Democrats Face A Lose-Lose in ‘06

It is easy to put aside the immoral, corrupt, disgusting behavior of the Republicans as the good ol’ boys having their fun. And I will do just that. There is really no need to be concerned with the slow, stubborn, self-righteous Elephant anymore. They are as done as freshmen at Oasis. The only hope they have are the Democrats.
Winning by being the “other” party lies somewhere between sufficient and sad, but it seems to be the strategy of the Democrats for 2006. Do not expect any persuasive rhetoric, or courageous stands…just the minimal. The Democrats might end up winning big in November by watching the GOP go up in flames with us. When you have Matt “HrnyRep18” Foley, Tom Delay, Bob “Show Me The MoNey” Ney, among others, it guarantees a good fiery show. Unfortunately, this doesn’t cut it for me. As it looks right now, the Dems will win by being losers.
There are two likely scenarios to come up after these November elections, and both are not Donkey-friendly. The first scenario has the Democrats losing, literally, and thereby losing any credibility they had left as a party. Losing to the Republicans, at this point in time, when they are self-destructing in every way foreseeable would be the kiss of death. Goodbye Democrats, hello Tories. The second scenario has the Democrats losing, potentially, in 2008. If there is anything we have learned from the Republicans is that they fight back hard. Bill Clinton saw this when they took over in 1994 after decades out of congressional power. Democrats have let the Republicans go unchecked for too long, and they have gone accustomed to the taste of power. It tastes like chicken—and they looove their chicken (takes one to love one). Because of this, the Right will fight with all their might in 2008 for the big one: the presidency.
I cannot say I would not be happy if the Republicans lost both Houses in the election, because my religion does not allow me to lie. But the outcome must be seriously analyzed, and the possible long-term outcomes pondered. The Republicans have done their share (thanks, by the way), and now it is time for the Democrats to show some gravitas. They need to readjust their mentality, into one of a winning party. The results in ’06 don’t count, only the momentum. The only way the Democrats can win in November is to believe they can win in November…of 2008.

Manly Men

The recent barrage of uber-"manly" ads, books, and movies have made it clear that there is a movement afoot: one where no pansies are allowed. The effeminate or even the modestly sensitive man is no longer an acceptable model, according to the proponents of this new Mr. Macho Movement.

Consumer culture has once again become involved in this masculinity-shaping movement. Carl's Jr. has pointed out what is considered food appropriate for a man and what is "chick food" (hint: the more testosterone in the food, the more testosterone in you). Irish Spring has commanded men to "take back the shower," with their soap "for men." An Alphabet of Manliness is a bestseller that tells us what the proper form of a drop kick and the art of road rage. I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell, gives us insight into the life of a misogynist, belligerent drunk who swings and clubs more often than Tarzan. These examples can even be seen at the highest levels of government.

These are signs of a new movement within an evolving one. In Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man, Susan Faludi describes the ornamental conception of manhood that has evolved since the end of World War II. The old definition of masculinity focused on contribution in society for the general well-being. The post-WWII American man is no longer about substance, but about style. It is not "masculine" to do well, but to look good. Within this definition, I see a new stream of thought that is increasingly gaining momentum. Today, some think it is not only important to look good, but to look good being bad. The Neanderthal must now posses a club as well as a velvet blazer. This frat boy mentality has contempt for anything slightly weak.

Here is a pointer if you want to emulate that supposed masculinity: the more you act as if you have learned all your life lessons in a bar, the manlier you are.

I have a problem with this addition to the already flawed definition of masculinity. It puts too much importance on the appearance of things. It makes masculinity even more ornamental than it already is.

A man cannot prove himself one by supporting his community or lending his services for the common good, but instead must play a counterproductive role in the celebrity culture in this country: look goooood creating havoc. As Budweiser claimed, "man laws" must be established, in order to instruct men how to be "manly."

It appears I need to take note.

Boo the Loner

"Going to the movies by yourself is creepy," I once heard someone say. I, of course, told the movie theater cashier how wrong he was and took my ticket. The movie was a delight. Thank you very much.

This pervasive attitude in our society towards "loners" or those who participate in tasks we typically associate with more than one person is a bit confusing to me. Many Americans would rather stay at home, rather than enjoying a restaurant meal, going to a party or a ball game, or watch a movie by themselves.

Oddly enough, even these stay-at-home-and-pout people are also labeled "loners." Our culture sure has something against the citizen who buys TV dinners for one. Matchmaking services abound, reminding us our soulmate is out there, so go find them now! The lifelong bachelor is at times admired by men who wish for such relationship freedom, and swooned over by women who like the unattainable man, but more often felt pity by those who already have a partner. The bachelorette is even worse off, having to fend off pressures from many venues to get married and settle down-how it is supposed to be.

Loners in high school are shunned by the rest of the students. At the same time, people in the workplace see loners as the likeliest employee to go postal. Hardly ever do you see romantic comedies that end by leaving the single man and woman, well, single. It appears to be anathema to our culture to let people be lonely.

Of course, we human beings are social animals in the need of interactions with other beasts of our kind. Chatting or grinding it up with other people is perfectly human (and at times a bit graphic). But does this go against our homegrown idea of the American Dream? We, as a culture, are taught that the American Dream is what every citizen strives for, to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps.

The self-made man or woman is often the greatest figure of admiration. I have to figure that sometime during that triumphant voyage to the top this figure of admiration might have fit the "loner" status. I am sure these people did things by themselves, solved their own problems, motivated themselves, and probably went to a couple of restaurants by themselves to mull in their thoughts.

So then, why do they not suffer the wrath as does the guy who loves to read in the corner of Barnes and Noble? It might have to do with how they present themselves.

An air of confidence and success separates the self-made American from the loner. Nice slacks and a $100 haircut do not hurt either. If you win, you are no longer a loner, but the embodiment of the American Dream. If you do not succeed, then start dressing in black and pout.

This is unfair. There is no doubt. Your value as a person goes back to what you have or do, not what you are.

Shouldn't the loner be accepted as a part of the American Dream? Do these two ideas go well together? It is worth analyzing if this odd relationship is indicating: a) hypocrisies in our culture, b) the American Dream is actually a fabricated illusion, or c) All of the above. Of course, you can add d) none of the above, but I am afraid you would be by your lonesome on that one.

Thinking Too Much Into a Terror Alert

I can comfortably call myself a liberal. I enjoy the finer things in leftist life, such as analytical thinking, and snobbish Iced Soy Lattes. But one think I cannot stand are the conspiracy theorists on the left who look for anything to blend into an Orwellian I-told-you-so. One of the most rampant culprits of this is Buzzflash.com. I check their website from time to time, noticing the alarmist environment it promotes, even when criticizing others for doing the same thing. The latest in their ever-expanding portfolio of sensationalist claims deals with the newest terror alert. For them, it is one of the many "convenient" terror alerts the Bush administration has issued. After the defeat of Joe Lieberman, the epitome of all that is moderate (moderately to the right, moderately sans balls, moderately boring), the Republican party wanted to let everybody know that going against the war and voting for anti-war candidates is a no-no. If you do, we will all die! Buzzflash claims that Bush saw this as a key opportunity to reassert himself as the only leader this country can afford to bear.
As much as I do believe that some of the alerts are politically motivated, I cannot stomach this last claim. Are we to believe that the administration worries every single moment of how to freak us out more than the last day? Actually, that may an affirmative. But seriously, who honestly cares about Lieberman? I don't. And I am sure Bush doesn't consider that election pivotal. It just reaffirmed the climate for this election year. It is all about butter and bullets. We don't need any websites adding gasoline to an already well-lit fire. Stop scaring the shit out of people, buzzflash...that is the administration's job.

Wanna get it on? Get an iPod

A new study showed that teens with iPods loaded with "sexual" tracks are more likely to have sex at an earlier age than the non-grinding teens. Priority no. 1: Buy Nelly Furtado's "Loose", put it on your iPod, and lend it to the girl next door.

Show Your Manliness With Your Dollars

Being a vegetarian, I unfortunately have to deal with "chick food". By chick food I mean the plates that revolve more around pasta and veggies, rather than beef and pork. I am effeminate also, in the way that I don't use a macho brand of deodorant, or drink the beer that is assigned to my gender. Overall, I am not really a man. At least, not according to the latest slew of ads and literature focusing on the Manliness of Men. For too long have men been subjected to lean to the feminine side, becoming metrosexuals, watching homosexual movies, or buying pansy products.
The likes of Carl's Jr., Irish Spring, Budweiser, among other companies, have laid claim to what makes a man "manly". Chick food, as is sung about in the latest Carl's Jr. commercials, is everything that is not meat. Deodorants must be musky, soaps must peel the dirt off your skin, even if it takes some skin with it, and beer is not supposed to be light or foreign, but American and calorie-laden. Men, stop worrying about your pretty boy face and start focusing on your batting average or why you are running low on Old Spice. There is this new revolution in our culture that is up in arms when seeing, what they call, the emasculation of the American man. Books like, "I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell", or, "The Alphabet of Manliness", have become bestsellers. Esquire, in their current issue, asks what the "State of the American Man" is? It appears to be in contestation.
While the gay movement has changed little in regard to gay rights, it has molded our current society in the most subtlest ways. A man is now called a metrosexual when he pays attention to his appearance, instead of being blatantly labeled a "fag" or a "woman" (although those lovely macho figures still roam the nation). Style has been considered an essential part of a man's "importance". Rugged outdoorsman is no longer the quintessential American homme; it is Angelina's boo, Mr. Pitt. "Prettiness" is accepted as a quality when it comes to men. Our perception of the American cowboy is outdated...now he wears Kenneth Cole shirts and a driver's cap.
So what is all this fuss about the emasculation of the boys, then? It has to do with what many have called "Frat boy machismo". Showing off your good looks is still in style, but so long as you maintain control over other things, i.e. your women, your preferences, your gender. Is it truly that important to have control in order to be a man?

Newt Agrees With Me...Look at that pig fly!

Reading the latest event in what I like to call "My best reason to crap my pants", i.e. the formation of an all-out global war, I saw that Newt already touched the subject on Meet the Press this past Sunday.

Check out the link here, and look on your right side for Newt's shiny face and two-cents to boot. Let the History Professor shed some more light on these dark happenings.

World War III? Israel & Co. vs. Lebanon & Co.

The history books might have to make some room for the next "great" war. This time, it might be the East vs. the West. As the escalation in attacks between Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah continue, the possibility of an all-out war solidifies among the rest of the world. Hezbollah, a politically and military powerful organization in Lebanon (condemned as a terrorist organization by many Western countries, including the United States), begun the exchange by kidnapping two Israeli soldiers in a border raid. Now, Lebanon is dealing with the fallout of this incident, or, as Saudi Arabia has called it, this "uncalculated adventure".
Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has promised that this will no longer will be a tit-for-blown up tat, but that Israel will see this in us vs. them terms. Syria has been included in the "them" category, as Israel accuses them of supplying Hezbollah with newer, better rockets, the which they never possessed before recent attacks. Syria, then, has responded by saying that they will support Hezbollah to the fullest extent. The war is gradually surpassing local turmoil. Syria, along with a reluctant Saudi Arabia, is on Hezbollah's side, and, since there is no other choice for Lebanon's Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora, so is his country. Who, then, is on Israel's side? The Bush administration has not only failed to condemn the attacks by Israel, which range from destroying power plants to blowing up the Syria-Lebanon highway (both violations of international laws of war), but has tacitly endorsed furthering the attacks. Thereby, making the United States a possibly ally, or at the very least, not an obstacle to further escalation. The possibility that Saudi Arabia would join the Hezbollah-bloc, if only through finacial means, makes the conflict of the upmost importance.
Israel must now deal with the ultimate question: how many Israelis must be in danger until this becomes a World War? Alliances are being made, threats are materialized, consequences continue to increase. Who will stop their calls for war, Hezbollah or Israel? Someone needs to focus on reason rather than retribution.

Which Actor Brings the Most Bank?

Tom Cruise? Nope. Tom Hanks? Nein. Johnny Depp? Non. It is probably the last person you expect...a mad black woman. Business Week calculated that Tyler Perry is Hollywood's best investment. Sorry, Branjelina.

Gitmo Gets Mo' Rights

After begrudgingly accepting the 5-3 ruling Supreme Court ruling against his makeshift military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Bush's administration has proposed a new, kinder, approach. Acknowledging what the rest of the world already knew ever since prisoner right's existed, Bush will (supposedly) give the prisoners of Gitmo all the Geneva Convention rights.

From the people that brought you "Fahrenheit 9/11": John Lennon

I saw this trailer on the movie trailer section of www.apple.com

It looks like the political movie of the summer, hopefully living up to the subject matter's importance. Lets hope for the best, be ready for the worst (i.e. Syriana).

Here is the official website, check out the trailer in the first heading after the title.

Rumsfeld Sold Nukes to North Korea in 2000

According to the Guardian, Donald Rumsfeld, the current Secretary of Defense, was the director of ABB when they sold North Korea nuclear reactors. This occurred in 2000, only to be met in 2002 by the same man's claim that North Korea is a part of the axis of evil. How many times has this administration shot itself in the foot? I have lost count.

A Warranted Conspiracy Theory: Ken Lay's Convenient Death

Flirting with the possibility of creating a conspiracy theory, I can't help myself but indulge and call the death of Ken Lay a convenient event. At 64, Ken Lay, the founder and CEO of Enron (yeah, remember that company), died yesterday from a heart attack. Although the usual suspects have made Lay's death a result of stress and nothing more, it is hard to believe that only after his conviction and before being sentenced in October did Ken Lay die of an ailment he might have never suffered of before. I will not be surprised if only vague details, if any, are shared with the public about his autopsy. Unlike Gore's movie, this is a convenient lie for Mr. Lay.

What does this do now for the trial against him and Enron? Halt it. According to the New York Times, Ken and Co. are off the hook for now. A "dead" man cannot be sentenced, and seeing that his counterparts are in the same boat as he is, they have found a martyr savior in Lay. The assets that the government was going to take away from Ken Lay's hands are no longer attainable, and only the civil trial might take some of the riches away from the Lay family. As for the other big fish that needs to be fried, Skilling, he is hoping that his wealth stays untouched:

Mr. Skilling has more assets open to federal seizure than Mr. Lay had, including more than $50 million in cash and securities in a Charles Schwab account, $4.6 million in value at his 9,000-square-foot home in Houston and a condominium worth nearly $580,000 in Dallas, according to the government's forfeiture documents.

Lay, the king of few (rich).

Supreme Court Votes Against Guantanamo Tribunals

Another major blow for the administration's self-annointed "war powers", the Supreme Court today voted 5-3 against the use of military tribunals in Gitmo. Stating that these tribunals are in no way constitutional and give President Bush more power than he is allowed, the High court reminded the administration that it has not been issued a "blank check". What will this do to the administration? Most likely it will make them even more capricious and force them to find a different path to the same goal. Also, being an election year, do not be surprised if this is used as ammunition for Republican campaigns (possibly a revival of the gay marriage ban rhetoric), calling this another instance of an "activist judiciary". For now, the administration has to take this ruling with all the weight of the law and change their position on about 10 euphemistically labeled "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo.

Read the full story here.

Do Celebrities Benefit from Philanthropy?

When Warren Buffet announced in a press conference that he was going to give Bill and Melinda Gates $1.5billion a year for their foundation, he stated that his family knew their wealth was meant to, in part, benefit society.  Bill and Melinda in the same conference nodded in agreement, being themselves the biggest philanthropist couple in the world.  These three rich magnanimous souls feel compelled to give back, to let others benefit from their wealth and power.  They are selfless and seek nothing in return.  Celebrities and philanthropists of the Gates kind are the few exceptions to the political world: they give money to campaigns and causes and expect nothing back.  What could they expect?  They are already rich, famous, and substantially powerful in their own regard, how could they benefit from less poverty or free universal preschool?  Directly, they cannot.  Money coming out of celebrities' pockets stays out of their pockets.  Knowing this, could it be that they seek something else, something not so tangible as cash? 
Celebrities and philanthropists have as much as we could imagine to want: money, fame, public acceptance, great influence at work.  They have all these amenities while tackling one major necessary attachment: loss of privacy.  As long as the idea of fame has been adored, so has our interest in those who relish in that fame.  The American public, in this particular case, loves to hear about the latest celebrity breakup or the Hollywood star currently in rehab, or the singer who just ran over a dog, etc.  Details, details, details.  An industry has flourished over this quasi-obsession (it is worse in other countries, like England, for example, where tabloids are a daily necessity).  Billions of dollars have been made from the plights and privacy of the famed.  So has the paparazzi.  The cameraman with a penchant for the "not-now" time celebrities often enjoy at the beach or with their kids is now a staple of our pop culture.  Mainly because it is one of the main providers of it. 
What does this all mean for celebrities?  It means that a counter-industry has been created to counter their existence.  While they work in Hollywood and Silicon Valley, the Obsession Industry has no boundaries when it comes to workplace.  They go where the action is, no matter how private it may appear to the rest of society.  The more forbidden the better, so the OI hungers for the one in a million shot or story. The celebrity and famed community have often tried to hamper the reach of these nosey neds, claiming that taking pictures of them in their own home is against the law, or that a story is personal and should not be publicized, or that coming up to them with their baby in hand is dangerous for the little tyke.  Almost all of these have been unsuccessful attempts.  Court order after court order, judges have not been able to cement what these philanthropists want: a law for privacy.  A constitutional amendment making privacy part of the Bill of Rights has been suggested...but as of today, nothing.  Could it be that celebrities want to use their air of goodwill to pull along a law that will save their privacy?  Are they lobbying indirectly, giving money to charities and campaigns in exchange for a push for an addition to the bill of rights?  Adding the amount of money given by celebrities, they must truly cherish their alone time.

Nap a little, Do a Lot

In Japan, a new craze is taking over! No, it is not the newest super computer or Pokemon: The Coke Chronicles. It is napping! According to today's Washington Post, Japan is embracing the art of the siesta. Taking in a 15-30 minute(but no more than 30 minutes, for you will go into deeper sleep and wake up groggy)nap around noon can help you be a somebody. Remember to use plus pillows, instead of your book or arms, since we all know that those red streaks on your face are not very sexy. Another tip: in order to obtain a natural wake-up, drink some coffee right before nap time.

Nap attack.

North Korea Ready To Fire Nukes; US Ready To Crap Pants

If you have nukes, keep them, show them off, threaten to use them as often and as annoyingly as possible. If you don't, well, then you are screwed because your ass is ours. North Korea is waving their arms in exasperation begging for our attention, they have something to say, again: We can seeee you. They are ready to launch ballistic missiles, are we are afraid, very, very afraid. If only Iraq had reminded us time and time again of the weapons they (did not) had. Unfortunately for Saddam, he did not have the huevos to shout empty threats, and now his flabby flesh is being photographed many times over.

Kim Jung-Il, come on now, put the nukes down and go rent Hitch or something. Avoid the drama, because at this moment, the US government is grabbing on to their popcorn.

AP: Farmer reports US troops in Iraq taken Captive

18 June, 2006


By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer 23 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A farmer claiming to have witnessed an attack on a U.S. military checkpoint said Sunday that insurgents swarmed the scene, killing the driver of a Humvee before taking two of his comrades captive. The U.S. military has only said the soldiers are missing.

Another local resident said the soldiers searched houses on Sunday and promised a $100,000 reward for any information leading to the missing soldiers.

"We‘re still trying to ascertain their whereabouts," he told CNN‘s "Late Edition." "Obviously, there is a vigorous effort to try to locate them and to bring them back safely."

Ahmed Khalaf Falah, a farmer who said he witnessed the attack Friday, said three Humvees were manning a checkpoint when they came under fire from many directions. Two Humvees went after the assailants, but the third was ambushed before it could move, he told The Associated Press.

The U.S. military said Sunday it was continuing the search.

Falah also said tensions were high in the area as U.S. soldiers raided some houses and arrested men. He also said the Americans were setting up checkpoints on all roads leading to the area of the attack and helicopters were hovering at low altitudes.

He said he would not cooperate because he was angry with the Americans.

The U.S. military did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the resident‘s claim.

"We are currently using every means at our disposal on the ground, in the air and in the water to find them," said Caldwell, the spokesman for U.S. forces in Baghdad.

Caldwell also said the military was still searching for Sgt. Keith M. Maupin, of Batavia, Ohio, who went missing April 9, 2004.

"We continue to search using every means available and will not stop looking until we find the missing soldiers," he said.

Maupin was captured when insurgents ambushed his fuel convoy with the 724th Transportation Co. west of Baghdad. A week later, Arab television network Al-Jazeera aired a videotape showing Maupin sitting on the floor surrounded by five masked men holding automatic rifles.

That June, Al-Jazeera aired another tape purporting to show a U.S. soldier being shot. But the dark, grainy tape showed only the back of the victim‘s head and did not show the actual shooting. The Army ruled it was inconclusive whether the soldier was Maupin.

"There have been ongoing efforts," Snow said. "Unfortunately, again, no word on Keith Maupin, either."

Maupin, a 20-year-old private first class at the time of his capture, has been promoted twice since then.

Bah, the World Cup is for the Unpatriotic

Another dissapointing game for the American soccer faithful. If only McBride had not been called offsides; if only the referee was not so trigger-happy with the redcards; if only more people gave a damn about American soccer. Unfortunately, the faithful are few and far between. Soccer has never caught on in the United States, celebrating only a short success during the Women's team run at the gold, but never for the also very adept men's team. Compared to all other sports practiced in the US, soccer's popularity can be found somewhere between bowling and badminton. Americans cannot fathom the notion of a sport where hands are not the norm limb of athletic display; or when a scoreless outcome can be called "riveting" by its fans. We want biceps, we want numbers on the board, we want grandiose displays...we want male attributes in our sports.
Kicking a ball around appears to be as skilled as swatting a fly or pushing a cart--where is the skill? A simple answer: everywhere. Personally, I see soccer as the most physically and mentally demanding sport. Period. The length of the field to be covered over and over again is a test of stamina and strength (of the legs, not biceps). The chess-like strategy is only a necessary part of the game, looking for an advantage, a proper movement of the ball through the other team's (mental) gaps. Depending on the movement of your other teammates more than your own makes the sport one of the most team-oriented, and necessary for thorough study. Sprinting faster while dribbling the ball than some do without any other worry is worthy of much praise. According to studies, David Beckham, one of the most popular players of the sport, runs an average of 8 miles per game. PER GAME. That is, he runs 8 stop-and-go miles within 90 minutes. Seeing a Brazilian team weave effortlessly through other teams is a thing of beauty. The skill is definitively there. So why no fuss about the US's performance?
We don't like unAmerican sports. Caring for a sport most of the world loves is like caring what other countrie think about our death penalty system, or our lack of social safety net, or our enfatuation with Branjelina. Our idea of sport is only interesting when WE are on center stage, when we call the shots, when it is on our court. When we play the World Series, how many countries are represented? Is New York a country? When we praise the NBA World Champions, what language do we say they speak? Unless it is the Lakers, we will be safe to say that English is the toungue of choice. The ratings on all these are indicative of our interests in wordly sports. The worst ratings for a World Series (last year's White Sox run) were much higher than World Cup numbers.
The idea of "World" sports or championships is not appealing to us when other actual members of the world participate. We do not wanna deal with Uzbekistan on the basketball court if we don't have to. I don't want to admit this, but, unfortunately, at the core we are very nationalistic. Olympics, PanAmerican games, World Cup, Tour de France, all that is just a different version of UN bologne. If you are a Wilsonian, you most like did not miss today's tied game.
While the interest is lagging, it has shown a lot of improvement. I hope I eat crow...tofu crow.

FEMA Can Pay For Your Hotel and Erotica

The greatest news of the day:

FEMA fraud paid for football, vacations, erotica
Up to $1.4 billion doled out in bogus assistance to Katrina, Rita victims
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The government doled out as much as $1.4 billion in bogus assistance to victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, getting hoodwinked to pay for season football tickets, a tropical vacation and even a divorce lawyer, congressional investigators have found.

Prison inmates, a supposed victim who used a New Orleans cemetery for a home address, and a person who spent 70 days at a Hawaiian hotel all were able to wrongly get taxpayer help, according to evidence that gives a new black eye to the nation’s disaster relief agency.

Federal investigators even informed Congress that one man apparently used FEMA assistance money for a sex change operation.

This is truly a painfully hilarious read. It is indicative of the level of bureaucracy we have in place. Meh, it is only $1.4 billion dollars...it is only equivalent to 2.5% of the education Budget for 2006.

Read the whole thing here.

Chivalry Has Its Exceptions: Teaching Economics

Between scarfing down a vegan cookie (it tastes better than how it sounds) and reading "Stiffed" (review soon to come), I ran into one of my Economics professor. She taught Micro-Econ Theory, which basically consists of figuring out how the market works from a household/firm point of view. It is ridden with theories, which all economists, I hear, take as spoken truths. Micro-Econ is not like Macro-Econ, I am often reminded, for it lacks the speculation that accompanies the latter, and it is nearly a tried and true science. Amid the theoretics, she went on a 10-minute tirade on sweatshops. For sweatshops on a moral ground. She argued that if "kids want to lose their finger while working a 16-hour shift, that is their right," and it is better than "having no job at all." I wanted to debate with her at the time, but I knew it was not the place. It was her class, her economics class, it wasn't Theories of Justice. So I kept quiet, swallowed her "humorous" rant (she is sometimes a funny professor, I must admit), and twiddled my thumbs. I got an A in her class, so I guess I made a pretty good pupil of the devil.
Seeing her during the summer, detached from the class setting, I had a quick, pleasant talk with her. We joked about how much I love my school, and how I better be reading an econ book--the cover of the book never ran past her eyes. After gabbing it up for a few minutes, she dropped her napkins while being her usual sarcastic funny self. I almost left my comfy seat to help her pick them up. I always do that, no matter who I am dealing with, man, (beautiful or otherwise) woman, or (annoying or not) child. But I didn't. I sat there, looking at her struggle to pick up the napkins and juggle her stack of books and coffee. She didn't seem to catch on, and probably didn't think I would help her, as many women either do not want to be shown chivalry or never have because of their quality choice of mates. She managed to multi-task and we bid adieu. I did not feel remorse for acting like that which I often criticize: a douche.
Not letting it take over my whole lunch break, I did think about it later for awhile. Was it because I disagreed with her in so many levels that I decided not be chivalrous? If so, why do I discriminate when it comes to acting as a gentleman? Do I have ulterior motives when I show chivalry? Probably. I am human, but most specifically and importantly, I am man. There may be something in my subconscious that triggers the Clark Gabel? Might it be the Ingrid Bergman? Whatever the case, this professor Ingrid Bergman was not. Maybe more like a Reagan, but not an Ingrid.

AP: Parents Use Pot as Reward

Associated Press:

Police have arrested two Chandler parents accused of giving marijuana to their young sons as a reward for good behavior.

Toni Lynn Carlson, 31, and Aaron Virgil Carlson, 23, were booked on suspicion of possessing marijuana and drug paraphernalia, possessing marijuana for sale, contributing to the delinquency of minors and endangerment, police said Friday.

The couple were taken into custody Thursday night after detectives served a search warrant at their home and found a quarter-pound of marijuana.

Police said the boys — ages 12 and 11, and a 4-year-old girl — were in the care and custody of a family member.

The investigation began after authorities received tips from a neighbor about the possible usage and sale of drugs at the home, police said.

Detectives didn't know about the family possibly smoking marijuana together until the parents and children were interviewed.

Also under investigation is the possibility the Carlsons supplied drugs to other children, police said.

Too bad the kids could not remember what they did right.

After "Cars", Pixar Eyes for Rats

I have yet to see the new Pixar movie, "Cars", but I am sure I will at least admire it, if not love it. Pixar has one of the best, if not THE best, track record in Hollywood when it comes to blockbusters/quality movies--an anamoly in Tinseltown. I hear that "Cars" comes with a trailer f0r Pixar's next venture is shown. "Ratatouille" (Rat-a-too-ee), is the story of a rat with refined taste. A difficult personality trait to capatilize when you are a rodent, unless you live in the delicious city of Paris, France.

Here is a trailer for it. Or you can actually cough up the $9.50 and enjoy it in its silver screen glory....meh, times are tough.

Nothing beats a good movie. Maybe good movie popcorn, among other things.

The importance of Zarqawi?

Missing out on the up to date news last night, I had to listen to the death bell ring this morning instead. The most wanted man in Iraq has fallen by an air assault. Thanks in part to the Jordanian government, Zarqawi, the (estranged) citizen of that country is no longer a threat to the citizens of Iraq or the American troops and their allies. As important as his death is, it does not, in any way, mark a new turn for the insurgency or life in Iraq. As with the mafia, when one head is cut off in terrorist networks, another one emerges.

First, however, the importance of his life must be assessed before we look at his death. He was more of a military coordinator than a movement leader. He was not a religious leader, as Osama (incorrectly) claims to be. He was not a Sunni leader, as many top Sunnis felt threatened by his headline-grabbing assaults and massacres. He was, however, a master propagandist and military man. His ruthless tactics, like the beheading of Nicholas Berg, and the many suicide bombings he orchestrated, were indicative of the danger he represented. He was a foreign man in foreign land. A citizen of Jordan, Zarqawi found his niche in Iraq and undoubtedly left his mark. The work he did was definitely essential for the insurgency, but, as many intelligence officials noted, he was not the force he was made out to be. The insurgency needed him, but it did not rely on him. While he was considered the most dangerous man in Iraq (sorry, Muqtad al-Sadr, your day has passed for now), the danger he posed can be easily filled by someone already in the pipeline. Some believe his capture is completely fruitless.

What will come after his death? Most likely it will help the current Iraqi government. Having just appointed some more officials, the baby Bambi government needs a morale boost any it can. This will definitely help. Along with this benefit to stability, it will certainly make Iraqi life, at least seem, more livable. The shakiness Iraqis are accustomed to will take some time to get rid of, especially when little or no progress is made with the strongest nation in the world inhabiting and helping its land.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead. That is the only thing certain at this point. Unless they find that the tattoos and the body ID was all wrong. In that case, we are back at the beginning. In essence, that is where we will be even if he is dead. That is the problem when you fight a noun, its hard to know when it is down. Stay down terrorism, stat down.

Like Weird "Funny" or Haha "Funny"?

Seinfeld observes, Chappelle challenges, Pryor discussed, Carlin ridicules…all of them laughing all the way to the bank. Maybe awkwardly. I attended the 50 Mason Lounge last night in San Francisco, a small joint with no more than 40 chairs set up in a semicircle around a stage that had two fake lamp posts and a painted brick wall as props. The journey there was laughable enough (hurrying through BART while having my girlfriend break one of her shoe’s heel, forcing me to break off both shoes’ heels so she could have makeshift flip flops, all while I cut my finger while tearing off the second heel), but the little club that could surely delivered. The comics varied in style. Some were edgy, some were sarcastic, some sang, some just conversed. It made me a bit jealous of their talents, of their wit. About 70 percent of them were quite funny, worthy of the $7 per person cover (no drink minimum).

“Why are bumper stickers on the shittiest cars?”,

asked one of them. Its funny cuz it’s true. I own a light and peppy (codeword for shitty) Tracer, by the by.

As they did their bits with (mostly) great bravado, I remembered a magazine article that deconstructed the comedian psyche. According to the article, comedians are often socially awkward off-stage. They stay away from crowds or social groups, preferring instead to smoke in the alley as the audience members leave the forum. The comedian sees its audience as lesser beings, in a way, holding them in contempt for being so easily manipulated. Especially for the very skilled and successful comedian (unless you HAVE to be social in order to get movie deals and TV shows), the audience becomes a puppet they can twist as they see fit. Laugh, the comedian commands, and so does the audience follow. Sit silent while I relish in it, he says, and his orders are followed by the many. As confident and charismatic as they project themselves to be on stage, off it they fail to find their place. Personally, it seems like that would HAVE to be the case. If they are observing and obtaining ideas from the people that come into contact with it everyday; if they feed off what the masses give them only to repackage it in funny and sell it back to them, they pretty much have to separate themselves from the rest of society, in a way. It makes me wonder if the homeless might be funny as hell.

When the night ended and 5 out of the 12 comedians passed on to the semifinals, I observed how they interacted with each other after they were announced and brought back on stage, sans microphone. Shifting their weight, darting their eyes, shaking hands with uncertainty, the comedians looked awkward. Maybe I don’t want to be that funny.

Bush: For Society's Sake, Jail Them Gays!

Yesterday, Bush came out. For his coming out he told those who have done the same or plan to to stay inside...no to gay marriage! The president's outrage is no longer against dissenters, Democrats, nay-sayers, or hungry prosecutors. At least, not last Monday, June 5th, Election Year. In order to maintain the "stability of society", Bush declares, gay marriage must be outlawed through a constitutional amendment. Liberal judges should not decide the fate of our country's fate, Bush continues, but the people. Hail bigot America!

Bush paints the American people as a bunch of redneck evangelical bigots that are more interested in banning the union between the gays next door than over their economic wellbeing or their son third tour in Iraq. Unfortunately, he may be right. A new ABC poll shows support for the banning of gay marriage, even after it left the public discourse for over a year. What does this say of our true character? Are we truly a nation of red-at-the-core Americans? Lets hope for poor polling.

It is, in the end, all politics. Bush wants to rally the base, as his numbers drop in every sector of his formerly die-hard support group. His numbers are still very low, but have rised somewhat. This slight rise is because of nothing more than his decent immigration proposal. This makes the next poll a clear indication of how the American people received his political pandering. I fear for his party's outcome this year (but not too much, of course) after this hasty endorsement. He might be showing some carrot to his fundamentalist base, but it is too little too late. The base is getting more and more needy, and Bush is bleeding political capital at an unprecented pace. His lame duck presidency started at the beginning of this year, seeing no end in sight other than a slowly approaching 2008. Bush can only harm himself at this point by postulating. That logic doesn't seem to stop him, however, for he relishes the campaign environment. I am sure he misses 2000 and 2004.

Movie Review: The Break-Up

I was not forced to see The Break-Up. While my girlfriend is in love with the lovable Republican, Vince Vaughn, I too wanted to enjoy his glow--his sweaty, 100mph, snowball momentum humor glow. Jennifer Aniston's new found martyrdom (the girl next door was ditched for the vivacious vixen by the demi-god) and her cuteness was an added bonus. Plus, movie popcorn is enough to validate anything. Even this movie.

Starting with a quirky baseball game encounter between the quintessential everyman (Vaughn) and the Good Girl (Aniston--look into her filmography for reference). After that, a slightly corny montage brings us into their looooong relationship. They go to Notre Dame games, they have Xmas together, they both love to admire Vince Vaughn's hairy, sweaty chest. Then comes the breaking point. The breakup scene made me cringe a couple of times. Actually, throughout. I often saw and heard what I have heard often in the past: "I didn't say you were crazy, I said you acted crazy", "Being myself means we have to break up?", "I want to be left alone", et al. It was very good at capturing the downward spiral partners slide through a fight. One small thing leads to a slightly bigger issue, which in turn leads to "I am through with this!". All over some stupid lemons.

Beside these sporadic insights, The Break-Up falls short of what it could be. It ends up becoming half a movie. Revolving around the idea of the vicious cycle a break-up creates, the movie only touches upon the upshot of this, the painfully necessary part of many relationships, until the last 15 minutes. You can feel the screenwriters along with the director and actors hurrying to finish this movie with enough closure to be able to sleep at night. Alas, they fail.

The director, Peyton Reed ("Bring it On"), appears to have let Vince Vaughn work his magic, and allow Jennifer Aniston to soak it in passively, with light (if even present) direction. His stamp is nowhere to be found in this movie, making it mostly Vaughn's show. The chemistry, even when yelling at each other, between Aniston and Vaughn is clearly present, but never honed in to its full potential. The movie lacks an aim. It ends up being a shouting match with gut laughs dispersed here and there.

A date movie it is, but only one to take someone you have experienced some of this already. With a new date, a prospect, it might remind both of you how much it sucks to be at the end of a relationship. I suggest at least a couple of beers before the viewing. Maybe a whole case.

At the end of the movie I saw the very interesting square between Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Aniston, and Vince Vaughn. The demi-god drops the ultimate girl next door for the sultriest vixen. The ultimate girl next door in turn gets it on with the quintessential everyman, with the beer gut, the love for baseball, and the bar and grill sense of humor. If only Aniston and Vaughn fell in love with another supporting crew I might have called it a storybook ending.

PoliBlog: Too liberal, too conservative, too much

Loony liberals and raging right-wingers are both equally irritating by themselves and to each other. This situation is older than sliced bread...actually, it is even older, but not as useful. The extremists and the narrow-minded simpletons on both sides of the spectrum create animosity and distortion. And nothing more. The problem with radical polarizing views are that they fail to acknowledge the world they inhabit, if only physically since their minds wander wildly and dangerously. Those possessing such views do not see the complex reality and misconstrue it for their own convenience.

This is not exclusive to politics, but extends to all society. Ideologues, fundamentalists, partisans and bigots all suffer this self-imposed ignorance. They all fail to accept their ever-changing surroundings filled with nuances. Some rely on theories, others on allegiances, while others rely on prejudices to support their "reality." They never question their beliefs, for that is not what they are to them-they are truths. Because of their indoctrination, they see the rest of us in contempt, claiming we are tools, that we are in the wrong. In reality, however, they are tools to their own constricted point of view. Their mentality works with absolutes, and because of that it is obsolete. The true reality, the one we all accept, if only begrudgingly and if only partially, is anything but absolute.

The most depressing of these sorts are the supposed "learned" individuals, flaunting their credentials as a sign of rightness. From these, primarily hurting our existence are the vacuum theorists who postulate based on their textbooks and not on actuality. They claim that their brand of economic and political development is the only correct form, even if the masses are left in ruins. Claiming that an unrestricted free market is the true path to prosperity is a clear example of such detached mentality. If something they recommend fails, it is because of the practice, not their theory. Ironically, the vacuum theorists are overwhelmingly dictating the direction and decimation of the world. The world will soon become a vacuum because the only evident truth if we continue to follow these "learned" individuals, will be the absence of everything.

Only by becoming a judicious citizenry can we weed out these detrimental supposed radicals. Their poisonous rhetoric, postulations, and actions claim reason and tolerance as victim, thereby repealing the progress we have made. Let the fundamentalists, ideologues, partisans and bigots stay in their reality, as long as they do not interfere in ours.

PoliBlog: Latin America finds that the right way is Left

A socialist, an Amerindian, a leftist, a Castroist. All these are thought of as threats the White House faces in Latin America. Recent and future elections are making President Bush very nervous about the ideological turn in Latin America -a backlash is in full swing. Chileans have their first-ever female president, Michelle Bachelet, who is an outspoken socialist and agnostic. The people of Bolivia are relishing the electoral success of Evo Morales, a representative of the indigenous poor and a supporter of the coca growers in that country. Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, called by many a "leftist populist," is ahead in all of the polls for Mexico's presidential election held in July. Hugo Chavez, a pro-Castro president, will be running for an almost-certain second term in December, making Bush's headache a little more acute. The year 2006, it appears, will continue the new leftist wave in Latin America.

This should not be seen as unexpected, but only as belated. Latin America's outcry has hit a crescendo. The poor cannot bear it anymore, the middle class cannot see the fruits of free markets, and the rich…well, they are actually doing pretty good. Unfortunately for the well-to-do, they do not make the majority of the population in any of these countries. The Washington consensus has been tolerated long enough, with its textbook economics that leave all but the privileged in misery. Consider this a wakeup call to the right wing. They are losing control of their neighbors.

Beyond an economic backlash, the momentous trend towards the left is a product of previous mischief. President-elect Bachelet, for example, is the daughter of a general faithful to democratically elected Chilean President, Salvador Allende. He was tortured and assassinated during the 1972 U.S.-led coup that took out Allende and placed Pinochet in power as dictator for the next 17 years. As president, she now hopes to minimize the income gap between the rich and poor in Chile. Karma is definitely for real.

The United States is experiencing the first instances of backlash in Latin America in quite some time. The region has tried the medicine prescribed by Washington - cut social benefits, focus on businesses, let Americans run your economy - but it is now tasting sour. Latin America is now realizing there is a better way - a more Latino way.

On the plus side for Bush, he will never have to worry about Castro being ahead on the polls before a Cuban election--no surprises in the outcome there.

PoliBlog: Illegal immigrant work: American slavery in the 21st century

How did America become an economic superpower? Work ethic? Possibly. Innovation? Maybe. International savvy? Very likely. Slavery? Bingo. The former three are touted as the basis for American prosperity, but the work slaves did make this country an economic force like no other.

An economy relying on free and easily exploitable work is a guaranteed formula for growth. Morals have no place in economics, apparently. The opening up of the sea, along with the discovery of easier routes and vehicles for trade, amplified the economic benefits of slavery. Today, we no longer work so much on building the newest freight boat and the cheapest slave boat, but we have found other ways of keeping our name on the marquee.

The influx of immigrants that began at the latter part of the 19th century and into the 20th secured a new source of cheap labor. Soon, all the Irish, Italian, and German immigrants assimilated to America and became the new foundation of it. The new brand of illegal immigrants bares a darker hue. Most are Latino, in particular Mexican. While being discriminated in society, they are overworked, underpaid, ignored, and often abused in the workplace. Reading first and third person testimonials concerning the plight of the illegal American, I often find cases that harken to the days of slave and master.

These illegal Americans are exploited. The new master is the abusive employer. The government decides to not "rock the boat"-as it did with slavery. Rocking the boat would force the government to treat this as an issue that is not only economic, but also diplomatic, moral, ethical, and historical.

If an illegal American does not comply with their boss, threats are presented, whatever benefits they have are removed. Some cases report sexual abuse, where employers, in essence, rape their employees so they can keep their jobs. Others report abuse via bats, hunger, and deprivation. The paramount difference between today and the slavery past is that these Americans are paid. The employers know they can leave more easily than would like. An incentive is needed. When your cheap labor is not guaranteed, you need to pay them enough to stick around.

Nothing can be at par with our shameful past, but we are not working to change the ugly facets that appear today. Our economy is ripe with immorality.