of montages, however, didn’t hold a candle to my aggravation during the pre-ceremony red carpet coverage (serves me right for watching that garbage). I could point out a number of minor irritants in this self-congratulatory vanity-fest, but I’ll focus on just one: Juno was an endearing little film created by a very unique, very talented, very entertaining group of individuals. Think of the interview possibilities: the eccentric Diablo Cody, the irreverent Ellen Page, the awkward Michael Cera, the sarcastic Jason Bateman, the up-and-coming director Jason Reitman. I would love to see any one of these people field a few softball questions from Ryan Seacrest. So why did I see 3 or 4 interviews with Jennifer Garner, hands down the most uninteresting person involved with the film (and arguably one of the most boring people in all of Hollywood)? Gross.

On a loosely affiliated side note, I rented Gone Baby Gone the other night and, though it pains me to say it (it was directed by one of my Hollywood nemeses and uber-acting hack Ben Affleck), I give this film the stamp of approval. Casey Affleck is a hell of an actor with a bright future, an incomprehensible fact when coupled with the magnificent suckitude of his big dumb brother. Who knows, maybe Ben has found his niche on the other side of the camera and will prove to be one of the industry’s great directors, meaning I’ll need to rethink my entire worldview.

Sigh…

A Week of News (Abridged):

Finding myself unable to settle on just one topic for the weekly entry, I’ve elected instead to offer up a smattering of news. While this week has presented an active cycle, I’m uncertain as to whether this idea demonstrates due diligence or a lack of decisiveness. Oh well.

The two stories dominating the spotlight are the primaries and their respective dramas (a recurring theme which I’ll get to) and the looming recession. downturn. slowdown. Opportunity for innovation.

I can’t say that I’m particularly worried about the economy. I have few (did I say few? I meant zero) investments that will be affected by the instability and my job is unlikely to be threatened. It looks like I won’t be riding the rails to greener pastures (a la The Great Depression) anytime soon (mixed emotions).

For those in different circumstances who find themselves feeling the pain: my condolences. I’ll offer two silver linings. One, President Bush and the House have agreed (Whaaat!?!) to a $150 billion fiscal stimulus package. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/washington/25fiscal.html?th&emc=th.


The plan, apparently, is to put anywhere from $300 to $1200 back in taxpayers pockets. Most readers of this blog are looking to get $600 apiece. While this is a very nice little gesture, I have sincere doubts about its expected goal. $600 is a great shopping spree, but if the government sends me a check my first instinct won’t be to cash it and head to the nearest mall. In the real world of bills, mortgages (rent in my case), insurance, etc., $600 simply doesn’t go all that far. I wouldn’t have much left over after a month of school loan payments. If the money doesn’t significantly increase each consumers overall spending (which it won’t in my case), thereby going directly back into the economy, what’s the point? I may be alone on this, and I’ll grant that my knowledge of economics is limited, but it seems that the government (and presumably the greatest economic minds) could come up with something better.

On the other hand, maybe I’ll get all $600 in quarters, rent a hot air balloon, take it to an elevation of 1,000 feet and subject the world below me to a $600 reign (note the pun) of monetary terror.

The other bright side of the economic stormcloud is a matter of relativity. At least you’re in better shape than Jerome Kerviel. This 31-year-old midlevel employee of Societe Generale (one of France’s largest banks) managed to lose $7 billion making bad bets on stocks. Ouch. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/business/worldbusiness/25bank.html?th&emc=th

Moving on.

I’ve discovered yet another reason to head to your respective district’s Democratic Caucuses and voice your support for Barack Obama: he advocates class-based affirmative action: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/14/AR2007051401233.html or http://www.slate.com/id/2165717/&#obamaaffaction

Looks like Obama’s taking a page out of the old Zizzle-Zot playbook (he’s wise beyond his years) and growing ever closer to getting the official Zot endorsement (which would win him exactly one vote in the upcoming Minnesota Caucuses).

Speaking of the Caucuses, here are the details: They’ll be held on Tuesday, February 5. Registration starts at 6:30, the main event starts at 7. Find your location here: http://caucusfinder.sos.state.mn.us/. I realize I’ve admonished the caucus system in the past (http://erikgruber.blogspot.com/2008/01/season-is-upon-us.html), but unlike the Iowa Caucuses, ours actually holds weight in the party nominations. Needless to say, we should all go; no excuses. More than a civic duty, it’s a tremendous opportunity to have a voice in the democratic process.

Late Night, don’t think I forgot about you. California has a primary, which is also on February 5. Find your voting location here: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_ppl.htm

While we’re on politics, let’s talk about the filth being slung in the Democratic race. With all the posturing, blatant lies and below the belt call-outs, these people are making professional wrestlers look downright genteel. Check out some of the down and dirty here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/clinton-obama_slugfest.html.

My synopsis is that Edwards looks like the mature adult trying to focus on serious issues while the others bicker (which is exactly how he is positioning himself). Obama, as long as he can keep his cool (which he came dangerously close to losing in the South Carolina debate) will come out looking like the intelligent, composed and thoughtful individual that I hope he truly is. The Republicans, by comparison, look awfully civil.

Really, the only loser here is Hillary. Has this fracas given us a taste of her true character? Has the warm, personable Hillary of New Hampshire given way to the conniving, malicious and spiteful women we’ve feared from the onset? Is this what a President Hillary Clinton will look like? The prospect is even more frightening as she starts to look more and more like the front runner.

The one consolation is that I’ve been greatly amused by Bill Clinton consistently coming to the rescue of Hillary “ready on day one” Clinton: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080123235622.htsftt80&show_article=1. It’s terribly kind of him, but since when is the definition of “ready on day one” equivalent to “I let my hubbie fight my battles?”

To drive the point home, read this: http://www.slate.com/id/2182065.

Or if you just want more reasons to dislike the Clintons, check it out: http://www.slate.com/id/2182938/

Who caught the State of the Union address on Monday night? I found myself agreeing with much of what Bush said, which really only means he was vague enough to avoid offense. He was his usual charming, down-home self, and got me laughing with his discourse on tax relief: “Some people say they would want to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm. The IRS takes checks or money orders.” This had the Republicans roaring and the Democrats squirming. There is an element of truth to the statement though. If we want to pay higher taxes to support social services, there’s nothing stopping us.

Really, most of Bush’s address was inconsequential. He’s become an impotent figure head. Bipartisan legislation with the democratically controlled Congress is virtually impossible due to the animosity. With only a year left, I imagine most of his peers have already written him off, and he’s officially irrelevant. The only thing I took from the speech was that most politicians shouldn’t be seen in HD.

In sporting news, I’m guessing many of us watched the New York Giants back there way into the Super Bowl by blowing two go-ahead field goals in the fourth quarter, losing the coin toss in overtime, and relying on Favre to throw a boneheaded interception (vintage 2006-2007 Favre) to give them the ball back. I was looking forward to a Packers-Patriots match-up. I’m by no means a cheesehead, but I had grown fond of the Pack over the course of the season and I have a level of respect for the aging Favre. Plus, the Patriots already beat the Giants. They never played the Packers during the regular season, and Green Bay was clearly amongst the top 5 teams in the league (a list which doesn’t include the Giants).

But the real reason I rooted for Green Bay is that I harbor a completely irrational hatred for Eli Manning. Is it his propensity to crumble at unpredictable and inopportune intervals? His sniveling, buck-passing demeanor after bad losses? Maybe his “I play the most high profile position for a team with a huge market, but I can’t handle the spotlight” whining?

Say what you will about his playoff performance, sooner or later the real Eli Manning will show up. The Eli Manning that throws four interceptions (three returned for TD’s) against a questionable Vikings secondary that most QB’s have their way with. The Eli Manning that yells at his teammates and pouts on the sideline. The Eli Manning that sucks at football and life. He is the embodiment of mediocrity. Born in any other era, to any other family and he would be spending his days working in a lumber yard. But he was born a Manning, and rode a wave of entitlement to the Super Bowl.

In the world of entertainment, Heath Ledger’s sudden death brought with it an onslaught of speculation: what went wrong? What could have been? Who is safe from the icy grip of mortality?

It’s a tragedy because he has a young daughter, and I’ll admit that I was caught off guard. He had the persona of a celebrity with a good head on his shoulders (they are few and far between), though it has since become apparent that he was a deeply troubled young man.

I won’t say I’ll miss him. I didn’t even know him. But to paraphrase film critic Dana Stevens: the movies will miss him dearly. He was a promising talent that had yet to explore his potential, and the few roles in which I saw him (most notably in the Todd Haynes directed Bob Dylan biopic I’m Not There) demonstrated a tremendous gift to embody a character.

As I’ve watched and read the various commentaries on Ledger’s life and the tributes to his excellent (if abbreviated) body of work, I’ve started to think about the oddity of American priorities. I’m not one to trample on a young man’s not-yet-covered grave, nor do I like to sound preachy or sanctimonious (I hate to be “that guy”), but why do we have such a penchant for dwelling on the deaths of our celebrities (however untimely, tragic or avoidable)?

Over the past week, hundreds of men, women and children have died in Kenya’s tribal conflicts. Many more in the Middle East, Congo, Darfur, etc. Are these people less important than Mr. Ledger? Less worthy? Do we truly know our celebrities any more than these people suffering overseas? More need not be written on the idol-worshipping tendencies of Americans or the media (it’s a point that has been trampled into the ground).

It’s just interesting is all.

Thanks for reading.

Please Mr. Mitchell, No More

I grew up loving sports. Playing sports, watching sports, collecting cards and memorizing stats. As many of you know, Barry Bonds was my childhood hero. He was my favorite athlete years before he became the most prolific power hitter in the history of the game; back in the days when he was a superb all around player who could bat for average, steal bases, was a perennial Gold Glove winner, and still managed to compile impressive homerun and RBI stats. Years before he became the face of the steroid scandal and the most reviled figure in the sporting world.

When the steroid outrage first hit the spotlight, everyone assumed (hoped?) that it was an isolated incident. Bonds was one player out of hundreds. Of course he was using: just look at those numbers. Look at the size of his head.

We chose to ignore (or forget) the fact that Jose Canseco was an admitted user and wrote a book (Juiced) about Major League Baseball’s hidden drug problem. We continued to look the other way when more allegations surfaced: Bonds was not so isolated after all. Superstars such as Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmero faced investigations. The accusations spread to other sports (namely cycling and football). Suspensions were handed out, awards were taken back, and some of the sporting world’s brightest stars fell in disgrace (Marion Jones, Floyd Landis).

The completed Mitchell Report was released on December 13. The document, compiled by former Senator George J. Mitchell, reveals the identities of 89 former and current Major League players who allegedly used illegal, performance enhancing drugs. Most notable on the list are future Hall of Famers (I guess we’ll call this pending) Roger Clemens (who has vehemently denied the allegations, and has a House Committee hearing scheduled for Feb. 13) and Andy Pettitte (who has admitted using HGH, but before it was banned). Also included are a large group of lesser known players such as Mike Stanton and Jason Grimsley (evidence that either A) steroids aren’t actually performance enhancing or B) these guys were such pathetic boobs before injecting themselves that they probably needed the drugs to be functioning human beings).

Now the scandal has spread beyond the world of sports. Entertainers Timbaland, 50 Cent, and Mary J. Blige have been accused of doping, as has writer/producer Tyler Perry. Soon we’ll be hearing of CEOs and politicians injecting themselves with HGH (speaking of, Mike Huckabee has been looking awfully bulky).

I wonder how much of this we really want to know; how far is too far? We’ve entered a new era of McCarthyism, seeking out and vilifying potential steroid users as rabidly as overly zealous patriots blacklisting suspected communists. The paranoia is palpable as athletes turn on each other without warning in futile attempts to divert the harsh interrogation lights. Anyone compiling stats that are too impressive, anyone whose muscles or dome has swelled noticeably becomes a suspect.

And once the investigation is under way, the accused are already guilty. They’ve lost the most important trial of their lives, held in the court of public opinion. The veracity of the accusations matters very little. These celebrities (heroes) have betrayed our trust, taken advantage of our misguided idolatry, and thereby committed the new Unforgivable Sin.

I ask again: How much do we really want to know? Name your favorite sport, your favorite athlete. Brett Favre, Lance Armstrong, Tiger Woods: do we really believe, without a shadow of a doubt, that these American icons are substance free? To be a top-tier athlete one must be competitive beyond reason. Do we really believe these competitors wouldn’t do whatever it took to gain the competitive edge? Let’s not be naïve.

I, for one, am starting to think I’d rather be ignorant. They’ll never rid competitive sports of cheaters. Athletes will adjust their methods, find new ways to enhance their performances. Steroid manufacturers will find new ways to conceal their wares.

So Mr. Mitchell, I beg of you: make it stop. Of course I respect your intentions. You’re trying to protect the children; you’re illustrating the morality tale of “cheaters never prosper” and instilling in youngsters the idea that there are no shortcuts to success. But that’s a lie. You and I both know it. And now you’re giving children tangible evidence that cheaters DO prosper. You’ve provided, in writing, 89 examples of men who achieved every little boy’s dream by bending the rules. “Look kid, all your hero did to become great was inject himself with this. Don’t you want to be great, too?”

Ultimately, you are prematurely stripping kids of their innocence. When we were young we had the luxury of believing that we could, through blood, sweat and tears, become superhuman; that we could transcend our modicum of space and time to live on forever in the hearts of sporting fans and record books, and we could do it on our own terms.

You’re proving that legends are molded by chemists creating hormonal imbalances: mad scientists animating grotesque monstrosities in underground laboratories.

I’ll strike a bargain with you, Mr. Mitchell: you do us all the favor of letting this proverbial sleeping dog lie. Forget about your investigation, quietly retire. For our part, we’ll do ourselves the favor of rewinding our collective consciousnesses 15 years, to the glory days when we deluded ourselves into believing that our heroes would never cheat to get ahead.

Man, that Barry Bonds is one hell of a player…

Thanks for reading.

The Season is Upon Us

I realize the deluge of media coverage on the 2008 presidential election has left many of us weary, skeptical, and largely indifferent to the process. Honestly, the whirlwind of candidate coverage, psychological profiling, nauseating politico buzz words such as “electability” and “likeability,” meaningless polls, mudslinging, and millions of seemingly wasted dollars have left me somewhat disheartened. I am constantly reminded that we are controlled by the media, who show us what they want us to see and tell us what they want us to think. We are no democracy. We are some strange mutation of a plutocracy (a mediacracy, if you will).

And if one more person tells me they are an “agent of change” I will punch a toddler.

That said, election season has finally, officially begun (which means, if nothing else, that the end is in sight). I would be remiss not to talk about it.

On the democratic side, the audaciously hopeful Barack Obama won the Iowa Caucus, defeating runners-up John Edwards and Hillary Clinton (respectively) by a healthy margin. For the Republicans, Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee rode the evangelical vote to victory, defeating a pitiful group of challengers including condescendingly wealthy Mitt Romney and the ever arrogant Rudy Giuliani (still hoping to run for president of 9/11).

What do these decisive victories mean for the appealing (if inexperienced) Obama and Huckabee? Absolutely nothing. The Iowa Caucus is purely symbolic, holding no bearing over the primaries (which opened yesterday in New Hampshire - more on that in a moment). I don’t know how many of you are familiar with the caucus process, but it’s actually a strange little system. Iowans meet at gathering places (school gymnasiums, town halls, etc.) and literally stand in the corner that represents their chosen candidate. No secret ballots here, folks. You must display your political affiliation in front of friends, family, or anyone else who might feel obliged to judge your sanity. The votes are counted (though this isn’t as straight forward as “one person, one vote” – there is a confusing delegate system that only the wisest of political sages fully understand), at which point there is an inexplicable game of musical chairs (any group representing below a certain percentage of the overall vote must disband and choose a new candidate.) The process is eerily reminiscent to choosing a kickball team in middle school and it turns out that Iowa, like Monty Python’s Camelot, is a silly place.

The Iowa Caucus is granted prominence by the all-powerful, diabolically insidious media, who will lavish extravagant amounts of attention and praise on the caucus winners, bullying them to front-runner status going into New Hampshire and attempting to make other candidates feel like distant memories in the minds of voters.

But New Hampshire-ians (responsible for the first vote that actually matters in the selection of candidates) are notoriously independent, stubborn people. These tendencies were on full display yesterday, as both Hillary and McCain rebounded from their embarrassing drubbings only days before to win the state.

McCain can credit his victory to a focus on the independent voters New Hampshire is famous for. Hillary, apparently, can credit her victory to the women of New Hampshire, who have shown themselves to be suckers to the nth degree. That many of them would actually admit to having been influenced by Clinton’s weepy-eyed display of battle fatigue proves they are not only foolish, but foolish enough to vocalize their own foolishness.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for candidates showing emotion and offering a taste of their personality, but Clinton’s charade fell flat. Ever since her initiation to the public forum she has force fed us an image of a ball-busting hard-ass that would be “ready to lead on day one.” Maybe it’s an unfortunate side effect of being a woman in politics. Maybe she felt she needed to overtly assert her forceful character. But for this chink in her armor to suddenly appear so close to a crucial vote where the main problem facing her was “likeability”…it seems too convenient, a little staged. She’s trying to have it both ways as an impossibly tough leader and a sensitive woman, and I call bullshit.

I know some of you are leery of a President Hillary Clinton, but it’s not yet time to panic. Neither Bush nor Bill won the New Hampshire primary. Barack has considerable support in upcoming Nevada and South Carolina. On the Democratic side only one thing is certain: this should be a hell of a fight.

As for the Republicans, I’m ecstatic about the McCain win. He’s the one dude in government who’s not afraid to take on absolutely anyone (both his greatest virtue and fatal flaw). More importantly, court jester Huckabee and sleazy Giuliani suffered decisive defeats, meaning (with any luck) that they may make their humbled retreats from the spotlight very soon.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to election season.

Thanks for reading.

As a side note, I’ve been fortunate to see some excellent films in the last couple of months, and have done my best to make recommendations. So here are two more:

I finally saw Children of Men (in retrospect it would have been better on the big screen, but the cinematography still looks outstanding on DVD). The story is engaging, if relentlessly bleak, and it will get you thinking about the prospects for our future.

The other was Juno, an endearing, charming story of an irreverent 16-year-old girl who finds herself pregnant and, rather than simply “getting rid of the problem,” decides to go through with the pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption. The two young leads (Ellen Page as Juno MacGuff and Michael Cera as Paulie Bleaker) are magnetic in their awkward courtship and their slightly offbeat worldviews.

As a first attempt at screenwriting by Minnesotan Diablo Cody (a former stripper turned blogger turned City Pages editorialist turned memoirist), I must say I’m impressed. The script is funny and heartfelt, though at times the quirkiness feels heavy handed and forced.

Even so, I fell in love with Juno (is it creepy to be in love with a pregnant 16-year-old?)

The Debate on Affirmative Action Part 2: Where it Falls Short

Yesterday we took a look at the reason that Affirmative Action is necessary. Now let’s talk about why it doesn’t work.

The Civil Rights Movement ended legalized racism in the ‘60s, but racism as a paradigm persisted. Criminalizing prejudice did little to change anyone’s world view. Minority groups to this day are oppressed by cultural pressures. Following the Civil Rights Movement minorities were allowed to sit in the front of the bus or at the lunch counter, but this didn’t drastically change anyone’s life. These people had been outcast and marginalized since birth. Institutionalized poverty forced them to live in slums and work for nothing, and meant many of them lacked the education or skills necessary to lift themselves out of negative circumstances.

In 1962 Lyndon B. Johnson and James Farmer (founder of the Congress of Racial Equality) proposed a plan called Compensatory Preferential Treatment (renamed Affirmative Action in 1965) to promote equality. In a speech at Howard University, Johnson said “You do not take a person who, for many years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others', and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” So they came up with a program to offer a historically oppressed group of people a fighting chance by encouraging employers to hire minorities and providing them with the opportunities and means to seek an education. Johnson and Farmer hoped to provide minorities with the tools to succeed.

But they failed to realize that success is largely environmental. The people to whom they were now extending a helping hand had already become ensnared by a culture of prejudice and suspicion. A child raised in a household that places little value on education will never learn to value education. The opportunities were not being utilized, and the cycle continued.

Through the ’70s and ‘80s a drug and crime epidemic swept through urban areas. Gangs formed and established power, initially as a means of community protection. Eventually they switched to the business of drug distribution as the only available method of supporting themselves.

The urban communities being affected were largely populated by minorities, who for the aforementioned reasons were unable to escape the slums. Young men, lacking the means to support children, the education to rise out of poverty, and living dangerous lifestyles, started abandoning their families. As a result, children were being born to unwed mothers in a culture where gang life and drug dealing were necessary to survival. The arrival of gangster rap further served to glorify this life of crime, engraining in the minds of youngsters the idea of respect and success earned through violence.

Imagine such a childhood. You’ve never met your father. Your older brothers are gang-bangers, drug dealers. If you succeed in school your friends accuse you of “selling out” or acting too “white” (I worked with kids for years. My parents and sister are teachers. This is the reality). What is the motivation to seek an education?

This is where Affirmative Action fails. The government thinks the solution is to throw more money at the problem (what else is new?) when what is really needed is a cultural paradigm shift. Programs need to be put into place to educate parents about the values of education. Influential African Americans (think Jay-Z, Kanye West) need to speak out about the negativity of violence and gang life, and teach youngsters to aspire to greater things. Imagine the positive impact if Jay-Z were to go back to school and get his college degree.

Even more so, imagine the positive impact of a President Barack Obama.

Racism isn’t tangible. It exists in the minds of people. As long as this is true, equality will never be found. Part of the problem with Affirmative Action is that, while making an effort to lift historically oppressed people out of poverty, the system as it exists inevitably draws a line between black and white, creating resentment on both sides and actually promoting inequality.

If we are truly to be one people, one culture, one country (though I still advocate maintaining our diversity), we need to see ourselves as such. On issues of social welfare, there can’t be a line between black and white.

Late Night, your thoughts are appreciated, and largely I agree with you (particularly about the Christian responsibility to care for the poor). You stated, the “poor” and the “minority” in this country seem to go hand in hand. But this is an unfortunate truth, not an inherent fact. The poor and the minority go hand in hand because of circumstances. By making Affirmative Action an issue of “minority” and “non-minority,” the idea of “us” and “them” is further entrenched in people’s minds. It gives the racists ground to stand on when they can say “these people need our hand-outs,” and it creates resentment amongst minorities when they can say “these people assume we need their hand-outs.”

What do I propose? I believe that Affirmative Action should be based on poverty lines, not racial lines. It’s poverty that people can’t escape, not their ethnicity (and the assumption that race is the oppressor, not poverty, is a muted expression of racism). The question on applications and tests should not be “what is your ethnicity?” but rather “what is your parents’ income level?” “what is your parents’ education level?” “where did you grow up?”

I look forward to hearing everyone’s thoughts.

Thanks for reading.

Note: Prominent figures like Oprah Winfrey and Bill Cosby have already done a tremendous amount to shift the thinking of the culture (Cosby, along with Alvin F. Poussaint, recently came out with a book called Come on People: On the Path from Victims to Victors. It’s on my reading list, but so are a lot of books. I have a feeling it would help a great deal in gaining an understanding of the issues).

A Foregone Conclusion: The Debate on Affirmative Action Part 1

I tried to run, avoid, hide, deny. I tried to pretend that I had no opinion, lacked the prerequisite familiarity with the topic (which in many ways I do), didn’t have the time to get into a lengthy debate. But it was inevitable. The discussion started by a seemingly innocuous statement: “If there were two candidates who had the same stances on the issues, and were of equal ability, yet one was a white male and the other was female or a minority race, I would vote for the woman or the minority,” has fermented beyond Zizzle-Zot, etc.’s ability to contain.

Now let me tell you why I think Affirmative Action is absolutely necessary in theory (Part 1), and a colossal failure in reality (Part 2).

Before we start, I’m hoping we can make a pact together. I think we’ll all acknowledge that racism is still very much alive in this country. It’s embedded in societal structure and the paradigms of older generations. Police are more likely to pull over minority drivers, aspiring business people need to work much harder to win the respect of employers if they aren’t white males, and young minorities still deal with suspicious glares wherever they go. Institutional racism is real.

That said, I realize this topic can be touchy. I plan on having the utmost respect for the issue, and I know you all will do the same. Let the debate begin.

Society is dying. Young people are being killed or imprisoned at alarming rates. The family structure is a distant memory. Homelessness is at an all-time high. And minorities are overwhelmingly the victims. 69% of African American babies are born out of wedlock. 45% of African American households lack a father figure. Homicide is the leading cause of death for African American men between the ages of 15 and 34. There are more African American men in jail than there are in college. Depending on the study, anywhere between 10-15% of the male African American population between the ages of 20 and 34 is incarcerated (this high rate is a confluence of two factors: a crime-glorifying culture and historically harsher prosecution for African American offenders).

This is the sad reality. African American children are overwhelmingly born into poverty, abandoned by their fathers, and ushered at a young age into a world of violence, crime, and survivalism. Because of broken homes they are forced to take on responsibilities a child should never need to. They face fear on a daily basis. Fear of violence and abandonment, yes. But also more basic fears of “when will I next eat?”

We’ll all acknowledge that a child born into such difficult circumstances has less opportunity to succeed. Through no fault of their own they have been relegated to a life of hardship, knocked down before they could stand, deemed a failure without ever having a chance.

Programs like Affirmative Action have the potential to turn this around. By enabling young men and women to seek an education, Affirmative Action allows people oppressed since birth to finally determine their own destiny. By escaping oppression and succeeding in life, these young men and women will go on to serve as inspiration for future generations, creating a cycle of aspiration and hope to replace the cycle of poverty and violence.

Affirmative Action can save America. But will it?

Thanks for reading.

Note: I realize this was brief. It would be impossible to cover the entire issue in one post, but I’m hoping this will serve as a springboard for further discussion. Also, I commented again on yesterday’s post. I’d be interested in hearing everyone’s thoughts.

The Problem with Hillary: Though it’s Not Really about Her Anymore

I quit my job on Thursday. It was a phenomenal experience. Liberating, invigorating, man-damning. Originally I had a post planned relating to my departure (reasons for quitting, the meetings with the higher-ups, etc.) But quite frankly, the discussion that has naturally evolved out of the last few days of blog topics (blogics, if you will) is of much greater interest to me. I hope you all feel the same. I’ll eventually post on quitting my first real job, but for now let’s continue with some issues of greater importance.

I’m saving any affirmative action related thoughts, since this is the issue which seems most likely to spark controversy. I’ll address other comments, questions, concerns as I see fit.

But first, I’ll reveal the answer to my Bonus Question of the Day: Why SHOULD we be afraid of the possibility of a President Hillary Clinton? I suppose I’m not surprised that no one came up with the answer (it is just a crack-pot, paranoid theory of mine).

I think it’s safe to say that threat number one to American security is jihadism. The religious fanatics declaring jihad are Islamic fundamentalists that have a long and well documented history of disrespecting, oppressing, and abusing women (Google Islam+womens’ rights, genital mutilation, burqa, etc). These terrorists- in-training already hate the infidels of the west and what they see as a debaucherous culture. How will they respond if a woman, who they wouldn’t allow to drive a car let alone run a country, takes command of the most powerful nation in the world; the nation that also happens to be their sworn enemy? Will they take seriously her efforts at diplomacy? Her threats of sanctions? Will they think her capable of protecting her citizens?

Or will it be open season on American soil?

I realize there is no solid evidence that a woman in office would result in increased terrorist attacks. Germany is run by a woman (Chancellor Angela Merkel), and they seem to be hanging in there. I just don’t know that I’d like to put my theory to the test.

For getting the right answer I’ve awarded myself a fabulous prize. Congratulations, Zot.

On to some thoughts from Thursday and Friday’s discussion: (most will be addressed to Mr. A, since many of your thoughts focused on the minority issue).

I was just playing devil’s advocate with the objectification of women stuff. Of course Hillary unfairly has to put up with a lot of rubbish that her male counterparts don’t because she is the first woman seriously seeking the presidency. But I, too, am tired of being seen as just a piece of ass. So is Barack: www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU

You raise an interesting point about the problem with over-analyzing every word a politician says. Because the media pressure and public scrutiny are so intense, they’re forced to prepare every thought ahead of time, stripping them of any possible spontaneity (and we all know what happens when spontaneity gets the better of a candidate: www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5FzCeV0ZFc). We are left with hollowed out, one-dimensional caricatures of politicians and are deprived any hint of the very real, multi-faceted, talented and interesting people that they potentially are.

So what is it that we want? As a society, we demand blood. We thrive on the weakness of others. We want to be there when a candidate makes a fatal mistake. And when they do, we ask for their heads. We want our politicians to go for the jugulars of their opponents. And the media delivers. Truly, we are no better than the Roman masses.

This practice will be put to an end when I finally ascend to my rightful position of ruthless dictator and take full control of the media.

On the next topic, concerning how to vote (issues or character), I’m thinking that we’re further separated by terms than we are by practice. Each candidate has certain pet issues, things they are passionate about, and certainly we can agree that these personal projects are largely informed by their ideology. Edwards has social welfare, Clinton has universal healthcare, Barack has audacity (or is it hope?), Romney has polygamy, Giuliani has adultery, McCain has old man crotchery.

Joking aside, the issues a candidate is passionate about are the best barometer of that candidate’s ideological stances. This is the primary reason that I lean left. For me, social welfare is much more important, ideologically, than unreasonable efforts to prevent homosexual marriage.

In response to the blowup about Barack Obama not placing his hand on his heart during the National Anthem: it’s much ado about nothing. It was initially the result of a misleading caption (another example of either careless or deliberately manipulative journalism) that claimed Barack refused to put his hand on his heart during the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. The picture was later found to have been taken during the singing of the National Anthem, not the reciting of the Pledge. Barack went on to explain (clearly exasperated by repeated questioning) that he was raised to simply sing the National Anthem and to put his hand on his heart for the pledge. Interestingly, though, he was breaking a law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode36/usc_sec_36_00000301----000-.html
Even so, this is exactly the kind muckraking journalism that we all agree creates divisive, ineffective politics. In the end, I agree with Mr. A. Come on, people.

Now think about this: I have made a personal decision to no longer recite the Pledge of Allegiance. It would be hypocritical. Think about what the Pledge of Allegiance forces you to say: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. I don’t. I never will. I hope that if and when I decide to pledge my allegiance to anything it is a far greater good/power than the flag or what it stands for. I’ll speak for all of us when I say we each have strong and carefully considered belief systems. We all have things we stand for, would fight for, and ultimately would die for. Are we really going to tie this to a flag? To a country (which is defined merely by the geographical region in which we were born)? I admire America and what it has done. I respect America and what it stands for. But will I ever pledge my allegiance to America? Absolutely not.

Does that make me unpatriotic? I’ll let you decide.

Thanks for reading.

P.S. As expected, this post got long before I even touched on affirmative action. Maybe it’s all a ploy to keep putting the issue off…Or maybe it’s coming tomorrow.

The Problem with Hillary: A Response

There was some good conversation following yesterday’s post, and I’d like to chime in with some thoughts of my own.

Mr. Antagonist, I agree that we shouldn’t resort to derogatory comments about Hillary’s womanhood. After all, no one would dream of calling Giuliani a greasy Italian or Romney a polygamist or Obama (we all see where the slippery slope goes).

As far as Hillary’s hot or not status, I’m sure no one had any ill-intent. However, to play devil’s advocate, it’s an undisputed fact that a good part of the female population votes based at least partly on looks. Isn’t it a bit of a double standard to say the male population can’t objectively assess and comment upon a female front-runner’s appearance?

I believe all potential presidential candidates should be held to the same high standard and put through equally rigorous tests. These people are in line to become (arguably) the most powerful individual in the free world. Every word they say should be combed over, scrutinized. Every inconsistency, every display of weak character, every gaff should be questioned. It’s the reality they have placed themselves in, and if they’re going to be train wreck in the White House it’s much better to find out before they get there.

Unfortunately the system is broken (clearly Bush slipped through the cracks). The media focuses solely on the one or two front runners, giving the impression that the rest of the candidates shit roses. Then we end up with a situation like 2004, where Howard Dean has been crushed by the media and the Democrats end up with a shlub like John Kerry as their candidate. I would argue that Bush didn’t win that election. Kerry lost it.

Mr. A and Late Night, you guys are funny. Vote the issues…you must be living in some sort of fantasy land where politicians tell the truth and always follow through. You can vote party lines (thus the party’s issues). You can vote individuals (thus character). But a vote for a politician’s issues is a vote for empty promises. Call me a cynic, but in my short time following politics I’ve already come to realize that a presidential hopeful’s campaign issues are about as solid as a hay-house in a sandstorm (imagine that said with a southern twang. It’s more entertaining that way). It’s like the 8th grader runner for class president on the no more homework platform (on a much grander scale). Once they’re in office they’ll quickly realize that their issues were a pipe dream and there are too many roadblocks in place (bureaucracy, budget, special interests) to get a damn thing accomplished.

So how does Zizzle-Zot vote? I vote ideological beliefs. Where the candidate stands on philosophical issues such as ethics and morality informs the positions they’ll take on practical issues such as the use of force, fiscal policy, and a pet issue of mine, education.

In this way I am more inclined to side with P Corcs. We shouldn’t necessarily vote personality, but character is of the utmost importance.

The problem, of course, is that this creates a vast grey area. How do we know that a candidate’s persona in front of the camera truly reflects upon her/his character when no one is watching? What if we agree completely with a candidate’s ideological stance on one issue, but adamantly disagree on another?

As voters, it’s our responsibility to form a personal “map” (lame analogy I know – but fitting) to navigate this hazy zone lacking in absolutes. We must use our discernment and judgment (tools best kept out of the hands of those who refuse to educate themselves, which unfortunately includes most. Does that make me sound like an elitist? So be it.) to familiarize ourselves with a candidate and to determine which ideological issues are the highest priority.

Late Night, you brought up an interesting point when you stated that “If there were two candidates who had the same stances on the issues, and were of equal ability, yet one was a white male and the other was female or a minority race, I would vote for the woman or the minority.”

I recently had a long talk with one of my roommates concerning a similar issue. She had been working at an inner-city school as a substitute student aide for over two weeks. The teachers she was working with loved her, the students adored her, and it seemed like the intervention of fate when a full-time position opened up. She was extraordinarily qualified, hard working and passionate.

But she didn’t get the job. She didn’t even get an interview. Why not? The principal told her that the school was only going to hire minority candidates. At first, I was furious for her. She didn’t even get a fair shot.

My roommate, however, wasn’t even irritated. She felt that a minority could relate to these students in ways that she never could, could inspire these students to rise above their circumstances, and understood that no matter how passionate she was, these students would be better served by an influence who knew where they were coming from.

You’re right on the money, Late Night. Think of the positive impact on society as a whole should a minority or female figure rise to the presidency; an individual capable of inspiring historically oppressed people and serving a community outside of Yale graduates breast fed with a silver spoon (who else loves mixed metaphors?)

Mr. A, I agree that Sarkozy is the man. And by the way, no one has gotten the bonus question right…yet. I’ll reveal the answer on Monday.

Thanks for reading.

On a side note, the rest of today is going to get wild and I’ll be out for most of the day tomorrow, so there probably won’t be a new post. I apologize for the recent inconsistency; I’m working to get things back on track. New post on Monday (it should be interesting).

The Problem with Hillary

A story broke yesterday that revealed a little insight into the questionable tactics being used by the Clinton campaign. 19-year-old Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff claimed she had been planted at a question and answer session held by the democratic front-runner. Gallo-Chasanoff also claimed she wasn’t the only one.

On November 6, Clinton gave a speech on energy in Newton, Iowa, which Gallo-Chasanoff attended. While waiting for the speech to start, the college sophomore was approached by a Clinton staffer and asked if she would like to ask the senator a question. Gallo-Chasanoff had a question in mind, concerning how Clinton’s energy plans compare to the other candidates’, but the staffer didn’t think an impromptu question was a good idea. He then showed Gallo-Chasanoff a piece of paper with 8 questions on it. The first said “college student” next to it. This was the question Gallo-Chasanoff asked: “As a young person, I’m worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?”

Gallo-Chasanoff said that after the event she overheard another questioner talking about the question he was assigned. Since the revelation a third individual, Geoffrey Mitchell, has come forward and claimed that at a previous event the Clinton campaign planted him with a question about the Iraq War, but that he didn’t feel comfortable asking it.

Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee issued this response: "This is not acceptable campaign process moving forward. We've taken steps to ensure that it never happens again."

Are accusations of planting questions monumental? No. I’m sure it’s happened before and will happen again. It’s very possible (and likely) that other candidates in this race are doing the same thing.

But the fact that Clinton got caught will reaffirm voter perception that she’s slimy. She already faces the same problem that Bill had to overcome: people don’t trust the Clintons. They’re too slick, too polished, too mischievous (though seem to be terrible at covering their tracks). Every dishonest act that Hillary gets caught up in will further embed this idea in the voters’ minds.

Most politicians are liars that let the public believe they are genuine, honest people. They give us warm fuzzies as we watch them hold babies in campaign ads and promise to restore the American Dream. Hillary Clinton is a liar that is either too prolific a liar or too bad a liar to let us believe that she’s not a liar. And I heard a rumor that she eats babies.

Mr. A, you raised an interesting question in yesterday’s comments section: What are we so afraid of?

Is it that Hillary’s a woman? A Clinton? A liberal (heaven forbid)? Speaking for the Zot, I don’t fear Hillary Clinton. I just don’t like her. As a voter, that’s my prerogative.

Thanks for reading.

Bonus Question of the Day: Why SHOULD we be afraid of the possibility of a President Hillary Clinton? (I’m sure there are a number of possible answers, but I’m looking for one in particular.)

Pat Hearts Rudy…?

As many of you may have heard, late last week conservative Christian televangelist Pat Robertson announced his official endorsement of Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, giving the former NY mayor a huge boost in the Religious Right stratosphere. Late Night suggested that this could make an interesting blog topic. I’m inclined to agree.

The Religious Right, as we have seen in past years, is a powerful voting bloc capable of swinging entire elections. Not to stereotype (but to generalize), the group tends to vote two issues: abortion and homosexual marriage. Typically, they will support the candidate that is unabashedly pro-life and anti-gay.

So why is Pat Robertson, one of the group’s iconic figures, throwing his considerable weight behind a pro-choice, civil-union supporting, mob-tied cross-dresser? Giuliani is twice divorced, has been accused of “open and notorious adultery,” and is reviled by his own children. On top of all this, he’s a Catholic. Gross.

I’ve come up with two different theories.

The first is that Pat Robertson has decided it’s time to hedge his bets. Consider the front-runners for the Republican nomination. McCain has successfully made himself obsolete through old-man stubbornness and the Straight Talk Express. It’s a cute little act, but can’t possible sustain through the electoral process. That leaves Giuliani and Mitt Romney. Robertson, I’m sure, sees the possible election of Romney as an assault on Christianity. A Christian, any Christian, even a baby-killing Christian, would surely be better than a Mormon. I expect that Robertson fears Mitt’s primary objective in the White House will be to convert the nation.

My second theory is that Robertson is a phony bologna and uses his religious affiliation as either a business or a means to further his own agenda. It doesn’t take much digging to unearth some of the televangelist’s darker secrets. In 2001 he approved of abortion as a form of population control in China. At the time he needed the Chinese government’s support of a business, Zhaodaola, which he founded and financed. The business was looking to set up internet facilities in China. Also in 2001, it was discovered that Robertson was a partner in a gold mining venture in Liberia. The business provided infamously brutal dictator Charles Taylor (who is now on trial for war crimes) with a cut of the profits.

It seems Pat Robertson’s moral authority crumbles under the weight of the almighty dollar.

What does the man himself have to say about his seemingly hypocritical support of Giuliani? While announcing his Giuliani endorsement, Robertson made the following statement: “to me, the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the bloodlust of Islamic terrorists. Our second goal should be the control of massive government waste and crushing federal deficits.”

I’m not sure when governmental spending became a part of the Religious Right’s agenda, but I’ll put that issue aside.

If you’ll all join me on a trip down memory lane, I’d like to remind everyone of Robertson’s response following 9/11. At the time, he asserted that the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center was God’s punishment for abortion, homosexuality, and the “rampant secularism” that had overtaken America. He believed we had it coming. Now he claims we need protection from the wrath we brought upon ourselves? And he supports a man who seems to be rampant secularism incarnate (and is essentially running on the 9/11 platform: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/giuliani_to_run_for_president_of_9).

A little contradictory?

I’m not saying…I’m just saying…

Theory #3: Robertson is hoping that electing Giuliani to office will hasten the arrival of Armageddon.

Thanks for reading.