New York City Mayor Announces Plan to Control Rat Population: Will Introduce Larger Species of Rat

Following a series of embarrassing PR fiascos, most notably a video released on YouTube showing an urban Taco Bell crawling with the diseased rodents, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg admitted at a press conference Tuesday afternoon that the unfettered growth of the city’s already teeming rat population has become a source of concern amongst government health officials, food service employees, and average citizens who just hate rats. Mayor Bloomberg also announced that a task force has been at work for nearly 9 months to devise an action plan aimed at radically decreasing the infestation.

“We’re very excited about the plan our task force has presented,” declared the typically smug Bloomberg. “We’ve assembled an extremely capable team of biologists, ecologists, environmental experts, sociologists, exterminators, and several stray alley cats. The very best New York City has to offer. What they’ve given us is an efficient, effective and economical guide to forever rid New York City of its rats.”

The plan? City officials will reportedly import a larger, much more aggressive species of rat to deplete the food supply. A typical New York City rat is from the rattus norvegicus family (commonly know as the “brown rat” or “Norwegian rat”). The task force aims to introduce the rattus cavus magnificus (also known as the “great cave rat”), a rare subspecies traditionally isolated to the Indonesian Islands and parts of China.

If all goes as foreseen, these new inhabitant will first consume all accessible food at restaurants, city parks and garbage dumps. At this point they will turn on New York’s native brown rats, devouring the entire population in a violent, bloody massacre.

Reportedly, this species has been known to consume household pets and even small children as development has crept upon its natural habitat, but Mayor Bloomberg is undaunted by such prospects. Reassuring citizens, Bloomberg stated “Yes, cave rats are known to be extremely volatile and aggressive, and there are rumors that they have eaten a baby or two in Indonesia (government records indicate that 11 babies were eaten by cave rats in 2007), and yes, the people of China refer to them as ‘demon rats’ and are instructed to kill them on sight by whatever means necessary, but I assure you folks, there’s nothing to worry about. A cave rat infestation large enough to result in the consumption of children or household pets is five, even ten years off.”

The team of experts then presented a cage containing both a great cave rat and a typical New York rat to demonstrate the brown rat killing prowess of the cave rat species. As expected, the cave rat immediately pounced upon and devoured the smaller brown rat in a whirlwind of blood and innards, at which point it pried open the bars of its cage and mauled its handler, two reporters and an armed security guard before escaping into the busy Manhattan streets.


Thanks for reading.

PS. I haven’t forgotten about the Federal Reserve, but first I’m going to do my research. Expect a post in the future. We will bring them down.

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…

This Week

I'll be busy in training most of the week, so it's unlikely that there will be a new post. Feel free to continue the conversation from last week.

Happy independence day, Kosovo!

Political Perspective

The recent fervor of the political marketplace has me thinking about this particular time and place in the whole of human history. As this candidate or that pleads his/her case, reads laundry lists of all that ails us and tells us who to blame, scares us into believing that anyone else in power will lead America to certain ruin, I find myself weighted by pessimism and a bleak vision of the future. Perhaps worse, I find myself believing them.

Allow me now to take a step back, regain perspective, and offer you all one of the more reassuring (or terrifying) political theories I have proposed to date: it’s a show, a façade, a vaudevillian farce by the powers that (wish to) be for the benefit of the masses (us).

In reality, it matters very little who is elected to the presidency in 2008. In the American political system no one individual can expect to redefine the landscape on the grand scale promised during campaign season. Hillary won’t get universal health care (she already tried once when Bill was in office and failed miserably). Barack won’t either. McCain won’t pass sweeping immigration legislation. Huckabee won’t forever abolish homosexual marriage (like Bush, he may only succeed in delaying the inevitable).

So why the election season circus? Why is the issue treated as a matter of life or death?

Because we need symbolic figures to take the reins, to assure us that under their watch we’ll be ok, that their respective policies will mend our wounds. We need them like a child needs a blanket (thanks to Fergie for ruining that metaphor) even though it’s become too threadbare to actually keep him warm (does extending the metaphor make it better?). They are our security, our comfort. Without our politicians we have no one to tell us what to fear and no one to protect us from these promised threats. Politicians are our anchors. Without them we are nothing more than individuals loosely affiliated by imagined borders indiscriminately blown by the whims of fate and chance.

But the truth is that America, like all great historical empires, is a product of the masses. We appoint leaders to act as representatives, but whatever control they maintain is an illusion, and whatever power they’re given can be stripped away as soon as the masses realize it’s theirs to take (think The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the fall of the Soviet Union, etc.).

For another perspective, think of the monumentally positive movements that long outlived their respective representatives: slavery was not reinstituted when Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. The Civil Rights Movement went on after Martin Luther King Jr.’s death.

The point is this: history and the masses elevate otherwise unexceptional men to “greatness,” but what we need to understand is that the masses (us) are the force that affects change, not the individuals we have appointed to represent us. What they do in DC is a stage show for the benefit of the news media. Change starts in communities, in neighborhoods, in schools and on the streets. The catalysts for change are disenfranchised yet inexplicably hopeful men and women who seek to alleviate suffering around them; men and women who posses a vague sense of having been cast aside by the very leaders they elected to be their voice, but still desire to positively impact humanity.

America’s economy will rise and fall. International opinion will change with the seasons. Wars will end and new wars will replace them. And America, like all empires, will one day fall. This is the cyclical nature of history, of time.

So what does this mean for the democratic process? Should we ignore it? Boycott it? Remain indifferent?

Not this year.

Throughout the nominating process I’ve been an ardent supporter of Barack Obama, but I wasn’t always able to explain my enthusiasm. I now can. Barack Obama is the one candidate who recognizes that a nation is a community on a large scale, existing only because of its citizens (all of them). America can be no more and can be no less. While the other candidates are splitting demographics, specifying their appeal to specific race, age or gender groups, Barack is staking his campaign on the wild theory that he can unite all to move towards a common good.

As I’ve said, none of the candidates are capable of fulfilling their campaign promises. But Barack Obama is capable of mobilizing the masses.

Thanks for reading.