TopOfYourHead

The Mars Volta Live 2009

2009-09-19T13:13:00.004-05:00

Thursday night they played an awesome show that was filled with the usual onstage antics and absolute craziness. Singer Cedric Bixler-Zavala was the center of attention as he always likes to be, doing standing back-flips, jumping off the drum kit, and swinging his mic around a la Roger Daltrey of The Who. The band played about 90 minutes, about 30 minutes shorter than the two times I saw them last year, but they managed to squeeze in two more songs in the setlist than before. On the docket was:

Son Et Lumiere

Inertiatic E.S.P

Goliath

Cotopaxi

Viscera Eyes

Roulette Dares (The Haunt of)

Ilyena

Drunkship of Lanterns

Teflon

Eunuch Provocateur

Halo of Nembutals

Luciforms

The Widow

Wax Simulacra

Notably absent were three of their best live songs, "Cygnus...Vismund Cygnus," "Tetragrammaton," and "Day of the Baphomets." All three of these songs were played at the previous shows I attended, but each is none less than 9 minutes, and one is a full 16 minutes, allowing them to play a higher # of songs in a shorter time this time around. Nevertheless, it was an awesome show, with a hypnotic backdrop with a face that kept changing when different lights hit it and when curtans behind it were changed....very awesome.

Incubus Concert

2009-08-24T12:38:00.003-05:00

Incubus played the Cynthia Woods Pavilion in The Woodlands, a master-planned suburb about 30 miles north of downtown Houston. As always, they put on a great show and Ben Kenney seemed to be throwing in more funky bass lines than usual, which was awesome. Another observation: DJ Kilmore, who had once been behind the turntables in the past, has now pretty much taken on the role of piano, synths, weird sounds, and even the mellotron, so there was more atmospheric sounds this time around. The setlist is as follows:

Pardon Me
Nice to Know You
Anna Molly
Stellar
Megalomaniac
Circles
Love Hurts
Just a Phase
Drive
Make Yourself
Dig
Under My Umbrella
Are You In?
Oil & Water
Quicksand
A Kiss To Send Us Off
Wish You Were Here
Aqueous Transmission

Encore:
Punch Drunk
Light Grenades
Lets Go Crazy (Prince Cover)

Over all, it probably wasn't the best set thaat I have seen them play, mostly because of the lack of "The Warmth" & "Sick Sad Little World" -which they have played at every other concert I've seen (except the first time I saw them right after Morning View Came out. My favorites, and the songs that really stood out were "A Kiss to Send Us Off," "Pardon Me," and "Under My Umbrella."

The Other Most Moral Army

2009-03-31T09:20:00.002-05:00

And I also believe that Israel, with America and England and Australia, are probably the most ethically constrained militaries in the world. - Martin Peretz

I am getting exasperated listening to tendentious ideologues defend U.S. and Israeli war crimes with the rather trite assertion that "America (or Israel) has the most moral army in the world." Really? How can that be empirically evidenced. The Washington Post reports today that a U.S. Army Sergenat pleaded guilty to slaughtering a group of Iraqis (with the help of his men, he bound the Iraqis and shot them in the back of the head). Lets not forget the stomach churning account that Tom Ricks opens his new book with, which describes a U.S. soldier killing an Iraqi fighter and then urinating on his bloody skull. The are a manifold of other instances where war crimes have been perpetrated by U.S. forces in Iraq.

Of course, after the Israelis most recent massacre in Gaza we heard the common refrain "Israel is the most moral army in the world" from many particularly biased observers (like Ehud Barak, the ISRAELI Defense Minister). While Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B'tselem and a host of other human rights organizations have condemned Israeli actions in Gaza, this fallacious suggestion has become a generally accepted meme. When allegations do arise, the IDF is sure to respond with an "investigation", which almost always acquits IDF solidiers of responsibility or proffers light sentencing. Today the IDF finished its most recent probe into allegations that it committed war crimes and...what do you know? It claimed the allegations were hearsay. Maybe they were, but, the reality is that there were a multifarious number of execrable atrocities committed in Gaza and the people investigating and prosecuting these crimes should not be the same that committed them. Does it makes sense to have the same people that formulated policies that led to war crimes then judge those actions? Why don't we let murders investigate and prosecute themselves? Well, because much like IDF, they would always be "innocent".

I have a great deal of respect for members of the armed forces, but, that respect does not translate into a reflexive immunity. War is an awful thing and it seems to have an awful psychological affect on soldiers leading them to do things that are ineffably horrifying. Don't go around telling the world that your army is the most moral in the world when it is demonstrably not. Stop the lies and the fabrications it only makes the immoral acts seem more egregious and more immoral.

I'm 5'8, and as much as I would like to tell people that I'm tall (because if I was 6'4 or so, I'd probably be running the point for the Lakers right now) I don't. Why? Because I am demonstrably not.

Cornell's New Scream

2009-03-30T22:04:00.007-05:00

Last night I saw him at the Warehouse in downtown Houston. Imagine St. Andrew's but slightly nicer, but with no balcony. He put on a great show and was full of energy. I wonder if he's back on drugs, like the time in the mid 90s when he tried to commit suicide by jumping off a 10 story building but landing on a tree and climbed down unscathed. Just kidding. But the show was great and the band sounded awesome. Unfortunately they didn't start playing till about 10:15 and at 12, Natasha was complaining to go. Also unfortunately, he played ten more songs after I left. Here's the setlist:

Part of Me

Time

No Such Thing

Set it Off

Gun (never heard of this song before, maybe old Soundgarden??)

Spoonman (w/drum solo and first half of Good Times Bad Times)

Hunger Strike

Show Me How to Live

Exploder

Be Yourself

You Know My Name

Billie Jean

Ground Zero

Never Far Away

Gasoline

Rusty Cage

Can't Change Me (acoustic by himself)

Redemption Song (Marley cover & acoustic by himself)

I Promise It's Not Goodbye (acoustic song he wrote for a friend he said lives in Texas and has a tumor)

Fell On Black Days (acoustic by himself)

Like A Stone (acoustic by himself)

Cochise

Watch Out

Burden In My Hand (w/ All Along the Watchtower, Sunday Bloody Sunday, Stairway to Heaven medley)

Arms Around Your Love

Scream

Climbing Up The Walls

Outshined

Jesus Christ Pose

Encore:

Immigrant Song

Like Suicide

Black Hole Sun

As Far as his new album is concerned, I have mixed feelings. It's always difficult to take in seeing one of your favorite musicians doing something that could be potentially embarrassing or something you know you simply won't like. This new album is a little better than I expected, though. The best thing is how all the songs flow together, there aren't any gaps in music the entire length, so in that sense it's like Dark Side of the Moon or Frances the Mute (minus the concept-album themes). Personally, the two best songs are the Justin Timberlake-collaborated "Take Me Alive" with its Eastern sampling and the great vocals, and the other song being "Climbing Up The Walls," a song that sounds like it could have been a B-side from any other Cornell project, with seemingly no or very little influence from Timbaland and a good, straight-ahead rock feel.

My Rating 7/10

189d

2009-01-30T00:57:00.002-05:00

Thats the name of my new music project. Nineteen A-D-D. Taken from the At the Drive-in song of the same name. I always thought that was cool. Here's the link to the songs I have done so far. I made it on garageband, so it's not anything too brilliant yet.

Interview With Derek Steele

2008-12-13T08:59:00.006-05:00

Steele & Me @ his condo

By Adriana Wykoff, National News Service Music, Fashion, Culture Contributor

Detroit- Musician Derek Steele and his up-and-coming band South Paw Swagger has hit the ground running by having it's #1 smash hit "Back Up" featured on the trailer to the highly-anticipated "Transporter 3," starring Jason Statham. I caught up with Steele at his new chic flat in downtown Royal Oak.

Adriana Wykoff: So Derek, I have to ask you first off, what's it like going from a college graduate doing bitch work at a small-time suburban recording studio in the attic of a fifty year old church to having one of your songs being on one of the best action films of the year?

Derek Steele: It's fucking interesting.

AW: Well said. How has it changed your lifestyle? What are you doing these days that you weren't a year ago?

DS: I can afford to get my hair styled once a week at Rondondos down the street. I can also afford to take my buddy Dave to Hawaii, but I'm just returning the favor there. I've also been able to drink about 6 or 7 Red Bulls a day. However, I'm still working about 90 hours and sleeping about a total of 10 hours a week. It ain't easy being this good, really.

AW: Derek, before I met you today, I had a picture in my mind's eye that you would look more like Chad Kroeger (frontman of Nickleback) but your appearance is much closer to that of Russell Brand. How long does it take for you to get all dressed up each day?

DS: I figured I had to adopt a new image to appeal to a broader base. It takes about 2-3 hours to get ready each morning.

AW: With all of the money pouring in from royalties, have you "spread the wealth" with friends and family or are you hoarding it all for yourself?

DS: Well, I figured the only way to stop my brother from killing himself would be to give him some cash to spend on buying all sorts of expansion packs for World of Warcraft. My mom had always wanted to build birdhouses after one of her friends told her she looked like "Bird Lady" from Kids in the Hall. As for my dad, he used to be a pornstar in the 70s and deep down inside, I knew he wanted to get back into the business. So he used a little cash to get a fluffer and a few new banana hammocks. As for my friends, they figured they could mooch off me to buy some malt liquor and, funnily enough, bang hoes with no rubbers.

AW: Thank you for your time Derek, what can we look forward to coming from South Paw Swagger in the future?

DS: A few friends of mine will be making special guest appearances on an album I'm working on. Eminem, T-Nigga G Force 3, and Lil John will all show up on it.

Crime Family Finally Unmasked

2008-12-02T15:27:00.008-05:00

By Allen W. Watson, National News Service Contributor

Lima, OH- What began as an exhaustive investigation two years ago by the FBI ended in a bizarre incident in a small Midwestern city.

For a few decades, the FBI had been attempting to infiltrate and uncover a tight-knit, secretive crime family that specialized in exthortion, racketeering & holding a monopoly on the sale of popsicles, stops signs, and clothespins in Ohio.

The Gallagher family of Lima, Ohio, first got into the crime-syndicate business during Prohibition by distilling a knock-off Jack Daniels-type whiskey. Unbeknownst to ignorant Ohioans, the Gallaghers sold sold their whiskey with the Tennesse-based Daniels label, which resulted in a stomach sickness locally called "Pipe-butt," because of the unsanitary conditions it was distilled. The family later turned to the lucrative popsicle business, making & distrbuting the summertime-favorite delectables at higher prices because they controlled the whole popsicle industry in the state. Little Johnny in Akron had to pay 5 cents for a John Wayne Torpedo Pop while Little Susie in Pittsburgh paid 2 cents for the same treat. As the family diversified its portfolio into the stop-sign & clothespin businesses, they faced competition from the rival Huffman family in Lima. As the patriarchs grew tired of attempting to out-do each other, they decided to partner up and they decided this would be best reached by marrying two of their children...

Edward Gallagher & Joan Huffman were chosen to wed in the early 80s to bring the two families together, albeit with a secret plan to further the two families' ambitions. The conspiracy was to unfold as follows: the couple were to have two children, preferably boys: one who would rise up through the ranks of the federal government attempting to care about foreign policy & the downtrodden around the globe but would in actuality attempt to be in a position to block any investigations by government officials into the families' dealings, and the other son to begin bodybuilding at an early age to act as the family "muscle." The "Brain" and the "Brawn" are none other than Adam & Andy Gallagher, respectively. A third child, Megan, was an accident.

Andy was the first family member to be arrested after cops raided his apartment on an anonymous tip that he posessed illegal performance enhancing drugs including the popular black market sexual enhancer "Mr. Biggun." Police also confiscated illegal bodybuilding tapes that have been banned in America as well as some more well known bodybuilding documentaries with the likes of Arnold Schwarzzenegger & Lou Ferigno. After hours of questioning, Andy acknowledged the families' role in Ohio crime circles, but admitted he "was just the 'beater-upper.'" Soon thereafter, the FBI set up a raid on the Gallagher family compound in Lima, ending in a bizarre incident. An FBI agent was checking the basement looking for members of the Gallagher family hiding, and when turning around the corner into the washer room accidentally poked Edward in the eye with a certain member of the body. "I didn't think anyone would notice if I just took a few pills of Andy's confiscated 'Mr. Biggun," the agent noted.

FBI officials expects full prosecutions of key members of the Gallagher-Huffman family to take place in the coming months.

We Really Need To Kickstart The Blog Guys...

2008-11-21T21:26:00.009-05:00

1. Here's a great article about the current state of the country.

2. I finally moved into my new apartment in a cool part of town. After searching for the cheapest, finest apartment in the Uptown neighborhood, i settled on a $559 a month, 650 sq ft, 2nd story place only 14 minutes from work. Imagine Southfield+Troy+Birmingham.

These pics are of Uptown only, not downtown. It's a pretty happening spot as you can see.

And two pics of me & Natasha at the Texas Renaissance Festival, which was awesome:

Мы полностью pwning Грузия

2008-08-13T15:19:00.003-05:00

So, what are your thoughts/conspiracy theories about the Georgia/Russia War?

I would like to hear what you have to say.

Of Course He Would Do That...

2008-08-04T18:41:00.002-05:00

Like I've been saying for a long time, there are plans in the works to create a provocation with Iran. Whether or not those plans will come to fruition is a different story. It would make sense, though, that Bush & Cheney would strike Iran after the election but before Obama takes office, just in case Obama isn't up to it. The other scenario is to create some sort of a provocation & attack on Iran just before the election, in hopes of showing McCain as the "strong" leader Americans need in order for him to win the election. Either way, there is too much momentum behind attacking Iran by Israel and the military-banking-oil-industrial complex to back down now.

The Police

2008-07-28T15:26:00.002-05:00

This past Saturday The Police played Pine Knob and Grant & I got to experience the 3rd Best-Selling Concert Tour of all time. If I can remember correctly, the setlist was as follows:

Message in a Bottle
Walking on the Moon
Demolition Man
Voices Inside My Head/ When The World is Running Down...
Don't Stand So Close To Me
Driven To Tears
Hole In My Life
Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic
Wrapped Around Your Finger
De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da
Invisible Sun
Can't Stand Losing You
-encore-
Roxanne
King of Pain
So Lonely
Every Breath You Take
-2nd encore-
Next To You

An Overdue Return

2008-07-20T18:43:00.006-05:00

Here is an article talking about the reversal of "white flight," a phenomenon of whites moving to the suburbs that began before WWII but picked up momentum shortly after. It looks as if people are finally rediscovering the city, and realizing how much better the city is compared to the suburb. With gas prices jumping to stellar heights and the monotony of suburban life taking it's toll on the American psyche, you will no doubt see more and more whites moving back to the city.

I still need to write my article on the suburbanization of America in general and the decline of Detroit in particular. That picture is one of my new home, Houston.

The Ranting Never Stops...

2008-07-11T12:51:00.004-05:00

The FBI is slowly but surely turning into the US version of Nazi STASI. This article explains how the FBI plans to profile Arabs & Muslims, or people they may suspect of being one of the two, in order to "find terrorists." We are getting to the point where the State is throwing up the security issue in order to do whatever it pleases.

As America seeks to cement Iraq's status as its latest colony, huge debate continues between Washington & Baghdad over a plan to take place of the UN mandate that expires at year's end. The U.S. is demanding:
- that it be allowed to control Iraqi airspace up to 29,000 feet
- that its occupying forces be in Iraq indefinitely (with only the U.S. deciding when, if at all, to begin withdrawing)
- that it be allowed to attack other countries (read Iran) without first consulting Baghdad
- that it be able to occupy its roughly 58 bases, including the 5 "city-within-city" permanent bases
- that Iraq's Defense, Interior, and National Security ministries be kept under U.S. control for ten years
- that the U.S. can decide that any act of any country constitutes an act of aggression against Iraq and exercise the right to "protect" Iraq

This plan is nothing short of making the occupation permanent. Add in the fact that the same oil companies that used to run the industry decades ago in Iraq are about to make deals to bring them back is showing the true colors of why the U.S. invaded. Royal Dutch Shell, BP, ExxonMobile and Chevron are in line to making hundreds of billions of dollars if the oil deals are accepted. These same companies set up shop in Iraq in 1920 but were driven out when the industry was nationalized in 1972

Reality Sets In

2008-07-05T11:25:00.001-05:00

I have to admit…I am disappointed, disappointed on two fronts. First, I am disappointed in myself for a certain puerile naiveté, for awhile there I actually believed. I thought that this man, Barack Hussein Obama, really represented something, that he could spur a sea change in American politics. That his foreign policy would not just be drastically different from what we usually are forced to swallow, that his entire presidency would be, in a word, transformative. I drank the kool aid for a couple of months and I credulously accepted the campaign line, that an Obama presidency would usher in a new dispensation, an epochal change, in America and consequently the face of global politics. So, secondly I am disappointed in Sen. Barack Obama.

This was to be expected, as the general election draws near Obama will be forced to move to the center. His campaign strategy has been Nixonian, placate the party basis (the left in this case) in the primary and utilize a more centrist inclination in the general election. This is all well and good, but Obama is going too far in an effort to prove that he is not a paragon of the left, a Muslim, or whatever other accusation happens to be tossed up at him at the time, Obama is offering up a steady diet of policy proposals and soundbytes that seem counter-intuitive to the fundamental theme of his campaign. “Change”

Just a few examples

Obama’s recent betrayal on the FISA bill, which gives the State access to all internal and external communications WITHOUT a warrant. Discussing the bill, Obama essentially regurgitated Bush talking points verbatim, ““Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay”. Obama is pandering in an effort to bolster his much maligned national security credentials. Unfortunately, he is either overlooking or completely ignoring the unconstitutionality of the bill and the miniscule amount of oversight it actually allows for.

In recent campaign adds he has also called for a reduction of welfare in favor of the classic, “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” , ideology of the right. Again and again his postions seem to be shifting to the right.

Obama is already starting to slowly back down on his commitment to troop reductions, no longer committing to the precipitous one brigade (10,000 soldiers) he was calling for during the primary. In one of the debates he even said that he would send troops into Pakistan without the consent of the Pakistani authorities, if there was “actionable intellingence”. This is redolent of neocon policy, where America and America alone has the right to make decisions, a policy that violates the entire international structure, which is based on the sovereignty of individual nation-states.

Now my next example isnt really Obama moving to the center so much. Obama is clearly (over)emphasizing his Christianity in an attempt to make it clear that he is not one of those Mohammedans. In a speech a few days ago he called for a reinvigoration of the failed “Faith-Based Initiative” Bush policy. This “Faith-Based Initiative”, or whatever appellation the Obama campaign wants to call it, is eerily similar to Bush’s plan and brings back some of the same fundamental and philosophical questions about the American system of governance. In other words, is this a betrayal of separation of church and state? In every speech Obama is constantly talking about finding God, his conversion to Christianity, Jesus this and Jesus that. Barack, I get it, you are a C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N.

A few weeks ago, Obama staffers would not let two girls, wearing hijabs, into a speech that Obama gave in Detroit. And lets not forget Obama’s performance at the AIPAC conference a month ago. It was here that he had the chutzpah to espouse a more radical, Likudnut pro-Israel policy than any American President, including Bush, the most pro-Israel president in American history, ever has. He referred to Jerusalem as the, “eternal and undivided capital of Israel”, an assertion that stands in stark contrast to U.N. resolutions 242 and 338 and is, frankly, absurdly fatuous. The fecklessness of this comment is mind-boggling. It is generally recognized, except by the extremists on both sides, that there will be some type of dual sovereignty arrangement over Jerusalem. Obama has gone a long way from rubbing elbows with Edward Said and Ali Abunimah at dinners in Chicago. In the fall of 2007, in a campaign stop in Iowa Obama said that, “the palestinians are suffering”, a rather innocuous and fairly obvious statement to anyone with a semi-operative brain, and he was summarily excoriated. He simply doesn’t seem to give a damn about the Palestinians anymore, as he daily bends down and genuflects before the right-wing Israeli lobby establishment. If Obama is going to bridge the divide between the Muslim world and the United States he is rapidly heading in the wrong direction as he begins to seem more like your average American politician vomitting out pejorative phrases like “Jihadist” and “Islamofacist” everyday.

Unfortunately, the alternative is worse. McCain, has not followed the Nixonian strategy at all, he favors Karl Rove’s strategy. McCain moves more to the right everyday, completely eschewing his “independent-minded” and “maverick” image in favor of reinstituting failed Bush policies. It seems like everyday McCain is changing his mind about something.

There is no doubt in my mind if Obama were elected, it would help to curb global anti-American sentiment. However, the change would be cosmetic, not transformative. In America, a country so imbued with racial tensions, with a copious history of tenuous race relations, the election of a black man would certainly help to futher remove us from a rather checkered and in many cases immoral past. Yet, I doubt any substantive difference in America domestic or international policy would take place.

I don’t entirely blame Obama for this, some of it is a product of the American political system which at its core is conservative, in the Burkean, or even Aristotlean, sense. In other words, America is an essentially status quo society in which “change” generally manifests in incremental, piecemeal steps. No one president will ever have the ability to transform the American system. Maybe he can change this…but, I am very dubious.

Happy 4th of July: or Patriotism vs. Blind Obedience to the State

2008-07-04T12:01:00.002-05:00

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."
-Mark Twain

Today we celebrate the Declaration of Independence, a slap in the face our founders hurled at King George some 232 years ago. Armed with a little courage, some ideas that were not compatible with tyrannical rule, and a few muskets, about a third of the population rose up against the British throne to create a new nation. Today, however, many of the founders' ideas have been trampled on by moral entrepreneurs and megalomaniacs.

Today were are told that one is not patriotic unless he blindly follows the states actions, especially regarding military/police actions. Patriotism, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is "love for or devotion to one's country." Since when has a "country" and the "state" mean the same thing? Like Noam Chomsky once put it

"If you identify the country, the people, the culture with the rulers, accept the totalitarian doctrine, then yeah, it's anti-semitic to criticize the Israeli policy, and anti-American to criticize the American policy, and it was anti-Soviet when the dissidents criticized Russian policy. You have to accept deeply totalitarian assumptions not to laugh at this."

I love America as a country for many reasons. The relative open society & culture, the great range of beautiful landscape, and the diverse group of political and religious views are things to be cherished. There are, however, many reasons to be sickened by the actions of the state. The illegal & immoral occupations of foreign nations, the hypocrisy of it's foreign policy, and the frequent yet often hidden usurpation of liberty are just a few of the problems our leaders force upon us.

So this 4th of July, be thankful for what you have, but also remember it is not necessary to blindly support the immoral actions of the state, no matter how guilty the TV may try to make you feel for not blindly falling in line in supporting the newest crusade against the redskins, rebels, japs, krauts, gooks, or hajjis.

Legions of Legal Interns Screw the Pooch

2008-07-02T08:44:00.004-05:00

The Supreme Court got a major decision wrong last week...guess which one I'm talking about...not the gun one, I'm all for that. In fact, I think anyone with the funds should be able to buy any weapon they like (Bazookas, Raptor air crafts, Battle Ships, whatever).

No, the Supreme Court ruled against capitol punishment for the rape of a child. Now I'm not going to spend much time on the morality or social consequences or blah blah blah behind capitol punishment in general. I just want to focus on a bit of news I read in the NY Times today.

The Supremes completely omitted (most likely unintentionally) a federal law that had set precedent for capitol punishment when a child is raped. This is a major miss. Precedent is often key to the Court's decisions and there's been a law on the federal books since 2006 that allows for capitol punishment under the circumstances of raping a child.

This aroused my interest because of the magnitude of the omission. In a court where the most important decisions often end up 5-4, this sort of mistake is mind blowing.

Usually I'm tolerant of human error. It happens. Cars explode because pieces were manufactured poorly...people get sick from poor handling of food...work gets done incorrectly; it's inevitable. But on the grandest stage in all the legal land, this seems a bit odd to me.

I suppose it only reaffirms my thoughts about the inevitability of man-made mistakes though.

That's all. It's good to be back, brief as it may be.

Those dirty sluts having sex...or NOT doing something?

2008-06-30T14:05:00.005-05:00

This story about the girls in Massachusetts who had a 'pact' to have children together has gotten out of hand. I read an article that takes a different stance, though.

Basically, the story asks what if, instead of intentionally getting pregnant and having babies together, these girls found themselves pregnant and decided to support each other through the hard time?

Since 1981, the abortion rate per year has dropped 44%, from 29.3/1000 to 19.4/1000. (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html) Could it be that, we're not having sluttier teenagers, but have less teenagers get abortions?

Since 1991 at its peak, teen pregnancies (not births. Births vs. pregnancies are very different) have dropped by 30%. (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf) Pregnancies AND abortions have dropped. That means, if abortions have dropped more than pregnancies, which they HAVE, we should see an increase in births.

I don't know. I don't think we should ostracize and criticize these girls for being sluts. For all we know, the work of the Problem Pregnancy Centers and Crisis Pregnancy Centers is working. It's not that pregnancy is glamorized because of movies like "Juno" and "Knocked Up", but maybe NOT having an abortion and ADOPTION are being seen in a better light.

The best part about this theory is that, instead of being immature and being sluts, maybe these girls are showing maturity and supporting each other through what - I can't imagine - must be one of the hardest situations a young woman could go through.

That's encouraging.

Persuasion: Trickery or "Great Form of Human Change"?

2008-06-27T21:58:00.002-05:00

I've always been really into speech and language. That is why I majored in it. And, why my 'life intention' is to teach the art of it.

So far, my dream of teaching has fallen flat. But in a world of bills and fun things to buy, a job is needed to quell the anger of loan agencies. Thus, I have started looking for something to do with my time, i.e. a job.

Since realizing that I have a Bachelor's degree in English and communications, I have decided that Starbucks is out. This has led me to the field of Public Relations and marketing.

I have always loved speech, debate and interacting with people, so public relations seems like a good fit for me. I have always loved schmoozing so marketing is good, as well. In my recent interviews, though, I have realized that I am not knowledgeable in the area of public relations.

So, I looked online at college PR courses and have stolen their 'required textbook' lists. Amazon helped me out and now I am in possession of all the knowledge that SHOULD be presented in "Intro to Public Relations", "Writing for Public Relations" and "News, Television and Print". While reading these texts and looking at classes I SHOULD have taken in college, I came across one I thought would be a blow-off: "Persuasion".

Now, I've always thought that you can win any argument by presenting the information in a particular way. I thought that was the art of debate. Persuasion, though? That's sleezy. That's slimey. That's...so 'satanistic', right?

That is where you are wrong. So far, I have been reading this gentleman's website which is basically a speech course, web-ey-ized. He goes through the history of persuasion, from Greek origins and goes into the art and necessity of persuasion in a democratic society.

Now, this isn't a poignant entry about current events. Just an update on my life and what I'm starting to get into. The title of this entry links to the guy's website and I have to tell you to check it out. It really is amazing.

I may not have a teaching job right now, but this will probably help me become a better speech teaching in the long run.

Happy 4th of July.

Quote of the Day & Interesting Article All In One Post!

2008-06-05T22:33:00.003-05:00

“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

-Karl Rove, speaking to NYT's Ron Suskind in 2002.

And also an article highlighting a crucial point in the occupation of Iraq by the US.

100 Greatest Guitar Songs Of All Time

2008-06-05T15:30:00.004-05:00

I got my newest Rolling Stone magazine yesterday and it claimed to posses the knowledge of the 100 Greatest Guitars Songs ("Like anyone could even know that!" -Napoleon Dynamite voice)

So here they are:

100 Tool - "Vicarious"
99 My Morning Jacket - "Run Thru"
98 Red Hot Chili Peppers - "Under the Bridge"
97 Queens of the Stone Age - "No One Knows"
96 Husker Du - "New Day Rising"
95 Moby Grape - "Omaha"
94 Dire Sraits - "Money for Nothing"
93 My Bloody Valentine - "Only Shallow"
92 Mick Jagger - "Memo from Turner"
91 The Mars Volta - "Drunkship of Lanterns"
90 The Smiths - "How Soon Is Now?"
89 Joan Jett and the Blackhearts - "I Love Rock N Roll"
88 Quicksilver Messenger Service - "Mona"
87 King Crimson - "Red"
86 Jeff Beck - "I Ain't Superstitious"
85 Phish - "You Enjoy Myself"
84 John Mayer - "Gravity"
83 Sublime - "What I Got"
82 The Ventures - "Walk -- Don't Run"
81 Michael Jackson - "Beat It"
80 Steely Dan - "Kid Charlemagne"
79 Sonic Youth - "Silver Rocket"
78 Buddy Guy - "Stone Crazy"
77 Pearl Jam - "Even Flow"
76 Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers - "American Girl"
75 Frank Zappa - "Willie the Pimp"
74 ZZ Top - "La Grange"
73 Blue Cheer - "Summertime Blues"
72 Weezer - "Say It Ain't So"
71 The Strokes - "Take It Or Leave It"
70 Smashing Pumpkins - "Bullet With Butterfly Wings"
69 Pink Floyd - "Money"
68 B.B. King - "The Thrill is Gone"
67 Bruce Springsteen - "Adam Raised A Cain"
66 Stevie Ray Vaughan - "Texas Flood"
65 The Police - "Message in a Bottle"
64 Lynyrd Skynyrd - "Freebird"
63 Guns n' Roses - "Sweet Child O' Mine"
62 Albert King - "Born Under a Bad Sign"
61 Sam And Dave - "Soul Man"
60 Funkadelic - "Maggot Brain"
59 Jeff Beck - "Freeway Jam"
58 Link Wray - "Rumble"
57 Grateful Dead - "Dark Star"
56 The Byrds - "Eight Miles High"
55 Cream - "White Room"
54 Stevie Ray Vaughan - "Little Wing"
53 Creedence Clearwater Revival - "Born on the Bayou"
52 Radiohead - "My Iron Lung"
51 Ozzy Osbourne - "Crazy Train"
50 Pixies - "Debaser"
49 Jimi Hendrix - "Machine Gun"
48 The Clash - "London Calling"
47 Van Halen - "Panama"
46 Dick Dale and the Del-Tones - "Miserlou"
45 The Beatles - "I Saw Her Standing There"
44 Sleater-Kinney - "Dig Me Out"
43 The Sex Pistols - "Holidays in the Sun"
42 John Mayall and the Bluesbreakers - "Hideaway"
41 Television - "Marquee Moon"
40 The Who - "I Can See for Miles"
39 Santana - "Black Magic Woman"
38 The Faces - "Stay With Me"
37 Elvis Presley - "That's All Right"
36 Pink Floyd - "Interstellar Overdrive"
35 The Stooges - "1969"
34 Aerosmith - "Walk This Way"
33 Metallica - "Master of Puppets"
32 Dire Straits - "Sultans of Swing"
31 Queen - "Keep Yourself Alive"
30 Bill Haley and His Comets - "(We're Gonna) Rock Around the Clock"
29 AC/DC - "Back in Black"
28 U2 - "Where the Streets Have No Name"
27 The Paul Butterfield Blues Band - "Look Over Yonders Wall"
26 B.B. King - "How Blue Can You Get"
25 The Rolling Stones - "Can't You Hear Me Knocking"
24 Rage Against the Machine- "Killing in the Name"
23 The Yardbirds - "Over Under Sideways Down"
22 The Beatles - "A Hard Day's Night"
21 The White Stripes - "Seven Nation Army"
20 The Impressions - "People Get Ready"
19 Prince and the Revolution - "Purple Rain"
18 Ramones - "Blitzkrieg Bop"
17 Black Sabbath - "Black Sabbath"
16 Neil Young with Crazy Horse - "Cowgirl in the Sand"
15 The Who - "My Generation"
14 Bruce Springsteen - "Born to Run"
13 Derek and the Dominos - "Layla"
12 The Jimi Hendrix Experience - "Voodoo Child (Slight Return)"
11 Led Zeppelin - "Whole Lotta Love"
10 Nirvana - "Smells Like Teen Spirit"
09 The Allman Brothers Band - "Statesboro Blues"
08 Led Zeppelin - "Stairway to Heaven"
07 The Beatles - "While My Guitar Gently Weeps"
06 Van Halen - "Eruption"
05 Rolling Stones - "Brown Sugar"
04 The Kinks - "You Really Got Me"
03 Cream - "Crossroads"
02 Jimi Hendrix - "Purple Haze"
01 Chuck Berry - "Johnny B. Goode

We'll Do It Live!

2008-06-02T23:18:00.002-05:00

1. Congrats Grant & Jamie. Jackson will be the 52nd president of the US, simply because of his name.

2. http://youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY

3. And the remix: http://youtube.com/watch?v=5j2YDq6FkVE&feature=related

Ali Abunimah and One State

2008-04-30T14:23:00.007-05:00

One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse, by Ali Abunimah. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006. 240 pages. $23.00, hardcover.

In his 2006 book, One Country, activist and author Ali Abunimah, in what seems to be a prescient assertion within the context of the post-Annapolis peace process, suggests that the two-state solution is beyond resuscitation. Chronicling the increasingly abject situation of the Palestinians from the Oslo Accords to Camp David II to the present, Abunimah posits the two-state solution as nothing more than a masquerade for further Israeli annexation of Palestinian land. Abunimah is at his best in this book when he is dissecting the peace process, which is putatively purported to deliver a two-state solution that is fair, just and to deliver self-determination to both peoples. Unfortunately, he seems to be lacking when it comes to the modalities of actually implementing his solution, a bi-national state founded on democracy and civil rights.

Abunimah is absolutely right when he says the Palestinian nationalist movement has failed. Of course, the onus for its failure is bipartite (broadly speaking: poor Palestinian leadership and the overall ideology of all Israeli governments, whether dovish or hawkish). The peace process has always been domintated by a post-1967 framework. No Israeli Prime Minister has ever accepted the legitimacy of U.N. resolution 194 (which calls for the repatriation of all 1948 refugees and their descendants and compensation for those refugees who do not choose to exercise this right). The aim of partitioning all of historic Palestine to manifest a solution (i.e. U.N. resolution 181) has been fundamentally, and arguably irrevocably, modified so that now the partitioning of the West Bank is discussed.

For Abunimah, to alleviate the Palestinian plight and end the draconian occupation polices the one-state solution is the only solution. In reality, of any proposal it perhaps the most firmly grounded in justice and equality. The paradigm par excellence for this type of peaceful solution is the South African model and Abunimah devotes an entire chapter of the book to expounding upon the congruencies between the two conflicts. The Afrikaner-Zionist ideology comparison is particularly trenchant and the cantonization of the West Bank pulls the analogy together in light of the apartheid policies of South Africa. If the Black Africans achieved civil rights in a conflict that lasted 400 years (a number that Abunimah dubiously refers to) why should we conclude the Palestinians cannot?

Another model that Abunimah references is the Belgium model, where French speaking Wallons and the Flemish have coexisted. These models, particularly the South African model, certainly demonstrate examples of reconciliation and coexistence. However, Israel-Palestine is an ethno-sectarian conflict different in kind from the South African and/or Belgium model. Perhaps the biggest difference is the role of the international community. There was almost no international support for the apartheid regime in South Africa (apart from the Israeli government). In contradistinction, Israel is heavily supported by the U.S., who tacitly accepts settlement policies, and allies in Europe. Furthermore, the Afrikaners in South Africa faced a much larger “demographic threat” (I apologize for using such a racist term, unfortunately it is the nomenclature that is used in the conflict) with roughly 4 million white Afrikaners and approximately 30 million black Africans, something had to give. The numbers in Israel/Palestine are obviously much more equitable, so Israel can afford to continue (for the time being) to let the conflict drag on.

In my assessment, the strongest part of Abunimah’s argument is his “irreversible” argument. Agreeing with Israeli intellectual Meron Benvenisti, Abunimah believes that all of Israel/Palestine is by de facto one state. Abunimah believes it should be de jure. The continued expansion of Israel settlements, the segmentation of the West Bank and the overall infrastructural build-up lead one to believe that the situation in the West Bank is irreversible. In other words, why would Israel being investing billions to develop the West Bank infrastructure if it plans on eventually leaving? So rather than trying to further the partition the West Bank, abolish the green line and declare all of historic Palestine “Isratine” (like Libyan leader, Col. Qaddaffi called it at the Arab Summit in Damascus) a bi-national state, with full political rights for Jews and Arabs.

Critics of Abunimah rightly retort that there is little international currency (outside of academia) for the one-state solution and essentially no constituency in Israel or Palestine. Abunimah hesitantly declares the one-state solution to be a panacea to solving the major final status issues, “Creating a single state for Israeli Jews and Palestinians could in theory resolve the most intractable issues: the fate of Israeli settlements built since 1967, the rights of Palestinian refugees, and the status of Jerusalem.” Yet, he ignores the problems that are epiphenomenal with a one-state solution. Most importantly, the one-state solution completely destroys the Zionist project, Theodor Herzl, Chaim Weizman and Ben-Gurion would be collectively rolling over in their graves. Say what you will about the failed Palestinian nationalist movement, but its current ideology is not one that supports one-state. Moreover, I am not so sure that one-state would solve the refugee issue. Elections for the “Isratine” parliament would essentially be a census, with Jews voting for Jews and Palestinians voting for Palestinians. Formulating any sort of refugee policy, or any other sort of policy for that matter, would inexorably be a long, drawn out, gridlocked process. Jews in “Isratine” are not going to commit further “demographic” suicide by allowing the Diaspora Palestinian community to pour into the newly constructed state.
Abunimah passionately argues for one-state, and he does so in away that attempts to not alienate Jews or Israelis, although he inevitably will. I actually agree with Abunimah, one-state is the purely moral solution. However, within the context of the current political situation I cannot envision it happening. There would need to be a sea change in Israeli and American politics for that to ever occur. Perhaps a fair and just two-state solution can be the gateway to the solution that Abunimah longs for.

Mr. Walker Goes to 'Nawlins'

2008-04-15T21:35:00.011-05:00

So here's a few pictures of where I'll likely be living in the coming months. The Covington-Mandeville-Slidell area of New Orleans is like the Howell-Brighton-Milford of Detroit; suburban sprawl popping up all around 3 old towns 30 minutes outside of a major city. The main difference is there are palm trees, alligators, and southern accents that are barely recognizable.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find any Arab restaurants, but there is no shortage of Thai places. Housing is cheap and jobs are plenty.

About 100 feet behind me in this picture was a huge black snake in the mud. We couldn't see where he began nor where he ended, we just saw a thick, serpentine body slowly moving through the mud 2 feet below the boardwalk we were on. I nicknamed him Muddly McSlithers.
This little guy might look cute, but he almost turned into the dinosaur from Jurassic Park that spits venom at you when he gets mad. That little red area under his chin popped out when i got close to him, so I stepped back a little to take this picture. I didn't want to end up like the fat guy from Seinfeld who got spat on by the dinosaur.
New Orleans is more beautiful than you would think. Here is a church in Jackson Square in the French Quarter. There happened to be a festival going while we were there.

Here's the famed Bourbon Street. Every fourth storefront is a strip club and literally every second door is a frozen Daiquiri shop.

And of course, what would a trip to the Big Easy without a stroll along the River.

On Money, Inflation, and Government

2008-03-31T20:59:00.001-05:00

The following is a weekly article from Ron Paul, published today. I think it is a good explanation of the financial crisis we find ourselves in today.

These past few weeks have provided an unfortunate opportunity to discuss inflation. The dollar index has reached new all-time lows. The total money supply, M3, as calculated by private sources, is growing at a disturbing 17% rate. The Fed is pumping dollars into the economy at an alarming rate. Just recently the Fed announced new loan auctions totaling $100 billion. That is new money created from thin air. If these money auctions, combined with the bailout of Bear Stearns, continue to be the trend, we are in for some economic stormy weather. The explanation lies in understanding the basics of money, and why it is dangerous to give government and big banks control over it.

First, money is not wealth, in and of itself. You cannot create more wealth simply by creating more money. Wall Street bankers cry out for more liquidity, but what is really needed is more value behind the dollar. But the value, unfortunately, isn't there.

You see, the Fed creates new money and uses it to purchase securities from banks. Flush with funds, these banks seek to put this money to use. During the Fed's expansionary period, much of this money went to home loans. Through a combination of federal government inducements to lend to risky borrowers, and the Fed's supply of easy money, the housing bubble took shape. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were encouraged to purchase and securitize mortgages, while investors, buoyed by implicit government backing, rushed to provide funding. Money that could have been invested in more productive, less risky sectors of the economy was thereby malinvested in subprime mortgage loans.

The implicit guarantee from the Fed is quickly becoming explicit, as those institutions deemed "too big to fail" are bailed out at taxpayer expense. Wall Street made a killing during the housing bubble, reaping record profits. Now that the bubble has burst, these same firms are trying to dump their losses on the taxpayers. This approach requires more money creation, and therefore debasement of all dollars in circulation.

The Federal Reserve, a quasi-government entity, should not be creating money or determining interest rates, as this causes malinvestment and excessive debt to accumulate. Centrally planned, government manipulated economies always fail eventually. The collapse of communism and the failure of socialism should have made this apparent. Even the most educated, well-intentioned central planners cannot plan the market better than the market itself. Those that understand economics best, understand this reality.

In free markets, both success and failure are options. If government interventions prevent businesses, like Bear Stearns, from failing, then it is not truly a free market. As painful as it might be for Wall Street, banks, even big ones, must be allowed to fail.

The end game for this policy of monetary inflation is that the money in your bank account loses purchasing power. So, by keeping failing banks afloat, the Fed punishes those who have lived frugally and saved. The power to create money is a power that should never be granted to government. As we can plainly see today, the Fed has abused this power, and taxpayers are paying the price.

A TOP 10 DESIGNED FOR SOME SKIPS, SOME SCABS AND SOME SCALLIWAGS

2008-03-21T10:30:00.012-05:00

There are quite a few really funny truths, half-truths and complete lies that are propagated within the circle of friends of the authors of this blog. So this top 10 may not be funny or interesting to some, so...deal with it. I am going to briefly explain the myth/rumor/lie/true story, go into a brief description and finally assert my belief in the validity of the myth. If you have more please add to them. Lastly, these are not in any sort of order.

1. Mr. Steele is a pornstar

- It is a widely believed that Howard Steele has lurked within shadows of the adult industry. But he also has his 9 to 5, his wife and kids, but there is another side. Add it all up, the mustache, the hair, that tall, slender frame and you have the makings of a 70's pornstar famous for his mustache rides. Unfortunately, after an extensive investigation and hours of porn watching, I have concluded this to be a half-truth. Mr. Steele (oddly enough that was also his porn name) dabbled in the industry for a few years. However, after witnessing the apparent soulessness of his sons he became very depressed and no longer works in the industry. However, he was once a pornstar.

(TRUE)

2. Grant had a severe form of chapped lips called "third lip syndrome"

- Particularly during 10th grade, Thomas "Grant" Downs could not stop licking his lips. This proved to be a problematic obesession during the harsh winter months in Auburn Hills, Michigan. Often times Grant's lips would become so raw and so chapped from a dangerous combination of overlicking and dry winter weather that there would appear to be a third lip above his top lip. To this day Grant denies this disgusting ailment, yet there are certain individuals that will attest to the validity of this rumor. I for one vividly remember sitting in Mr. Rhodes english class, wiping boogers on Grant and being disgusted by his third lip.

(UNEQUIVOCALLY TRUE)

3. Ed Gallagher always smiles.

Ed Gallagher is a man of many faces, well I guess that does not really apply here. This rumor could in fact be pushed further to say that "Ed Gallagher can ONLY smile". Yet, I know this to not be true. In fact, I remember many times after Andrew Walker had been particularly disrespectful to my mother, his wife, Joan Gallagher ("Joan, where is the pisser?"), where he would grimace and say "that kid is an asshole".

(FALSE)

4. Ian needs as much attention as a high school girl.

- Whether its sliding across the gym floor like a 4 year old at Chucky Cheese or making obscene, noxious comments to a friend's girlfriend, Ian Christopher Young appears to be constantly trying to get attention from anyone...really ANYONE. Ian has spent several years perfecting his craft under the tutelage of OCS drama teacher and lesbian activist Dawn Lichty. It is common knowledge that high school girls crave attention, but to see this odd chromosome mix up in a male leaves many in disbelief. Anyone who has spent a significant amount of time with Ian knows, he needs attention like Derek needs coffee and false hopes of a career in the music industry.

(FALSE- IAN NEEDS MORE ATTENTION THAN A HIGH SCHOOL GIRL)

5. Mr. Carl Walker is in fact Chuck Norris, Walker Texas Ranger

- No explanation needed really. Look at Carl, look at Chuck...they are one in same.

(TRUE)

6. Derek Steele and Adam Gallagher are in a homosexual relationship.

- There have been rumors floating around for years about Derek Steele and Adam Gallagher being involved in some sort of "partnership" (as they call it these days). The main promulgater of this myth has been Grant "Third Lip" Downs telling the same old story of catching the two "staring into each other's eyes". Perhaps, Grant is covering up for something (see below). Yet, there has never been a piece of empirical evidence to confirm this rumor. Ok, I'm just kidding, they are gay together, I mean look at those twinks.

(TRUE TRUE TRUE)

7. Grant Downs is gay.

- Although Grant is married to Jamie Elyse Turner and has a child on the way, there has been a steady stream (no pun intended) of rumors for the past several years that Grant is fact leading a double life and is gay. One need look no further than the often discussed "cellphone incident", which lead many to believe that Grant was not only gay, but into S & M. After further review it appears that most of Grant's repressed desires to rule as king of Gaydom were released in high school. Although he there are sometimes he deeply desires the soft touch of a man he is in fact straight and just a vile person. In fact, give Grant a few swigs of tequila and you will hear vile filth pour out of his mouth at unprecedented rate.

(FALSE)

8. Derek Steele once performed the "shocker". - In act of unfettered desperation Derek Steele once told a group of close friends he performed a manuever called the shocker. See Derek feared being ostracized, or Peterized, because he spent alot of time at lunch sitting with a girl. His friends deemed this stupid and decide to make fun of him. In a incredibly disgusting attempt to conjure up coolness Derek told them he had done "the shocker". Derek even went so far as to invent the male shocker as a way to recreate the mystique and hilarity of his initial shocker story. Scholars have questioned for years what really happened and the academic consensus has been that Derek "Bobo" Steele did not perform the shocker. In fact, Derek has been so devasted by this lie that his life has been irrevocably damaged. One lie has created the "man", and I use that term loosely, that you see today.

(FALSE)

9. Andrew Walker is the world's biggest contrarian.

- Anyone who has spent significat time in the company of Andrew Walker has no doubt felt the sneaking suspiscion that he disagrees with everything you say. No matter what the topic is, movies, music, politics, history, agronomics, 18th century vampirism, Andrew has an opinion and its different than yours. Andrew has an uncanny ability to not only disagree with everyone but to do it in a dickish way that makes you want to punch yourself in the nuts.

(TRUE)

10. Derek Steele once drank himself into Adam Gallagher's consciousness.

-After a particularly uneventful night at the nighclub 7evin, located in Pontiac, Michigan, an incident occurred that literally ripped the space/time continuum in half. This event forever changed the course of experimental physics and relativity. Derek Steele drank so much he became Adam Gallagher, Adam Gallagher's consciousness was subsumed into Derek's body. Derek spent most of the night doing his usual, drinking Lady Steele cocktails and repulsing woman on the dance floor. By the end of the night, Derek was a hammered mess. He walked up to the bartender and said, or rather mumbled, "I want to check out my card". The bartender responded, "What's your name?". Derek simply replied "I'm Adam Gallagher"...

(FRIGHTENINGLY TRUE)

Some Non-Morbid Pictures

2008-03-19T15:17:00.002-05:00

Two Quick Thoughts

2008-03-19T12:42:00.007-05:00

1. If you could live in another country, which would it be?

I would probably pick Australia or Switzerland. The Aussies seems to have a care-free culture and the Swiss seem to be, quite possibly, the most responsible people on the face of the planet.

2. Happy 5th Birthday, Liberated Iraq!

May the next 5 years be as happy and productive as the first 5!

Money money money monnnneeeeeey

2008-03-18T20:57:00.003-05:00

I've never been big into the intricacies and 'interconnectedness' of the economy. I find the more I find out about interest rates, the value of the dollar, issues such as Bear Stearns and the mortgage crisis, the more excited I get to find out and research economics and the like.

And THAT is why I am happy for the recession.

Alan M. Dershowitz: "Kill More Palestinians"

2008-03-07T16:51:00.008-05:00

Last week 126 Palestinians were killed, 1/6 of those were children. The picture above is of a 20 DAY old girl called Amira Abu 'Aser that was shot in the head by IDF forces during another of its particularly brutal and vicious incursions into Gaza. Yesterday 8 Jewish students in the the Mercaz HaRav Yeshiva, located in Jerusalem, were killed by a Palestinian gunmen. With predictable outcry the U.S. and much of the international community swiftly condemned the attack on the Yeshiva while there was conspicuous silence in response to the indiscriminate slaughter of 126 Palestinians. It seems rather apparent to me that Israeli lives must be worth more than Palestinians. Given the copious amount of condolences offered to the Israelis and the sparce and pathetic "condemnations" and "warnings" for massacring Palestinans I cannot believe otherwise.

I saw Alan Dershowitz, professor of law at Harvard and unscrupulous apologist for Israeli war crimes, explain on T.V. last night that the latest "terrorist" attack in Jerusalem provides the pretext for the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) to be more indiscriminate in their ongoing slaughter of the Palestinians. So lets compare the numbers. During the Israeli offensive last week 1 Israeli civilian and 2 IDF soldiers were killed, as aforementioned 126 Palestinians were killed last week, with roughly half being civilians. Yet, Dershowitz believes that IDF should be more draconian in its response to Palestinian violence. Violence will only exacerbate the situation and this has been proven time and time again. But, Dershowitz and his cohorts operate under the assumption, that seems so manifest to them, that Palestinians are not really people, they love the mordbid, blood and death, they exist in a "culture of death". With every act of violence that is perpetrated by the Palestinians and by the Israelis the conflict becomes more intractable and increasingly interminable. Each side commits atrocious crimes, like in 1994 when Baruch Goldstein entered a Mosque in Hebron and opened fire, murdering 29 Palestinians. Witnessess say that everything from prayer mats to the Qu'rans were saturated in blood. People, like Alan M. Dershowitz, that disseminate hateful rhetoric will only decrease the likelihood of peace. The discourse concerning the conflict must be shifted, it cannot focus on the violent outbursts, but the many commonalities that the two people share, like those mothers that mourn in Sderot and Tel Aviv and Rafah and Nablus.

Salaam Ahlan

Shalom Achshav

Peace Now

SEX!

2008-03-06T20:28:00.013-05:00

Now that I have your attention, here are 4 things that really aren't that important.

-Award-winning journalist Sara Carter has been investigating a serious problem in the Southwest. It appears that the Mexican military has been crossing over the border to help drugs and people get safely across that man-made line in the sand, even sometimes firing upon US government agents if they get in their way. Why does the US government allow this?

-When the road commission puts up those "Deaf Child In Neighborhood" street signs, does it really mean there is a deaf kid there, or do they just randomly (or strategically) place them to encourage people to not drive so fast? I was wondering about that today.

-My favorite local Detroit chain is gone: La Shish has shuttered all 11 restaurants in the area. Owner Talal Chahine is currently hiding out in Lebanon because the FBI claims he skimmed millions of dollars off his business. Of course, since he is Arab, the FBI initially wished to get him on terrorism charges, but once they couldn't muster enough (or any) evidence against him, they searched elsewhere to charge him with whatever they could find. The terrorism "link" is that Chahine, while at some event, sat at the same table as a leader in the Hezbollah Party. I was pretty sure those fried kibbee balls looked a little more like grenades than food...

-Look out for my new blog article about the current landscape of our cities: suburbanization of America in general and the atrophy of Detroit in particular. I have been floating around some titles for my article: "One Day This Chalk Outline Will Circle This City," Homer Would Be Jealous: The 'Donuting' of American Cities," or "Detroitus."

B. HUSSEIN O(s)bama

2008-02-29T14:56:00.003-05:00

By now I’m sure that most of you have seen the much discussed, and often reviled, picture of Barack Obama wearing the traditional dress of a Somali elder. The picture of Obama was taken in during a 2006 visit to Wajir, a northeastern province of Kenya, near the Ethopian and Somali borders. The photo was first released, most likely by the Clinton campaign, on the Drudge Report’s website earlier this week. Obama has been dealing with all sorts of scurrilous rumors about his past and present religious affiliation and this is just another illegitimate accusation in an already copious and preposterous litany of fear-mongering, anti-Islam allegations. U.S. leaders frequently travel to foreign countries and wear the traditional dress of the country they visit. However, for Obama it is different.

Why?

Obama’s middle name is Hussein, he went to a madrassa in Indonesia, his father is Kenyan, his last name rhymes with “Osama” and in the winter of 2007 he said that the Palestinian people were “suffering”. Well, the logical conclusion for many in the media, and this goes for those of both liberal and conservative predilection, is to assume that Obama is Osama Bin Laden’s vicegerent and is undoubtedly planning a clandestine operation to destroy Western civilization.

I am particularly repulsed by all of the brouhaha surrounding Obama’s commitment to Islam for two reasons. The first, and more obvious reason, is that it should not make a modicum of difference if Obama is a Muslim or even if he has affinity for the Islam. In a post 9/11 world, being called Muslim is now some form of virulent libel. Words like “Islam” and “Muslim” are most often followed by “Fascist” and “Terrorist”. The allegations of Obama’s connections with Islam have continued without respite even in the face of near constant denials from his campaign.

And this leads me to my second point of revulsion, the responses of the Obama campaign. There is nothing inherently wrong with Obama and his campaign correcting the record. Obama maintains that he has been a lifelong Christian (although this has also become a source of contention because of the controversial pastor, Jeremiah Wright, of his Chicago church). Unfortunately, Obama and his campaign are not denouncing the premise that being a Muslim is some sort of crime or a “source of shame”. The Obama campaign has even referred to this as the “swiftboating” (alluding to the 2004 attacks ads against John Kerry) of Obama. In other words, being accused of being a Muslim is “tantamount to being accused of treason” (to quote The Nation).

Obama’s purported message of promoting unity seems to be lacking if it is only referring to partisanship. What about interfaith unity? If Obama is going to be the candidate of change, who can restore America’s image abroad he will undoubtedly have to begin by repairing its image within the Islamic community. But, this will not get him elected in an increasingly terror obsessed political climate.

State Legitimacy

2008-02-28T12:19:00.003-05:00

This is a post from the blog of one erudite young Arab, some call him Saeed ibn Nizar ibn Saeed ibn Adeb. Enjoy:

LA BAEKA YA URI! (We respond to you Saeed)

Along with the rise of the modern state, the world has witnessed the rise of modern day insurgent groups. In every corner of the world it seems as if someone is questioning the legitimacy of his or her ruling government. Not only have insurgent groups been successful in garnering the support of the people, in some cases they have also been successful in reaching their goals. Insurgency groups tend to focus on one main issue when attacking the government they are at odds with, legitimacy. The legitimacy of a state and its relationship to an insurgency movement is an interesting topic to explore. We will take a look at the relationship of the state with its people, what it is based on, and what might increase the chance of an insurgency. The following examples will be based on modern states in the Muslim world.

The foundation of the state could be found in its monopoly on violence, in other words, security. A state projects this with its police force, military, and its intelligence apparatus, which provides internal peace and security, but also protection from outside powers. When a state loses its ability to provide these services, its legitimacy comes into question by the population. This was made obvious after the United States' invasion of Iraq1, the state lost its monopoly on violence and the US was unwilling to fill the vacuum. Once the US finally decided that it needed to operate as an occupying power, the legitimacy of the state was lost and the masses found alternatives to the state, tribal governance, sectarianism, and militias of all shapes and colors, that were able to not only provide them with security, but also help them in other services that one would attribute to a modern day state such as schooling, garbage pickup, and social security. When the US decided to clamp down on these ‘illegitimate groups,' violence spiked.

The issue with violence and security is that it also happens to be the easiest pillar of the state to question. Tactics of modern day terrorism has given an insurgency movement plenty of low cost, effective, and efficient means of questioning the security monopoly of a government. In this case, the state needs to look for additional sources of legitimacy to fall back on. In some parts of the world, this was found in religion. Religious legitimacy is a powerful force; looking at Saudi Arabia as a good example, opposition groups that have rose have questioned this. In 1979, the insurgents who took over the Sacred Mosque in Mecca were constantly attacking the religious legitimacy of the Saudi monarchy2. You could also find this today with Al Qaeda repeating the same rhetoric that was used by these insurgents against the royal family3. If a state does not claim any religious legitimacy, in some cases it could lead to insurgency movements claiming it. We find this in Pakistan4, Algeria5, and Egypt6.

In the past, religious legitimacy has been on the decline. The state secularized and no longer thought that legitimacy of God was important, but rather legitimacy from the people was, meaning democracy. This is gained through elections, sometimes free and fair, other times not. It has been an efficient tool for a state in some cases, mostly in the west, but in other states it has been offered more or less as a facade. This can be found in dictatorships and authoritarian regimes that use it in search of some form of legitimacy other than iron fist security power. Democracy is a powerful tool for the state to prevent insurgencies because it provides an alternative to violence for a person to complain, this tool is the power to vote. In some cases, democratic elections could take a disliked turn bringing in a group that is not favorable to a powerful segment of society or the world. In which case they might be cancelled, such was the case in Algeria, or the people will be punished, such was the case in Palestine7. When democracies are abused in these manners insurgencies are most likely to form. This was the case in Algeria with its civil war, which raged for a little under a decade8.

Democracy is a powerful tool to prevent the development of insurgencies; but many in the ruling class do not experiment with it because it could be unpredictable. The welfare state is the next source of legitimacy. With the rise of socialism in the 20th century a lot of governments created a situation where the states were expected on to provide new services such as jobs, education, and healthcare. This was used as a way to ‘buy’ legitimacy from the lower classes of society. Although this was an effective way of holding on to power, it was also very expensive. It could only be sustained by well developed countries, or countries that are rich in natural resources. In the cases where this system failed and did not operate efficiently due to corruption, mismanagement, or under funding, organizations willing to fill the gap gained influence, these groups included the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt9, and Hamas in Palestine10. Soon after these groups will gain confidence and declare their willingness to question the ruling government. In cases where democracies are not present, the chance of an insurgency will increase.

With the end of empires and the introduction of occupation, recent times have introduced other factors that insurgent groups have been able to use against a government. Foreign occupation and the method of using a local face is a new situation that states have had to tackle. Occupiers who ‘outsource occupation’ will have a very hard time in gaining support of the people. This is the issue in Iraq11 and Afghanistan12. This creates a situation that the insurgency is able to exploit very easily. When an insurgent is successful in labeling the government as a puppet government a powerful and wide supported insurgency would almost always ensure. A future situation that we might see in the horizon would be a new insurgency in Palestine. This insurgency would not only be against Israeli occupation but against the Palestinian Authority, which has become increasingly autocratic under a government that receives little public support and may seem to serve Israeli security needs over Palestinian national aspiration’s13.

Globalization has introduced new circumstances in which a state’s legitimacy is threatened by indirect means. The global community has had an adverse affect on the relationship of the state to its people. For instance, the aid that is given to Egypt by the US has been an issue that anti government groups will use to show the incompetence of the government to survive on its own. International pressure is also an example, after President Jimmy Carter told the Shah of Iran to respect human rights he was overthrown. Also using Iran as an example, the special status that was given to American citizens in the country, which gave them special legal status, greatly decreased the respect for the government14. Also in today’s War on Terror, the disappearing of nationals15 in their homeland, which is occurring in Pakistan, will become a major grievance that the state is going to have to solve. These are all issues that would help insurgencies question the power of the state. They hamper efforts by the state to project its power and provide insurgencies with plenty of potential propaganda that could be used to gain influence with the population in question.

The state has a tough battle to fight once it finds itself engaged with an insurgency. It has to be willing to provide efficient solutions to the problems that the insurgents are trying to exploit. But fighting an insurgency, with legitimate claims, is proof that the state has already fallen behind. Most insurgencies usually try and vent their grievances using whatever means are available, violence being a last resort. Providing security should always be the first step, but democracy, or some other technique that the population could use to vent their concerns, comes in as a close second. There are other potential issues a state would have to face, such as economic concerns of the population16, which could influence the birth of an insurgency, and are very important and would be an interesting case-by-case study.

The legitimacy of the state is an uphill battle for the incumbent government. Providing security for the population is important and expensive but needs to be done. A strong security apparatus is needed especially in the case of weak and new states, where plenty of people are willing to rise to the task of questioning the power of the state. Religion has more or less become a nuisance; it usually becomes an issue when the state itself nurtures it as a form of power, as in Saudi Arabia (Saudi-Wahabbi Alliance) Iran (Islamic Revolution) and Pakistan (under Zia-ul-Haq). The move to democracy could be looked at as a way to curb the potential of insurgencies. It offers many different avenues for a grieved population to use before it reaches the last road of violence. With democracy, the state is expected to provide for the needs of the population, and wide ranging social service system that is efficient, modern, and accessible. A state does not need to provide for one or two of these, but rather they are all important. A powerful security state will not be able to stop an insurgency movement without offering a different way to express grievances (Israel and the Palestinians). A state built on religious power, with a strong social system will also face powerful challenges if its legitimacy is questioned (Saudi Arabia). And democracy alone is definitely not a solution (Iraq).

Kosovoil

2008-02-27T12:51:00.006-05:00

The recently independent state of Kosovo has made quite the wave in the Balkans the past week or two. The country had been trying to secede from Serbia (formerly Yugoslavia) since the mid Eighties. Milosevic tried to keep his country together much like Lincoln did 150 years ago here, but was defeated by NATO and died while waiting trial in The Hague for "war crimes." Russia is upset because the US is expanding Pax Americana in its sphere of influence. If you think about it, Russia has a point: it would be like Russia sending it's military to a Caribbean island to support an independence movement and then building a military base there. The US would be justifiably angered.

Maybe the real reason the US is in the region is to ensure security for the construction of the Trans-Balkan Oil Pipeline that is to be operational by 2011. By immediately beginning construction on a military base after the NATO bombing of Serbia, the US has essentially sealed it's role as the Balkans' police man, stripping that title from Russia. Camp Bondsteel was the largest US base built since the Vietnam Conflict; why the need for such a large base if NATO was simply trying to prevent Milosevic from putting down a secessionist movement?

On the topic of extracting Caspian Sea oil through the proposed pipeline, former Energy Sec. & Democratic Presidential candidate Bill Richardson perhaps said it best in November 1998:
"This is about America's energy security. It's also about preventing strategic inroads by those who don't share our values. We're trying to move these newly independent countries toward the West. We would like to see them reliant on western commercial and political interests rather than going another way. We've made a substantial political investment in the Caspian, and it's very important to us that both the pipeline map and the politics come out right."

Quick lyric....let me know what you think of it. Let's discuss...

2008-02-18T11:33:00.001-05:00

"Is your god really God?
Is my god really God?
I think our god isn't God,
If he fits inside our heads."

- "Clouds" by As Cities Burn

Quote of The Day

2008-02-09T00:35:00.000-05:00

I believe I can see the future, because I keep the same routine.

-Trent Reznor, Every Day is Exactly the Same

The Bedlam In Ann Arbor

2008-01-24T15:41:00.000-05:00

The Mars Volta concert at the Michigan Theatre last night was definitely the most entertaining event I have yet to witness. The band played for two and a half hours, showcasing at least a half dozen new songs from the upcoming album, "The Bedlam In Goliath."

Lead singer Cedric Zavala-Bixler was busy the entire night climbing on the stage set, running up and down the aisles (while messing with the security guards), using his mic as 100 different utensils, and of course-salsa dancing.

I was thinking during the concert that The Mars Volta embody the self-indulgence of Led Zeppelin, the cryptic aura of Pink Floyd and the creativity & improvisation skill of King Crimson.

Setlist:
Roulette Dares (The Haunt Of)
Viscera Eyes
Wax Simulacra
Goliath
Conjugal Burns
Tetragrammaton
Agadez
Cygnus...Vismund Cygnus
Metatron
Drunkship Of Lanterns
Ilyena
Day Of The Baphomets

35 Years of Legal Abortions

2008-01-23T14:39:00.000-05:00

Yesterday was the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. The Court voted 7-2 not in favor of legalizing abortion, but in favor of granting a right to privacy for all women.

This is an incredibly important distinction. As a Christian, I find abortions deplorable for a number of moral reasons, but moral reasons are not going to be enough to overturn the decision. Unfortunately, so much of the pro-life movement's passion and money is wasted in marches and pamphlets.

Now I'm no lawyer, but I can see some flaws in the arguments put forth by the Roe attorneys. First, Sarah Weddington (Jane Roe's attorney) admitted in her argument to the Court that if the fetus was granted Constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment, it would throw a wrench into the argument. Sounds like a good place to start. Murderers of pregnant women are often convicted of double homicides. Unborn children can have trust funds, insurance, and other sorts of monetary systems set up for them. It would seem such situations could at least be argued through some of the lower courts.

Second, Norma McCorver was a patsy for a largely feminist movement. Later in her life she became pro-life after a realization of what she had done to herself, her child and millions of other women and children thereafter. So, the pro-life movement needs its own patsy; a man. One thing I have never understood about Roe is the complete disregard for the father's, or seed-bearer's, or impregnator's or whoever's right to the fetus. A man's body may not be affected, but most certainly the fetus is half his doing, and therefore there's at least a tacit connection between father and fetus. So, find a man who wants or wanted to keep his baby but had or has to deal with a woman who wants to abort it. Something could come of this.

Finally, a right to privacy under the Due Process clause is so vague. Someone much wiser than I should destroy this argument. Roe v. Wade will forever be put under strict scrutiny by the court. This means that ultimately to overturn the decision, there will need to be a fundamental flaw in the Constitutional argument originally put forth. I think that flaw have to do with the general ambiguity of the 14th Amendment.

One last note, don't get abortions. Don't support abortion legislation. There are always other options. See the movie Juno, for a pro-life message without a Christian influence. Talk to someone who has dealt with an unwanted or unexpected pregnancy. There are plenty of them out there, you would not be the world's first. A baby may be a mistake but it's never a throw away.

Quote of the Day

2008-01-22T10:54:00.000-05:00

"'A time comes when silence is betrayal.' That time has come for us in relation to Vietnam. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in... 1945... Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony... and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long... For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence... Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization... there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem... The peasants watched as all of this was presided over by United States influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused... The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy."

-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 4 April 1967, New York

Tom Cruise is crazy

2008-01-18T15:28:00.000-05:00

I hope everyone gets to see how crazy Tom Cruise is before this video gets taken off the internets.

http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress

Quick Thought of The Day

2008-01-18T14:04:00.000-05:00

I hope the cock contest on this blog is over. I'll go out on a limb here and say that everyone knows a lot about their own opinions. Congratulations.

Leave the name calling and ivory towers at the door.

Getting Back What's Mine

2008-01-18T13:50:00.000-05:00

Word on the street is that we're heading into an election year. That means odds are in our favor that the government will return money to us that they coerced out of us....YAY!! The economy has been "slowing" (the word recession comes to mind, or depression if you live here in Michigan) for a month or two now, and that means politicos have an opportunity to make the situation better.

Of course the White House wants to extend tax cuts, particularly to business; Congress wants to extend food stamps and unemployment, and both are in some sort of initial agreement that there should be a general rebate. I've heard the rebate would be around $800 for every man, woman and child, but this is all in the works still.

The sad part about this is that it actually excites me. The thought of a free $1,600 for my wife and I eases a lot of worries that have kept me up the last couple nights. Problem is, it's not free money. It just feels like it free money. Just like a tax return. We've been under this system so long that it's actually changed our psychology. And if a libertarian leaning, conservative guy like me can have the wool so easily pulled over his eyes, just imagine what others think about this present from our kind-hearted federal friend.

Where would the economy be if all this money was already in our pockets? Just a question. I can't fully answer it, but of course I believe it would be in a much better place than it is now.

Constructive blog by Ian for Adam

2008-01-18T01:38:00.001-05:00

Blah blah blah. 8 Paragraph rant about how the government is wrong and my strange, "College", "Living in DC so I am at the Pulse of what goes on in government because I read political blogs online by British cock knockers" are always right.

Ooh...and I have pictures that I found on Google of the people I am writing about.

IN OTHER IMPORTANT news:

Lindsay Lohan was at the Cloverfield premier

Britney Spears was NOT looking for a pregnancy test like all the tabloids said she was. She said it was a joke.

And Tom Cruise has claimed to have Saved NYC after 9/11 with the help of Scientology. His lawyers and the lawyers of Scientology (a religion has lawyers?) have taken down the video, but I'm sure you can find it somewhere.

Send 'em to "the Gates of Hell"

2008-01-16T16:23:00.000-05:00

It has been 30 years since Edward Said’s Orientalism was published and there has been no manifest abatement or amelioration of this ethno-racist malady. I don’t particularly remember Said referring to the inherent double standards that are so prevalent in the West today, but it must be understood as implicit in his groundbreaking work. After watching the recent republican debate I was utterly shocked at the bellicose, pugnacious rhetoric being spewed out of the new vanguard of Republican saber-rattlers. Here are a few examples:

Fred Thompson- “"One more step and they would have been introduced to those virgins that they're looking forward to seeing,"

Mike Huckabee- “…be prepared that the next thing you see will be the gates of Hell, because that is exactly what you will see after that."

I have not been able to find a copy of the quote from McCain that really vexed me, but it amounted to him saying that we should give “terrorists” the “one-way tickets that they are so fond of”, an obvious and wholly inappropriate reference to 9/11. Speaking of 9/11 my least favorite candidate, Mayor Rudolph “worst campaign strategy” Giuliani regurgitated his standard, banal language “9/11…blah blah blah…as Mayor of New York…crime down…no Palestinian state”. What I find so outlandish is that it is perfectly acceptable for white American men to talk about murdering other people, but not for Arab leaders. Say what you will about Osama Bin Laden, or Khaled Mashal (the Political leader of Hamas) or Hassan Nasrallah (the Secretary-General of Hizbollah), but I can’t detect a discernible difference between their lexicon and that of the more pugilist-like Republican candidates.

Nasrallah talks about pushing Israel into the sea and Bin Laden talks about the inevitable decline of Western Civilization. Neither side, exhibits a modicum of subtlety. What is the difference between their rhetoric? I’ll tell you. They are Arabs, barbaric and primitive in the eyes of many. They are Islamofacists, a term that is so derisive and so absurd that it is entirely untenable. Imagine if someone called President Bush, a man that has openly professed his faith as a guiding principle in policy making, as a Christo-facist. Imagine if a Likudnik leader, like Benjamin Netanyhu, was called a Judeo-facist for the same thing. The outcry would reverberate through the realm of international politics for years.

I am not defending Nasrallah, Mashal, or Bin Laden, rather I am indicting American leaders that are guilty of the same language. And whether we like to admit it or not, someone like Dick Cheney has a considerable more amount of blood on his hands than Osama Bin Laden.

The saddest part about all of this is that this rhetoric is used by the Republican candidates to rally the base of the Republican Party. That means there are people out there that think this language is acceptable when referring to one group of people and not the other. Ostensibly, there are people in the U.S. that fear Islamic terrorists and respond with a certain pugnacity and defensiveness that allows for this psychological double standard to be ignored, or at the very least countenanced. Was the United States attacked on 9/11? Well, sure. Then again, reflect on the atrocities that we have committed or sponsored in the Middle East. The guttural, visceral and borderline morbid fetish with revenge that many Americans have is similar to what is expressed by people like Nasrallah and Bin Laden. Again, I ask, what is the difference? I cannot determine a modicum of delineation. Depending on which Al-Qaeda scholar you talk to Bin Laden wants to establish an Islamic Caliphate from Pakistan to Morocco or he wants to establish this Caliphate across the globe. And Bush, Cheney and his neo-con dominated administration want to impose their own favored system of governance on states throughout the world (or at the very least in states where they have some sort of fiscal reward to accrue).

I also find it vexing that Fred Thompson can so capriciously, with impunity I might add, mock Islam (by the way Fred, I don’t think that Muslim men are the only men on the planet that like virgins). Again we see a perfect example of the double standard that is so pervasive in the West when discussing Arabs, Muslims or the Middle East. They are the “Other”, a subhuman cohort that can be characterized by broad brush strokes. As if George W. Bush is an exemplification of all Christian ideology in the U.S. This Orientalist redux is politically expedient, but certainly not morally justifiable.

Where does the compassionate conversative Mick Huckabee get off talking about sending enemies to “the gates of hell”? I guess when Christ referred to universal brotherhood he was talking about only W.A.S.P.S. I guess when he said “to turn the other cheek” he could have not possibly meant to Muslims.

Ultimately, I do not think that the U.S. will ever be able to make in-roads in the Middle East if we do not eradicate this fiery vernacular. The U.S. cannot expect governments or the people of the Middle East (or anywhere else for that matter) to continually bend to their will. This fosters the anti-American sentiment that is so over-hyped as a not so veiled existential threat against our way of life.

And, I am in no way claiming that this sort of discourse is solely dominated by the Republicans. There are a great number of “left-wing” politicians and bureaucrats in D.C. that are equally combative. This just further demonstrates the intrinsic antipathy that the American body politics has for “the other”, the Oriental. And it is appalling.

New Features

2008-01-15T16:47:00.000-05:00

I added a news feed to the top as you can see. I'm taking suggestions as to what phrases should be tagged. Tell me what you want to see scroll as you read the site. Also, polls are always fun. Look to your right.

OPEC? Oh Yeah!

2008-01-15T16:05:00.000-05:00

Desperate times call for desperate measures. So with oil hovering around $100 a barrel and the collective American behind getting ever looser every time we pump gas, President Bush has given OPEC, the Saudis in particular, a stern warning that a lack of increased oil production is hurting the U.S. economy.

That should take care of things. Couple that warning with a $20 billion arms deal and some of our best weaponry and we should all be flying down our highways at $2.68/gallon again. The unfortunate thing is that such a price would probably satisfy most of America, leaving no afterthought to the fact that we keep handing our weapons over to inevitably be used against us in some cockamamie war 30 years from now.

Not to mention the various other ways we that we could procure oil but don't. Perhaps some of our own resources. I've heard Alaska has some, or off the coast of California. NO WAY!!! we don't need it that bad. Let's have our cake and eat it too. Let's end our involvement in the Middle East and continue to sap a majority of the region's oil (I'm not sure if we actually purchase or take a majority).

This is the macro view of America, and I love to hate to love it.

Seven Thoughts & Queries For The Week

2008-01-13T18:45:00.000-05:00

1. Why is Amy Winehouse so popular? She's a terrible singer and extremely ugly. Maybe it's her constant need for attention by way of drug abuse that has gotten her so much press lately. Well, the more I think about it, people like Derek and his friends keep Amy and people like her famous. Also, I should have taken the medical route and became a dentist. I hear it's a lucrative business on the British Isle, due to hundreds of years of inbreeding.

2. A return to the "Balance of Power" system of the period of "100 Years Peace" would be beneficial to the planet. From roughly 1815-1914, the planet experienced perhaps it longest era of peace. Not coincidentally, this period saw the most successful implementation of pro-liberty and semi-free market economics institutions put in place. Perhaps the resurgence of Russia and the rise of China will mark a return to this international system in the coming years and discourage the U.S. government from continuing its Imperialist advances on smaller countries. This system is certainly better for the planet as a whole compared to a bipolar system (1945-1991) or the current "Lone Superpower" system.

3. The new Finger Eleven dvd/cd "Us vs. Then vs. Now" reaffirms how the band can still make good music, although they have had to bow to the pressure of their label to make more radio-friendly music. On the cd, they include demos of popular songs and unreleased songs from their last two albums. Most of these songs are great additions to the band's catalogue but unfortunately most people will only know F-11 from "One Thing" and "Paralyzer." The two best tracks on the cd are the demo version of "Absent Elements" and a song called "Tearing Disguises," which is reminiscent of "The Wall"-era Floyd.

4. Congrats, Grant & Jamie. While we have known of the impending birth of your new baby for some time, it's still exciting. Three cheers to you and your destined-to-be-president-because-of-his-name baby.

5. I saw a funny bumper sticker the other day. "Bush-Cheney '08! Why Should The Law Stop Us Now?" It is a funny sticker, but it wouldn't be the first time an executive suspended elections due to some national emergency, like for instance a larger conflict in the Middle East brought on by a terrorist attack or an economic meltdown. But honestly, why should the law stop them now?

6. Don't forget to vote on Tuesday. Or do. It doesn't really matter. As we saw in New Hampshire, election fraud is rampant and only the candidates the Establishment wants to win will win. At least hopefully a bunch of Ron Paul's votes don't get uncounted in the Great Lakes State like in the Granite State. But if you do vote, vote your conscience...

"Let the people think they govern, and they will be governed." -William Penn, 1693. One of my personal favorites and perhaps the most accurate political quote of all time.

7. 2007 was a particularly bad year for new movies. Films such as "Transformers," "Wild Hogs," and "Spiderman 3" were some of the most popular movies. I can't say I enjoyed too many, although there were some gems. "Eastern Promises," "Darjeeling Limited," "Juno," and "Paris je t'aime" stuck out as favorites while "Across the Universe" gets an honorable mention because of awesome visual effects and all the Beatles songs, and we might as well include Tim Burton's "Sweeney Todd" because, well, it's Tim Burton.

Chuck Norris' Real Name Is Carlos Ray

2008-01-10T13:38:00.000-05:00

But I guess "Chuck Norris" sounds more like death and fear to his enemies.

Chuck Norris once punched a fat guy so hard in the stomach, he instantly lost 110 pounds. Chuck, feeling sorry for the man, apologized and promised the man he would help him in his campaign for president.

Quick Thought of The Day

2008-01-10T11:19:00.000-05:00

It's a weird thing preparing to be a dad. Women seem to have an innate, inborn quality that prepares them their entire lives. Dad's just have to learn it on the fly. Jamie is now around 5 months in and there are still days where I don't think about having a kid until I see the bubble on her stomach. I don't think I will really be able to begin my training until Jackson pops out. I look forward to the challenge though.

Funny

2008-01-09T20:29:00.001-05:00

Quick Thought of The Day

2008-01-07T16:08:00.000-05:00

So I figured out why some A7X songs sound like Tim Burton movies. I was watching the DVD that came along with the new CD with my friend Greg. When they were discussing some of their influences, they named two groups I had never before heard of. One was Oingo Boingo and the other was Mr. Bungle. The latter is a sort of acid jazz influenced band that sounded cool when I went to their myspace page. The former is the real connection to Tim Burton.

Oingo Boingo is this wild band that I don't believe I can fully describe and I'm sure most haven't heard of, but they have a very musically influential alum. Danny Elfman was a founding member. For those of you who don't realize that most of what you watch also comes along with some music (see my earlier post on our current musical hell), Elfman has brought you most of the wild tunes you hear in Tim Burton's movies. There's your seven degrees of Kevin Bacon. If you don't recall the music from a Burton movie, think Simpson's theme song, he made that too. Really different and cool stuff.

Finally, two other members of Oingo Boingo, Steve Bartek and Marc Mann, also worked with A7X on the new CD. So there really is the same direct influence on the band and the movie director. Sorta cool, at least to me.

Watch Out Sharif, You're Next

2007-12-27T14:14:00.000-05:00

Benazir Bhutto is no more.

Man, Al-CIAda, I mean Al-Qaida, sure helped Musharraf a lot here for being his sworn enemy:
-He can now reinstate martial law again
-They got rid of his political rival and candidate who certainly would've beat him in the upcoming election.

Apparently, democracy is the only way for other states to govern, except when it goes against the US government's best interests.

Supply Meets Demand

2007-12-21T13:05:00.000-05:00

I've titled this post with one of Andrew's favorite free market comebacks/adages/warnings/jokes. Unfortunately for Andrew, I'm going to use his libertarian speak to explain how capitalism has killed modern music in America (America isn't the only country putting out bad music, but I don't listen to bad music from other countries for a multitude of reasons. The two main reasons being my ridiculous xenophobia and that fact that it is bad music). So for him and all other music and capitalist lovers out there beware, this post could be the equivalent of Rome destroying itself.

Long before we entered the age of mass marketing, music was an art. It was tradition passed down through culture generation by generation. Hymns, drinking songs, lullabies and dancing jigs were owned by none and shared by all who could play and/or enjoy them. These genres of music are what would now be considered public domain to be enjoyed by all without a worry of copyright or cost. Along with these traditional tunes come history's musical masterpieces. Symphonies and Orchestras and Operas created during a multitude of eras. The Baroque period gave us Bach and Handel in the time of feudal lords. It was music enjoyed in person by only the most elite while feudalism ruled. Tchaikovsky composed The Nutcracker (a little Christmas spirit reference) in the ever increasing volatility of pre-20th century Russia. History provides us with endless catalogues of music written during tumultuous times under not so favorable systems of government and economy. Not just music though, Art; timeless music that was created from passion and genius and emotion rather than produced.

Now in the richest, most free, and most liberated of times... we have this.

That's right. Pee-pee on Fergie's crotch. No wait, I'm off track. That's right. Songs about being fabulous with manufactured beats you've heard a million times. The Black Eyed Peas basically writing music about getting "retarded drunk" and then changing the main lyrics in the song so it can be sold to the NBA Playoffs as a marketing ploy. The list of grievances is vast and Fergie and Will.I.Am or whatever that guy is called aren't even the most egregious offenders out there (I'm looking your way Britney), but I chose them as my example because of Fergie's pee-pee pants.

So I think. I internally debate. I Ponder. What could have caused so much bad music here in America over the course of the last century? Behind every answer I come up with is a big fat $ sign. Behind that big fat money sign you ask? Capitalism and the constant pursuit of money as a building block of the American Dream. Henry Ford stream-lined the auto industry, and all manufacturing thereafter, with the assembly line. Modern business models have been set. Profits are more easily made when a product is mass produced and widely marketed. Everything is a business now; religion, politics, and even music. So any good businessman, Gordie Berry for instance, would find a product, a model to create that product, and a way to sell that product to the masses. Once music was able to be sold to the public at large for a decent price, then it became a bottom line business just like any other in a capitalist society run with free markets.

As a result, the quality of the product dropped, and continues to drop to this day. Music is less art and more business now than ever before. Popular songs are found everywhere from commercials to ring tones. And DO NOT BE FOOLED, your favorite rap beats and pop princesses are produced not with the final quality of art in mind, but with the thought process of, "what can I do to this song to make it as marketable as possible?" Money can be made...money must be made. If not, someone else will come in, undercut, and make that money. Why, because they have that capitalist right.

"But this is supply meeting demand!" you say. "Therefore, it must be the fault of the society to want music this bad. Because there are so many idiots out there it's only logical that what is being made for them is idiotic. Plus, it should be up to the consumer to decide with their money what type of product is being produced!" you scream. To this I say, maybe, but not likely. Even if demand is creating the supply, capitalism is still the enabler for such a thing to happen. The chicken or the egg argument isn't really all that relevant when the creator (or evolution or whatever your epic source de jour may be) is really the problem.

"But there is good music out there, it just isn't played on the radios man!" you say. To this you may be right. Just like there's good cars and good homes and so on and so forth. Maybe it's just not easily accessible like most other luxuries in life. Maybe history will do as it does and make sure the cream rises. I can only hope.

Anyway, capitalism has done this to us. Supply has met demand. Music is an industry with a profit to be made, CEO's to be enriched, and stockholders to satisfy. Good-bye art, hello Lil' Jon. I have to go. My phone is playing "Who Let the Dogs Out" to remind me to take Tank to the vet tomorrow.

The Lying Lies and Dirty Secrets of the CIA

2007-12-17T22:54:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the long hiatus:

In the past few years I have sort of flirted with 21st centuries' sexiest conspiracy theory…ineluctably everyone knows that I am referring to 9/11. Of the rather fecund number of conspiracy theories and theorists there is a general lack of cogency. Typically I have found that most of theories, while undoubtedly interesting, are compilations of disparate, idiosyncratic, unconnected facts that manifest into some inchoate theory about world Jewry or a small cabal of Neo-conservative vampire like creatures producing a master plan that is, in the words of Paul Wolfowitz (the number two official at the Pentagon on Sept. 11 2001) "like a new Pearl Harbor". Many people, desperate to find an answer for the Iraq debacle, latched on to these theories with a degree of credulity usually expected out of small children and a conspicuous insouciance for facts that conform to reality. However, there have been a few people, like Alex Jones of infowars.com and Dylan Avery, the writer of the 9/11 documentary "Loose Change", that have produced copious and credible work, although not all that erudite, demonstrating the holes in the official story.

I have personally sat on the fence going through sporadic fits of studying the subject. One thing that I do know is that the official story is resoundingly different from the truth; I'm just not sure how deep the rabbit hole goes. Some say it was a sort of Weberian bureaucratic nightmare that led to the 9/11 tragedy and others believe that it was a plan formulated and implemented by the U.S. government. The latest CIA/Waterboarding/Torture story, that has been so prevalent and pervasive in the news as of late, adds more questions to the ever growing cloud of obfuscation surrounding 9/11.

Last week it was discovered that the CIA had destroyed tapes of prisoner interrogations. This cover-up for the ineffable torture tactics that were utilized on prisoners is newsworthy in and of itself. What is further interesting is that these destroyed tapes could have had invaluable intelligence regarding 9/11. In fact, according to the 9/11 Commission Report "the basic narrative of what happened on that day--and the definition of the enemy in this war on terror that George W. Bush launched in response to the tragedy--comes from the CIA's account of what those prisoners told their torturers. The commission was never allowed to interview the prisoners, or speak with those who did, and was instead forced to rely on what the CIA was willing to relay" (The Nation). The CIA lied to both the 9/11 Commission and the Congress about the existence of these tapes.

What information did these tapes contain that was so important? Perhaps…the answer is nothing. In other words, the prisoners that were brutally interrogated knew nothing about the events or the planning of 9/11. The CIA (and the administration alike), by denying the 9/11 Commission access to these tapes, was not only protecting itself from the legal ramifications of blatantly ignoring international law, it could also use the lack of intelligence to create intelligence. By claiming that we know (we = the administration) what was on those tapes and no one else does, the intelligence, if there ever was any, becomes a construct of the CIA and administration officials who are essentially free to fabricate their own intelligence. Remember that this intelligence, that only the CIA and administration were privy to, became the backbone for the justification of the "Global War on Terror".

In a sort of ironic twist of fate, I have found myself contemplating conspiracy theories about what the truth is. Perhaps Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11. Maybe the Saudi government in an attempt to have the U.S. fight the growing radicalization of the region concocted this intricate plan knowing that the Bush administration would inexorably deal a devastating and decisive blow to its perceived attackers. Lets not forget that 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. The tapes could have evidenced the prisoners, under inducement from torture, implicating the role of the Saudi government.

Now that last paragraph was discursive and not all that coherent, but it was a stream of consciousness "what if" scenario that demonstrates the intricate labyrinth that 9/11 conspiracy theories are. In reality, I firmly believe that the Bush administration has been mendacious and that the truth about 9/11 is certainly not as reductive as purported. I just wonder what new stories we will hear, 5, 10, 20 years down the road that may shed light upon this world changing event.

Nationalist Propaganda At Its Best

2007-11-18T23:01:00.001-05:00

I thought you guys might enjoy these.

I hated Derek/Andrew's post, so here's one to cover it up

2007-11-18T17:41:00.001-05:00

So, apparently Hayden Panettiere tried to save some dolphins in Japan. If you don't know, she's the hot, underaged cheerleader from 'Heroes'.

Well, Japan has a long history of hunting whales and dolphins. Recently, however, Japan, along with several other countries, have come under fire by animal rights agencies about their methods of hunting.

They round the dolphins with fishing boats into a cove, where they kill and/or capture them. They are eaten (not used as trophies) or sold to dolphinariums (aquariums).

Now, apparently our Hayden went to Japan and tried to disrupt the hunt by hopping on surfboards and 'paddling' around the bay. I don't exactly know what this was supposed to do, aside from get them injured or yelled at by the local fishermen, but it has recieved a lot of attention(at least, in the entertainment industry).

My question is, when did it become alright for people to interfere in others' business. Not only 'OTHERS' business, but an entire culture? I mean, sure, disagree with it, but we don't like it when the Taliban bomb us for being 'secular' so why should we interfere in other countries' cultural dealings.

Sure, when humans are involved, MAYBE. But fucking dolphins? When they're not just used as trophies but are eaten as food?

I mean, disagree, sure. Bring attention to, sure. But I don't think they should be going to Japan and interfereing in the fishermen's jobs.

OH MY GOD! I JUST THOUGHT OF THIS:
America doesn't like it when pro-lifers protest outside abortion clinics, do they?

But besides that

She's kind of hot

Derek's First Post

2007-11-17T15:00:00.000-05:00

Derek has something on his mind and wanted me to post this...

If you've got hate in your heart, LET IT OUT!!

Today in washington, there are thousands of people 'rallying' in protest, demanding that president Bush cracks down on so called 'hate crimes'....As we know, the Jena 6' incedent has recently stirred some controversy in our nation. MLK would be shitting himself if he saw the current ignorance in our nation, from both blacks and whites.

Things have come a long way...wait, have they? I'd be willing to bet that most of the families who were racist in the sixties, are still racist today, but that topic belongs in a whole other blog....

My original purpose for writing today is simple, the term "Hate Crime" pisses me off. People getting worse/different sentences just because they killed a homosexual because he is a fag, or a black because he is black? These crimes are no worse or hateful than me killing the postman because he didn't deliver my mail today.

So, Rev Al Sharpton and your gang of 'protestors', yes, there are a ton of ignant ass-bitches in this world, but what do you want Bush to do? cut off the sacks of anyone who kills a queer or a black man? That's about as stupid as you running from present. I have a tip for you...preach the love of Christ, ONCE, and not the hate of the white man. You’re bringing your people down, ps, Mike Tyson makes black people look better than you do......maybe not a ton, but a little..

Modern Art: Sophisticated or Joke? Or: My Little Cousin Could Make That!

2007-11-09T15:56:00.000-05:00

Is it just me, or is modern and post-modern art something of an anomaly? Most famous art today consists of an artist taking a minimalist approach to create something that is devoid of sense and meaning, except maybe some sort of abstract idea that is relevant only to him.

Think of Pollock. He splattered numerous colors of paint on a canvas and called it art, where in reality it looked like the floor of Club Sevin on a Friday night. My 6 year old cousin could do that. One of his "paintings," No. 5, 1948, became the most expensive piece of art of its kind, selling for $140 million last year.

It is my belief that art imitates life and society; what does this say about ours today? Modern art seems to be meaningless, lifeless, absent of value. Is this a true representation of our society? I remember one of Adam's blogs a few months ago that dealt with our post-industrial society being one of meaninglessness and a perpetual feeling of being "grey."

Look at the art of yesteryear; look at the detail of the numerous paintings in the Sistine Chapel by Botticelli and Michelangelo, among others. They are extremely detailed, represent something of value, and perhaps most importantly, have a universality about them. People the world over can appreciate these paintings, they do not mean something abstract only to their maker. This is art as beauty. This is true art.

When will another Renaissance take place? I am sick of this garbage.

Wait A Second...

2007-11-07T18:46:00.000-05:00

Kellie Pickler and Carrie Underwood are two different people?

I just found that out.

Bush has warned Musharraf to "restore democracy."
Doesn't democracy first have to exist in a country for it to be taken away?

How Anti-Religion Polemics are Refurbished

2007-11-04T22:29:00.000-05:00

I recently finished reading Christopher Hitchens’ work god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything and much to my disappointment he reverted to a tired, microwaved canard. Rather than arguing against the existence of God or the lack of a need for the divine, Hitchens spends the majority of his efforts vituperatively attacking organized religion, whether it be the Abrahamic faiths or Eastern thought. Following in the footsteps of Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am Not a Christian”, Hitchens eloquently enumerates upon the litany of ineffable atrocities that organized religion is culpable for, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Islamic conquests, genital mutilation, Buddhists killing Hindis etc.

Hitchens professes to be an anti-theist, not an atheist. For him, the difference is that many atheists desire the existence of a deity, however they cannot believe in one based on the lack of evidence. Hitchens relishes in the non-existent divine, opining that he is glad there is not some sort of transcendent father figure in constant surveillance of his daily life. Apparently Hitchens is forgetting the doctrine of deism, which seems odd because many of the founding fathers were adherents to this dogma and Hitchens has written extensively about them. Deism purports a god who created the earth but does not take part in, nor care much for, man’s affairs.

Now, I am not prepared to say that Hitchens believes that because organized religion is a corrupt institutionally, culpable for crimes so atrocious they are ineffaceable from the pages of history, there is no god. Yet, he does little to dispute this claim, most likely leaving the scientific arguments for the Richard Dawkins of the world.

What eventually became apparent to me as I perused through this book is that Hitchens was becoming increasingly hypocritical. In many cases he attacked organized religion with a vitriolic fervor for being a manifest roadblock to free thought. Yet, on the last page of his book he vehemently declares, “we banish all religions from the discourse”. This does not seem to follow in the liberal tradition of the enlightenment that Hitchens so proufoundly longs for. Regardless of the rather lugubrious record of organized religion, it is certainly equally wrong to remove it from our social, educational, political and philosophical discourse.

Hitchens, rather pejoratively, refers to those who know they are right as credulous barbarians incapable of a deeper and more progressive way of thought. Yet he contradicts himself by postulating his godless worldview as THE only way. Why? Because religion poisons everything. By alluding to the trial of Socrates, who was put to death for “indoctrinating” the youth about the dubious nature of the gods, it appears that Hitchens is missing the moral of the trial. He says that Socrates began the deconstruction of faith, “where religion ends, philosophy begins”. Socrates called for free inquiry and skepticism which Hitchens seems to be so fond of when it suits his purpose. Unfortunately, eliminating religion from the discourse, or even a theistic worldview, seems a totalitarian mechanism for the imposition of an alternative belief system.

Instead of coming off as a removed observer, Hitchens allows his tendentious ideology to call for the very repression of thought he so vociferously attacks in the Monotheisms and in Eastern thought. I must admit, Hitchens is a gifted polemicist and one of the most insightful public intellectuals of our epoch. I agree with many of the conclusions that Hitchens beautifully, masterfully and articulately argues in his book. Organized religion has been a wicked mechanism of sexual repression and been responsible for senseless torture, it has been implacable in its unwillingness to except the other and allow for freedom of thought, it has been a tool for fundraising, and it has been a mechanism of categorical control. Another common theist argument Hitchens quickly dispels is a sort of linguistic, phemenological argument. In other words, because the idea of God exists, then God must have some sort of ontic quality. Then again, the idea of a dragon exists. I think you can take the argument to its logical progression. Moreover, it is ridiculous to suggest without the existence of a divine being that there is no reason to be moral. To paraphrase Hitchens, humanity and decency are reasons enough. Even the worst crimes of the 20th Century had churches and religious figures complicit. The pope signed a treaty with both Fascist Italy (1929) and Nazi Germany (1933). Mr. Hitchens, religions poisons many things, but everything?

Hitchens also fails to even address simple questions. Whenever reading atheist, or in this case anti-theist, diatribes I inexorably wonder how such brilliant thinkers can avoid such a simple Aristotelian question, that is, what is the first cause? Aristotle posited that there was an unmoved mover who put the universe in motion. I have heard Hitchens argue elsewhere that this is the way we must think as humans, but is juvenile to assume that because of our intellectual shortcomings that there must be a first cause. For someone who so rarely argues on the margins of intelligence, Hitchens presents a rather weak argument. In fact there is a law against infinite regress in the western philosophical/logic apparatus. I simply wonder where it all started; it had to come from something.

Finally, I disagree that philosophy inexorably rises out of the ashes of vitiated religion. In fact, I do not think that conflating philosophy and religion is fallacious. Numerous philosophical giants have referred to metaphysics, the study of that which transcends reality, as the first science, the science of God. Philosophy and religion are not diametrically opposed. I agree with Mr. Hitchens powerful call for a renewed enlightenment, I just hope that allows for true freedom of thought and does not “banish all religions from the discourse”.

Morocco & Democracy- A Glimpse

2007-11-01T21:45:00.000-05:00

Morocco & Democracy

The basic idea of democracy has had a difficult time trying to take root in the Islamic Arab countries of the world. The state of Morocco has made some modest attempts at democracy since it won independence in the mid 1950s, but the ruling monarchy still has the final say in all things government related.

Kingdom of Morocco

Modern Morocco gained independence from France in 1956, around the same time the French were busy trying to hold on to their prized colonies around the world. Sultan Mohammed V was king at this time, and would hold power until his death in 1961, wherein his son, Hassan II, would assume the throne. Hassan II made modest attempts at democratizing the nation during his time as King, but would often use the excuse of focusing on economic reforms rather than actually reforming the political arena. Upon his death in 1999, his son Mohammed VI took the throne.

The beginning of the modern political process in Morocco essentially began in 1962 with the power struggle between the King and the two largest parties that had gained popularity around this time. For about thirteen years, the conservative-nationalist Istiqlal and the leftist National Union of Popular Forces (UNFP) attempted to wrestle some political control from the King. During this time, there was much debate over the issues of the role of the cabinet and legislature and the distribution of powers throughout the branches of the state (not unlike what is sometimes debated in the US). It is no surprise then, that during this time (from 1965 to 1970) the King suspended the legislature.

The ten year period of 1992-2002 saw a renewed attempt to make some democratic reforms in the government. The Parliament began ratifying laws to better enforce the rule of law, elected two national assemblies where the opposition parties won a substantial number of seats, and successfully enacted two constitutional reforms that expanded the powers of the legislature. A new constitution at this time gave the parliament the power to either approve or reject a new government that the king appointed, and also to dissolve a government by a vote of no confidence. Another big step toward democracy came in 1996 when an amendment was passed that allowed for the direct election of all House of Representative members and also reinstated the House of Councilors.

The reforms, however, did not only take place at the legislative level. Hassan II decided it was time to make an attempt at democratic reforms, if only to appease certain quarters. He signed a few decrees in 1992 that seemingly allowed for more responsibilities for the legislature. The Consultative Council on Human Rights and Ministry of Human Rights investigated abuses of power, while another Constitutional Council dealt with resolving conflicts over the legality of laws, and finally the Constitutional Council for Social Dialogue was created to solve labor disputes.

During this period, beginning in 1995, an economic liberalizing reform effort got underway. The Moroccan state signed a free-trade agreement with the European Union that opened up the Moroccan economy to allow for almost completely free market trading with European companies, with full implementation expected to be completed by 2010. Morocco also entered into a trade agreement with the US in July 2004 that allowed for 98% of goods (both imports & exports) to be tariff-free.

Its Easy to Distract the Audience
King Hassan II made a very intelligent move by signing the free-trade agreement with the EU in 1995 and the same goes for his son’s treaty with the US in 2004. It is common knowledge that as a country opens up its markets to foreign trade, the more wealthy it’s citizens become, and usually when the average citizen becomes more wealthy, he begins to demand for political rights. The king and his son operate(d) under the idea that if they can distract the people by concentrating the nation’s resources and time on opening up the economic arena, the could spend less time on making actual democratic reforms. This method of distraction is also being used by the monarchy in Jordan. The rise of the technocratic elite in the past decade or so has also further helped the king keep the issue of economic modernization rather than democratic reforms at the forefront of the public sphere. Shortly after assuming the throne in 1999, Mohammed VI began appointing such modernization-minded individuals to important positions in the economy as well as the national government. Abdeslam M. Maghraoui, in his article in the Diamond book, refers to this as “…the establishment of a shadow government that operates alongside and often against the official cabinet.”

It’s pronounced “\di-‘mä-krə-sē\”: OR “Is one method of execution better than the others?”

What is democracy? Is it the silver bullet, cure-all antidote for a society? Webster’s Dictionary defines democracy as: “government by the people; especially: rule of the majority.” Democracy usually means that 50% plus one decides what the government will do, what laws will pass, and who gets elected to represent constituents.

Is there really a difference between tyranny of the masses and tyranny of one? Do the masses really know what is best for each individual? Ben Franklin was once quoted as saying “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for lunch.” What did he mean by that? Was it that democracy was no perfect solution to a society’s problems? Or was he insinuating something more there? The truth is, democracy is not far removed from monarchy or dictatorship. Asking a person which sort of government he would like to live under (out of the 3 mentioned above) is like asking him in which manner would he like to be executed. Sure, there are more humane ways to die than others, but why choose death to begin with? Isn’t there another way to live rather than under tyrants, be they one person a mere majority? Why can’t a man choose his own fate rather than being told how to live his life by moral busybodies and draconian megalomaniacs?
Is democracy preferred over monarchy or dictatorship? Sure. Is it greatly overrated? You bet. In America today, we are saturated with the notion that democracy is salvation in the political arena. We are told that communism is evil, that theocracies are too restrictive, and that dictatorships are too abusive. We are constantly being told that if only the rest of the world had democracy, we could have a worldwide utopia; all we have to do is bring it to them, through CIA-sponsored coups, invasions of countries and murdering close to a million local civilians, or other democratic, civilized means. For one nation to suggest (by force or other intervention) that one way of government is better than what they currently have is not only a slap in the face to that state, but unnecessarily meddling in the affairs of other states and putting their sovereignty at risk.

Trying to Predict the Future is Like…Trying to Predict the Future
The future of Morocco is difficult to forecast. Some steps the parliament should take would be to put more and more pressure on the king to concede more power to them in order to give the people the impression that they have a say in the government. It is more likely, though, that over the next 10-15 years, there will be renewed pressure put upon King Mohammed VI as the economy modernizes and gets brought into the 21^st century by increased trade with the West. While this is not always the case, it is common for a country to walk in the direction of a more democratic state the more open and free its economy becomes. The most notable exception to that today is China, however. While it may be too early to judge, it seems that the Communist regime there has a pretty stable hold on the government while the nation enjoys exuberant amounts of investment from nations and companies the world over.

The US government should implement a “hands-off” approach when dealing with Morocco (and every other country, for that matter). While the free-trade agreement is a step in the right direction, Washington should respect the sovereignty of every nation on earth and open up free trade with everyone. How would our government like it if another country sent spies here to overthrow it, or sent hundreds of thousands of troops and occupied it for years? Our government needs to start treating countries how it would like to be treated. This goes for not only Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, but every nation, friend or foe, including Morocco. This is the most simple yet powerful message any entity (whether state or individual is of no consequence) can send to another.

Just Another Sheed Exagerration Or Is The Fun Of The Game Really Gone?

2007-10-29T17:14:00.000-05:00

Rasheed Wallace is making a big scene again. This time he is comparing the NBA to the WWE, saying that it is "fake" and the association just wants to make money off of the sport. This statement, along with the fact that about half of the refs in the NBA are being investigated for betting, makes one wonder about the current state of professional sports. Is 'Sheed just being his usual, hot-tempered, insane self here or is there a real issue of top-down conspiracy to make the most money possible, even if it means fixing games? I am not an expert on the issue of sports, so I would have to ask Adam & Grant to write a paragraph or two on this.

Global Warming

2007-10-28T23:53:00.000-05:00

I believe that it is natural for the human mind to hope and 'predict'. Christians love the idea that Jesus was predicted in the old testament. Fortune tellers have been a staple in every civilization from the start of man. In the 1950s, with the rise of space exploration, Science Fiction writers imagined a year 2000 with floating cars, governments subscribing to the idea of totalitarianism and perfect people. With a race able to see the present and the past so clearly(some would say), we focus our eyes on the unknown, hoping that someday we will be able to 'see' what WILL happen.

I also believe that in a world of 'free' knowledge(I used free in quotes because Adam would argue), there is truly nothing to fear anymore. We understand so much, and that which we do not understand, we believe, has the possibility of becoming known. In that vein, the only way to exert control over a population is to hang the future over them.

We know astonishingly little about our environment. Our studies only go so far back. If we believe how old the Earth is from current estimations(4.55 billion years), saying that we started observing climate and temperature changes in the 1800s that would be comparing .0000045% of the age of the Earth. To be totally fair, we have a SHITSIZED amount to compare our climate to.

Now, it is no argument of mine that humans are contributing to Carbon Dioxide emissions. So, just stop.

We have been in a 'global warming' since around the 1850s. This is a fact. That is when we emerged from the "Little Ice Age." Look it up. The Earth is cyclical, my friends. There have been 4 MAJOR ice ages, not to mention smaller times of cyclical climate in this world.

I do not support any such legislation to establish any laws or groups to study/solve this global crisis. If money is to be spent, I would like proof of prediction of climate change for the next ten years(20 would be better). That would require someone predicting it now, and waiting for 10-20 years to see if they are correct. I doubt they would be. And anyone that says this is a pressing issue should look at our history. Humanity has been around for thousands of years. Sure, we may have been pumping carbon into the air over the last 100 years, but we've also been breathing.

My Main POINT:
Humanity isn't concerned with our environment. We are concerned for ourselves. Our survival/prosperity as a species. Global Warming is just another route to Imperialism, where we tell third world countries that they can't have our power because they would 'pollute' too much. So we keep ourselves in power.
We are also just concerned for our own survival. We aren't concerned with the planet. If we are, we are stupid. Here's why:
1. The Earth doesn't depend on us. It survived well enough on it's own. If we die off, it won't care. It won't wither away. We'll die off. Our buildings will crumble and another animal will take our spot in the food chain.
2. When life first started out, our atmosphere was MADE of Carbon Dioxide. Along came plant life. They used the CO2 to survive. But, OH NO!!! They expelled this POISON! It was POISON THAT PLANTS COULD NOT USE! It was called oxygen. Along came humanity and, ALAS we could use oxygen. In fact, we NEEDED it. The earth will survive. If we die off because the water rises, the earth won't care.

My main point is that no one can predict the future and anyone taht says they can is a turd sandwich.
Oh, and about oil dependency?
We'll steer away from it eventually. I don't believe that cars will run on gasoline much longer. I don't need someone to make a law to tell me that. Did anyone need to make laws outlawing the use of horses when the car was invented?

In Case You Didn't Know What Is Overrated & What Isn't

2007-10-24T18:13:00.000-05:00

Here are a few facts you should familiarize yourselves with. In no particular order:

OVERRATED-
1. Hookah
2. Nirvana
3. Global Warming*
4. democracy**
5. Prime time TV
*-more exaggerated than anything
**-it's good, not great

PERFECTLY RATED-
1. The Beatles
2. Arab cuisine*
3. Back to the Future
4. The Sun
5. Ann Arbor
*-both food and women

UNDERRATED-
1. Almond M&M's
2. relationships*
3. West Side Story**
4. King Crimson***
5. Indians****
*-all sorts, but especially those with close family members
**-probably the best musical of all time
***- they started progressive rock as we know it, but few people know their music
****-Not of the Cleveland sort (sorry Adam) but real Indians from India

If you don't like it, do something about it.

Utterly Ridiculous

2007-10-23T21:08:00.000-05:00

I figure I am the entertainment philosopher as I don't care about current events seeing as we're all going to be raptured next month(or sometime really soon).

Now, as much as they are ridiculous now-a-days with their 'we need tons of stuff in a horrible economy and we're not going to back down and all and be whiney bitches', I can see how unions can be helpful instruments for employees in required industries. By required industries, I mean jobs and areas that are necessary for growth in a society, i.e. education(of course, I would say that)possibly the assembly industries(though they are getting quite cushy accommodations for having jobs in Michigan) and ESPECIALLY the United Mine Workers of America.

But there is no excuse for unions to be in entertainment fields. Entertainment is not necessary in society, especially one with a union guarunteeing the entertainment workers' 'rights'. I don't understand why Hollywood and television writers need a union or better 'working conditions'.

Get a real job. See what it's like working in a job you hate so you can make a little money. Quit whining that you don't get more 'time off' or 'sick pay'. You write scripts to shows(mostly shows about cavemen).

I hate this planet.

Target: Iran

2007-10-22T20:16:00.000-05:00

I would not be surprised if the hawks in the Bush administration propelled the U.S. military into another war in the next 15 months and I would be even less surprised if we invaded Iran during the term of the sucessive President (your choice between Clinton and Giuliani). It is incredibly frightening proposition considering the quagmire that we are in today in Iraq. Iran has nearly double the population of Iraq and would certainly present a challenge for a depleted and exhausted military. As the fanatical ranting and war-mongering rhetoric continues to escalate, there are many rational voices pleading for an approach that stands in contradistinction to the Bush doctrine. Last week in Ha'aretz, Daniel Levy, Senior Fellow of the New American Foundation, convincingly declared that we could live with a nuclear Iran. An argument that seems to be developed in a logical and coherent fashion.

So what if Iran does acquire the capacity to arm nuclear warheads? Oh I forget, Iranian President Ahmadinejad is a messianic, millenarian lunatic bent on the destruction of Israel and hastening the emergence of the 12th Imam. This all may be true, however Ahmadinejad does not have control over the Iranian military. Moreover, there is a strong current, especially among the Iranian youth, of discontent with the Ahmadinejad goverment. So he may not even remain in office long. Ahmadinejad's best hope for galvanizing support would be an American led attack, that would undoubtedly embolden the extremist thread within Iran. Moreover, most of Ahmadinejad's comments, while repulsive, deplorable and unequivocally anti-Semitic, have been taken out of context. Ahmadinejad was actually asserting his belief that Israel will eventually be wiped from the pages of history as an Islamic caliphate reigns from the Gulf to the Levant. He was not necessarily talking about the physical destruction of the state of Israel. Of course, the American media spin machine, which finds a way to make any statement that is mildly critical of Israel seem anti-Semitic (ask Jimmy Carter), ran with the statement and resorted to a classic canard of the perpetually threatened Israel (despite the fact that the amount of destruction that Israel could release, with its arsenal of over 200 nuclear warheads, on Iran is fantastical).

I think I need to interject a brief aside at this moment. If Iran ever were to strike Israel or there was an imminent threat with the potential of actualizing, it would be the right of Israel to respond in kind and the responsibility of the international community, led by the U.S., to protect and back Israel.

There is the possibility that a new leader, like the previous Iranian President Mohammed Khatami could come to power. Khatami believed that terrorism "should be condemned in all its forms and manifestations", never asserted that an Israeli state should not exist in historic Palestine and assiduously worked to improve Tehran's ties with Washington. Naturally this was anathema to the neo-conservative hawks in the administration that diligently and tendentiously excoriated Iran and made no effort to pacify a tense situation. The Iranian question could have been solved, or at the very least tamed during the Khatami presidency.

I think that it is important to look at this current Iranian quandary from a detached perspective or better yet, we should try on a different hat and view it from the Iranian perspective. The only superpower in the world recently invaded two countries neighboring Iran, the superpower's strongest ally in the region is an avowed enemy and the aforementioned superpower has a history of meddling in Iran's affairs (think of the '53 CIA overthrow of the popularly elected Mossadegh). Why shouldn't Iran attempt to bolster its defensive capacity? There seems to be an inexorable charge to war as the daily invectives against Iran are regurgitated by the same people that pushed for the War in Iraq.

Currently the U.S., via the CIA, is attempting to produce a "soft" or "velvet" revolution in Iran. The CIA is sponsoring at least three proxies in Iran. The Kurdish Pejac, which is sort of like the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) that has been in the news so much lately, except it terrorizes Iran instead of Turkey, the MEK and the Soldiers of God are all battling the Ahmadinejad administration with the help of U.S. funding. Is it any surprise that the Iranian government has cracked down on dissidence? I am not justifying the human rights violations or the hate fomentation that is daily practiced by Ahmadinejad. However, this cannot be unexpected in the paradigmatic framework of international relations. A states first aim is to protect itself and its citizenry. The Iranians feel threatened and this is not a paranoid delusion. It is manifestly a lucid understanding of the threat posed by the world's only superpower.

Furthermore, the 2007 Presidential candidates, especially the Republicans are competing to be the most hawkish on Iran. Remember John McCain modifying the Beach Boys song, "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran...etc." and we should not forget Giuliani’s foreign policy adviser. In May 2007 he wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal titled "The Case for Bombing Iran: I hope and Pray that Bush will do it". Even the Democratic candidates, particularly Hillary Clinton, have been quick to insist that they will not take "any option of the table" (an old Bushian mantra). Iran has every right to feel threatened and it is natural for it to be recalcitrant and defensive in the face of such a looming and potentially cataclysmic threat. With the inflammatory rhetoric becoming eerily similar to the language we heard before the invasion of Iraq, it is logical for Iran and its leaders to see this as a portentous sign of War.

We need to consider the implications of a drastic paradigmatic shift in our treatment of the Iranian question. Rather than changing our military modalities and working for a better military strategy, we must work with the international community to deescalate another devastating catastrophe in a region that has already seen enough bloodshed. There is no viable military solution that will solve the Iranian question. A military incursion will only exacerbate an increasingly wretched situation.

Recently, Bernard Lewis, a Princeton historian, who is one of the leading academics in the neo-conservative bubble, quipped that during the Cold War the Soviets were much more severe in punishing their Middle-Eastern client states when they were not subservient. He believes that the U.S. was soft on its Mid-East allies and even rewarded these countries when they did not go along with U.S. policy. I am not sure if Mr. Lewis is aware, but we did WIN the Cold War. Perhaps it is time to retable a more soft-handed approach. A strategy that utilizes more "carrots" and less "sticks", as Secretary of State Colin Powell said in 2004 before leaving office. In order to stabilize the region we must work with our enemies. Saber-rattling leads to war, death and destruction. In order to circumvent such terrible tragedies we must attempt to stifle the war-mongering rhetoric and attempt to reach out to our enemies. According to Bernard Lewis, we did it in the cold war...and we won.

Rationality on Sunday

2007-10-21T13:48:00.000-05:00

"...Christian evangelicals should be encouraged to reflect on the human tragedy that Israel continues to inflict on the Palestinians and to consider whether their own commitment to a "greater Israel" is truly consistent with Christ's message of love and brotherhood"

from "The Israel Lobby and U.S.Foreign Policy"

by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer

Five Top Tens

2007-10-20T15:15:00.000-05:00

These are in no particular order, any of them.

Top Ten famous girls I would marry (real or characters)
1. Scarlett Johansson
2. Natalie Portman
3. Rachel McAdams *
4. Pam from "The Office" **
5. Caren from "The Office" **
6. Mila Jovovich
7. The chick from The Cranberries***
8. Dr. Cox's ex-wife on "Scrubs"
9. Audrey Hepburn circa 1959
10. The Persian girl from "Crash"

* with dark hair only
** "QUICK QUICK QUICK!!
***I would only marry her voice

Top Ten albums from 2000-2007
1. "Audioslave" Audioslave
2. "White Pony" Deftones
3. "De-loused in the Comatorium" The Mars Volta
4. "10,000 Days" Tool
5. "Greyest of Blue Skies" Finger Eleven
6. "Icky Thump" White Stripes
7. "Relationship of Command" At the Drive-in
8. "Morning View" Incubus
9. "In Your Honor" Foo Fighters
10. "Good Apollo IV..." Coheed & Cambria

Top Ten countries to visit in the future
1. UK
2. Israel
3. Japan
4. Turkey
5. Lebanon
6. Iraq
7. Greece
8. Italy
9. India
10. Australia

Top Ten Things to do with Adam after you haven't seen him in a few months
1. Go to a club and get thrown out, literally
2. Walk around Washington and listen to what the bums are saying*
3. Watch "Pumping Iron" with him, Andy and Trevor
4. Spend 160$ at a bar in Bethesda**
5. Get off the elevator that Adam is peeing in as quickly as possible
6. Help Grant pick the splinters out of his shoulder
7. Hang onto Adam's belt while he is standing ON the railing of a balcony that is 200 feet above ground while peeing
8. Pull him violently out of your backseat onto the pavement after he throws up all over the backseat of your car
9. See how many girls he "just married five minutes ago" at clubs
10. See how long it takes for him to say "Andrew, I'm melting" when Steffen comes to visit
*"They did it, 9/11"
**Cathy

Top Ten things to never do again at a party at Animal House
1. "Andy, why are all these sluts here?" (Me)
2. Not fall down the stairs and leave a dent in the wall with your head (Wes)
3. Get spit on and get a beer bottle thrown at your car (Mary Anne)
4. Beer bong 5 beers at once (Wes)
5. Use a plastic garbage bag instead of a condom (Joel)
6. Talk loudly about wanting to hook up with a girl while she is listening through the door (Derek)
7. Run through the glass door because you didn't see it and then blame it on your dog (Josh)
8. Throw up all over your parents room and then blame it on your dog (Adam)
9. Drink a whole fifth of tequila, say some vile things to your wife's best friend, then sleep with her (Grant)
10. Not have such a loud girlfriend (Andy)

Reaching Out Again

2007-10-12T21:10:00.000-05:00

Rumor has it that the new Metallica album is going to come out some time in early 2008...possibly February. I've heard it described as "the missing link between 'And Justice for All' and the 'Black Album.'" I really hope this is true. I admire the band for playing the music they wanted to at the time (Load and Reload were blues driven and St. Anger was an interesting practice in more stripped down methods of studio recording), but going back to the Metallica of the late 80's would be a real treat for any fan. The later albums are not bad by any means, but they aren't the band's bread and butter. I can only hope that letting Bob Rock go and producing with Rick Rubin will provide a breath of fresh air.

Don't get me wrong, I admire it all, but I really miss what they do best. It's hard to understand what you are witnessing when you are watching it first hand, but Metallica is a band that will influence rock and roll forever. They gave heavy metal a face and a melody. They proved it could be smart and technically advanced without losing its raw drive. They carried the cross handed to them by Sabbath and Zep with dignity, honor and pride at a time when most other rock bands were wearing eyeliner and fishnets. 20 years from now, I guaruntee they will be listed as a major influence for almost every young rock band. Bands like Avenged Sevenfold would tell you that same thing right now.

And this is just the music they create. What they've done to up the ante of showmanship for live performances is practically unparalleled in any time period. They're just overwhelmingly powerful when you see and hear them in concert.

So if the rumors are true, and we do find ourselves listening to late 80's version of Metallica, I foresee a lot of new fans and a very pleased bunch of old fans. And even if it doesn't turn out the way you want it to, sit back and enjoy it anyway, because bands like this are once or twice a generation if you're lucky.

Quick Thought of The Day

2007-10-09T18:36:00.001-05:00

When it comes to Iraq, supporters often use the argument, "the troops support the war" to justify staying among other things. If you don't like what's going on over there you're often scolded and told that you have no idea of the good that goes on and what most soldiers say. The problem is, these two things have nothing to do with one another. Any soldier can (and should) be proud of the good work they've done to personally better the lives of Iraqis while simultaneously desiring to withdraw from the country and end the war or occupation or freedom fight or whatever.

So here's a little diddy I found interesting. Most of these guys and gals want to come home. A lot of them want to withdraw immediately.

There's some other tidbits in there you may not expect. Virtually all of the troops are happy with the equipment and armor that we so often hear is out of date or non-existent.

There's quite a bit to digest, and of course, any one can turn any of the information into whatever they please.

I just wanted to make the point about soldiers and their feelings about the war. I like when I please a customer at work as much as the next person, it provides all sorts of personal satisfaction etc. etc. However, I hate my job and can't wait to leave it. I imagine that's how a lot of the military feels, because I would bet that most of these people join out of necessity; not some romanticized patriotism.

feed with one hand, choke with the other

2007-10-01T19:58:00.000-05:00

Read it.

Respond to it.

And this is just weapons sales. Think about all the other types of aide and services provided to these different countries. Disgusting to me for oh so many reasons.

Anarchy in the...Michigan

2007-09-30T22:22:00.000-05:00

Even if the state DOES shut down, I still have to teach High School tomorrow.

Poop.

Quick Thought of The Day

2007-09-30T08:49:00.000-05:00

Some personal questions I've never heard good answers for:

-If we are all evolved/evolving, why do people get upset by war, injustice, poverty, and so on? Wouldn't all of those things just be "growing pains" necessary to gauruntee the survival of the fittest and push the next step in human evolution?

-If it's a woman's choice to get an abortion, why doesn't the man get to choose whether or not he wants to pay child support?

-How do we honestly expect the Bill of Rights to protect us from the government?

-Where have all the cowboys gone?

-If atheists find belief in God inconsequential (if not stupid all together), why are many so adamant about disproving God's existence to those who believe? What difference would it make?

-Why are the Lions so consistently bad?

I guess that's all for now because this is supposed to be a quick thought. Answers and other questions are more than welcome in the comments. Although I'm sure the answers won't appease me.

So Many Bad Choices

2007-09-27T16:06:00.000-05:00

At this point, a year prior to the 2008 Presidential election, I am exasperated with all of the top-tier Republican and Democrat candidates, particularly former New York City Mayor and assiduous 9/11 exploiter Rudolph Giuliani. In the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, which is one of the best sources for Middle East news, Giuliani is ranked first, in a weekly survey of Israeli citizens. The poll, called the Israel Factor, ranks an array of potential candidates in terms of each candidate’s views on Israel. Ostensibly, Israeli citizens view Giuliani to be the best candidate for protecting their interests.

This is undoubtedly because of Giuliani’s incessant, hawkish rhetoric. Recently, Giuliani quipped that he does not believe the Americans should engage in the peace process because the construction of a Palestinian state amounts to the establishment of a “terrorist state”, like Syria or Iran. Thus, creating a Palestinian state would be a manifest setback in the “War on Terror”. Essentially, Giuliani’s racist, orientalist, vitriolic statement ignores the multitude of moderate Palestinians dedicated towards peace. Giuliani also has suggested that we should preemptively strike Iran (remember how well the whole preemptive strike notion worked in Iran’s neighbor to the West) and set them (Iran) “back 8 to 10 years”.

Moreover, Giuliani has assembled an impressive team of hate-fomenting, saber-rattling, war-mongering neo-conservatives as advisers. Norman Podhoretz, Giuliani’s foreign policy adviser and progenitor of neo-conservatism, recently stated that “as an American and as a Jew, I pray everyday that President Bush’s foreign policy priority will be to bomb Iran”. Eschewing diplomacy and a host of other important international issues, such as Darfur, Iraq, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Myanmar etc., Podhoretz believes we should begin another war. Other notable advisers include Charles Hill, Harvard Prof. Martin Kramer, who has assiduously waxed philosophical about the barbaric, antiquated nature of Islam, and Daniel Pipes, a traditional hawk who once called Hussein Ibish of the American Task Force, the Hala Foundation and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the “most dangerous man in America”. Apparently this is because Hussein, who I had the opportunity to work for and found to be one of the most insightful and intelligent individuals I have ever met, has diligently and eloquently advocated for a Palestinian state and debated everyone from Jerry Falwell to Bill O’Reilly in an effort to battle Arab and Islamic discrimination. On a personal note, everything I have ever read about or by Pipes, who has recently engaged in a verbal war with Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer (authors of “The Israel Lobby”), leads me to believe that he is an ignoramous of historical proportions.

Giuliani’s hawkish repuatation has undoubtedly been bolstered by the addition of these individuals to his campaign. He is on the path to be the Republican nominee and will inexorably continue the disastrous foreign policy initiated by the paragon neo-conservative administration of the younger Bush.

If one peruses the Israel factor they will find Hilldog, the inevitable Democratic nominee, to be 4th. Former first lady Clinton has repeatedly asserted that Jerusalem must be the undivided capital of the Israel, completely ignoring that East Jerusalem is internationally recognized as Palestinian land. Moreover, she has made a concerted effort during her political career to placate AIPAC. In a not so common twist of fate, the only viable third party candidate, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is unabashedly pro-Israel. Do not get me wrong, there is nothing inherently wrong with being pro-Israel, however it seems with all of the candidates ranked high on the Israel Factor there is a concomitant disregard for the peace process and insouciance for the Palestinian plight which is compounded by statelessness and a lack of self-determination. There almost appears to be a deeply ingrained, antipathy for the Palestinians. The line-up of candidates is bereft of a figure that will criticize Israel and support the Palestinians and this makes me very pessimistic about prospects for a two-state solution. Why does Israel have such a stranglehold over our foreign policy, especially considering that the cold war is over and they are no longer a strategic ally? Ask Walt and Mearsheimer.

The triumvirate of candidates, with the best chances of running in the general election, have all demonstrated recalcitrant support for the draconian policies of the Israeli government. Whoever is elected, it is likely that their policies will be detrimental to the Palestinian quest for statehood. There are major disagreements among all of the candidates and that goes for intra-party disputes and policy disagreements across party lines except for one issue: Israel. I wonder why?

Echoes, Silence, Patience & Grace (And A Touch of Maturity)

2007-09-25T13:48:00.000-05:00

The Foo Fighters' latest album Echoes, Silence, Patience & Grace is the perfect successor to 2005's double album In Your Honor. The sixth album in the Foo catalogue marks a stage of maturity reached for the band, with a heavy reliance of acoustic guitars and piano throughout.

The album begins with "The Pretender," the first single and easily the heaviest cut on the record. "Let it Die" finds a mellow vibe with Dave Grohl softly singing, accompanied by acoustic picking, then opens up halfway through with the full band, something not uncommon with the Foo. The third track "Erase/Replace" is what I like to call "Classic Foo," meaning that no matter where or when you hear this song, you automatically know what band is tearing it up. The second single (according to the sticker on the album) is "Long Road to Ruin." Reminiscent of One By One's "Times Like These," this song has the correct formula of pop and catchy lyrics to be a huge hit among the masses, and gets extra points for Chris Shiflett's awesome guitar solo. Number five track "Come Alive" builds from simple acoustic-and-voice scenery to a climax of heavy guitar and pounding drums and Grohl repeating "Come Alive!" as if desperately trying to bring a corpse back to life. "Stranger Things Have Happened" sounds like you could step into a blues bar in New Orleans and hear this quality tune on any given Friday night. The next track "Cheer Up Boys (Your Makeup Is Running)" sounds as if it could have been a b-side from 1997's The Colour and the Shape with its straight-ahead alternative rock riffs. "Summer's End" almost has a southern rock feel to it, from the simple rock feel and Grohl's references of his love for Virginia. Next up is a first for a Foo Fighter's album: a purely instrumental song. "The Ballad of the Beaconsfield Miners" finds two acoustic guitars noodling along in a traditional country/bluegrass fashion. "Statues" relies heavily on piano and reminds me of a Beatles song, though I cannot put my finger on which one. As seems to be a common choice for this album, the next track "But, Honestly," begins with simple acoustic guitar and Dave's voice softly singing of love and heartache, then building up to a heavy explosion of full band rock. The last track, "Home," sees Grohl and a piano softly traveling along a rural road to a secluded home, later joined by a string section and soft drums. The lyrics of this last song bring to mind "In My Life" from Rubber Soul.

Grohl has succeeded in creating his most mature work to date, both lyrically and musically. While some Foo fans may be disappointed at the lack of heavy rock tracks, the more seasoned crowd will appreciate the growth of the quartet as they branch out into different styles and tastes.

"Erase/Replace," "Stranger Things Have Happened," and "Statues" stand out as some of the best Foo songs ever written.

8/10

"Go Away, Baitin!'"

2007-09-24T19:47:00.000-05:00

An AP article today sheds light on a program the US Army is using in Iraq to defeat "insurgents." The strategy "baiting" is when the military places some weapon or bomb-related device in an area, wait for the first person to pick it up, then pick him off with a sniper. In this particular article, Sgt. Evan Vela was accused of planting evidence to make it appear that he killed the Iraqi justifiably. So what do you think of this sort of program? Is it justified given the current situation or is it just another way of keeping the soldiers busy and providing body count numbers to feed to the news outlets?

The '48 War

2007-09-23T22:14:00.000-05:00

As aforementioned, I plan on writing a few posts that deal with common misunderstandings about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. These myths are generally promulgated by spurious scholarship and fomented by nefarious notions. Those whom often subscribe to these myths do so out of an extraordinary degree of self-interested blindness or out of willful ignorance or an insouciant pursuit of truth. Moreover, there has been an assiduous effort by a number of ideologically driven scholars to discount, marginalize (and at times demonize) the Palestinian narrative. In other words, the Israeli narrative is the all that matters (or even all that exists in many cases). Today I would like to briefly discuss the 1948 war.

Most historical accounts of the 1948 war suggest that anywhere between 5 and 7 Arab armies attacked the nascent Israeli state. Interestingly enough, there were only 7 independent Arab states, and I am using the words “independent” and “state” in a particularly loose fashion, in 1948 (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen). Of those 7, 2 states, Saudi Arabia and Yemen did not have standing armies and had no mechanism for transporting the few troops they had. The Lebanese, Jordanian and Iraqi armies never entered the infant Israeli state. Furthermore, the Syrian forces only made slight “in-roads” into Israeli territory. That only leaves the Egyptian army. The Egyptian forces were the only Arab forces that made any sort of offensive incursion into Israeli land (when referring to Israeli land I mean the 1948 U.N. partition plan, not what is recognized as Israel proper today).

This is not to say that a war did not occur. There was certainly an internecine struggle that claimed the lives of many Arabs and many Israelis. However, as is commonplace in all Arab/Israeli wars, the number of Arab casualties greatly outnumbers Israeli casualties and the Israelis were most often the aggressor.

This myth, that the young and vulnerable Israeli state not only defeated, but crushed the massive vanguards of the barbarian Arab hordes is an important part of Israeli history. Unfortunately, it is also a falsification propagated with temerity. This victory, much like the Israeli victory in 1967, has perpetuated a lionized notion of the Israeli state and has given adherents considerably more rationale for subscribing to the Israeli state as a divinely ordained project.

Much to the chagrin of many Palestinians and historians, there is not a large degree of vacillation allowed for in discussing the conflict. The general trend is an acceptance of the hegemonic Israeli narrative and a marginalization of the Palestinian (Arab) narrative. As the old adage goes, history is written by the victors and I cannot think of a single greater exemplication than the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Question

2007-09-21T20:06:00.000-05:00

QUESTION?

What does everyone think of President Ackmmmaidhardconsonantniadiajad wanting to speak at the WTC next week?

Personally, it doesn't bother me, but I can understand how New Yorkers would be upset. I hear a lot of idiot pundits saying that he shouldn't even be allowed in the country and things like that. That just sounds a little ignorant to me, but most anything said by radio and tv talkshow politicos is ignorant and mind-numbing.

Anyway, my final vote would be to not let him speak there. Like Pearl Harbor, that is a hallowed burial ground that holds worlds of importance to people. A tomb shouldn't be his soapbox...especially with the ridiculous stuff he's bound to say. That same line of thinking goes for American leaders. I don't think it's appropriate to use that spot as a political tool to give speeches from. That just seems so disgusting to me.

Andrew look, Ah----honeycomb#@$$??iaiahanahibeavertail-jad is wearing my jacket again.

Quick Thought of the Day

2007-09-18T22:05:00.000-05:00

Say we made a time capsule today, filling it with today's Oakland Press or News, some of the best selling albums of the year, the top grossing movies on dvd, and a few other things. What would the people of the future think of us as a culture, just from observing these things? I'm reading the play "Our Town" for my theatre class and the narrator/stage manager in the story mentions that the leaders of the town bury a time capsule, and it made me wonder.

Quick Thought of The Day

2007-09-17T18:02:00.000-05:00

Does anyone else think that the end of last year's season of the Office was a big fake out? I think Jim just left Karen (is that her name?) in New York with her friends and went back. They didn't break up. So he just asked Pam to go to dinner with him to clarify their friendship after the beach episode.

Andrew says he's seen a commercial that says Jim broke up with Karen and proves my idea completely wrong, but until I see it I'll just keep believing my theory.

Part of me doesn't want Jim and Pam together because you lose the hilarious sexual tension and comedy that ensues. Of course, with writers like the Office has, I'm sure they could make hilarity out of any situation.

Pam's hot.

It Was Utterly...

2007-09-14T11:01:00.000-05:00

While promoting progress in Iraq, Mr. Bush conceded that his vision for Iraq would be a difficult one to achieve. That acknowledgment was punctuated with macabre timing by the assassination on Thursday of a Sunni sheik, Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, who had led a group of tribal leaders into an alliance with the United States and who had met the president during his trip to Iraq only 10 days ago.

Andrew and Grant, this paragraph was in a New York Times piece today.(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/washington/14prexy.html?th&emc=th). I thought that you both should share in my enjoyment of the word usage (I miss Gob)

Quick Thought of The Day

2007-09-13T15:51:00.000-05:00

This should make you sick. Especially when you think about what the guy says. His entire marriage could have been destroyed, plus family life, plus a multitude of other things if his wife weren't with him.

It starts small and seems insignificant when compared to the big picture, but I'm telling you people, the more you look around the more you see citizens' rights being completely violated. I'm not talking "rights" like abortion or porn in libraries in front of kids, or things you hear about in liberal classrooms, I'm talking the inalienable rights that we are all supposed to be afforded and intrinsically have to protect ourselves from the government.

Here's a small personal example Andrew will remember. After the Tool concert last summer, my brother and I were lighting off illegal fireworks in the parking lot. Two undercover police officers approached us and questioned us. Okay, we were breaking the law, and we readily admitted that, more than willing to take a ticket and deal with the consequences. Give us the fine and confiscate the fireworks and move on. However, in the middle of the questioning the officer looked us square in the eye and told us that he saw us aiming the fireworks at cars and people. PEOPLE. Now luckily someone with bigger and better fireworks lit there's off down the lot, so the cops got distracted and left. But, just imagine if they wanted to be foul that night. All the sudden a few hundred dollar misdemeanor turns into a reckless endangerment or even some sort of criminal charge for attempting to injure someone.

This isn't just a tirade against cops either. It's about 80 year old grandparents strip searched by airport security in the name of "fighting terrorism" and tighter gun laws in the name of "school shootings." It's about telling you it's illegal to start your business because it's unhealthy or coercing you out one with emissions taxes and caps.

If it's getting hard to breath, don't worry, that's just the boot on your neck.

Decisions, decisions everywhere and not a drop to think.

2007-09-12T16:10:00.000-05:00

With General Petraeus' results on Iraq in line with the White House's rhetoric, what do you think the Democrats and/or Republicans will propose now?

What about containment/?

Quick Thought of the Day

2007-09-12T06:07:00.001-05:00

It's 44 Degrees outside right now. Football season is well upon us. The air has that certain crispityness to it.

That's right, it's Fall again. By far the greatest of the 4 seasons. Perfect temperatures combined with things like apple cider and bees, corn mazes and Halloween, yellow leaves and yellow school buses. Summer is too hot and muggy, Winter is too long, and Spring is always a wet and unsatisfying season. But Fall, it never fails. Year in and year out it delivers on perfection.

So sit back and enjoy it those of you lucky enough to reside in the Midwest. As for the rest of you who don't get the 4 seasons, I mourn for you.

Nostalgia

2007-09-11T17:16:00.000-05:00

Just to break up the recent seriousness of it all.

Quick Thought of the Day

2007-09-11T12:26:00.000-05:00

I think we need some rules of engagement for this blog. Some of the commenting has gone from meaningful to name calling to worse. That goes for both the proprietors of this site and those out in cyberspace.

So with this in mind, I give you this site's netiquette rules:

Remember at all times that this site is first and foremost a place for everyone to speak their minds.
The authors of the site reserve the right to delete and/or end a specific topic's conversation at any time (both comments and entire posts). This also means that the authors of the site control the general flow of conversation.
Just because you can't see the person whom you are addressing doesn't give you the right to belittle them personally in any way. Too often on the internet we go overboard because there isn't real face-to-face interaction. Basically, the golden rule is just as applicable on this site as it is in the real world. Treat others as you wish to be treated.
Anonymity is each and every contributors' right and privilege.
Grammar and spelling are of no consequence here, but try your best.
I, along with the input and counsel of Andrew, Adam and Ian, reserve the right to delete any comment based on the above rules and those which may be prudent to the well being of the blog in the future.

This is my start, I'll consider any other ideas posted in the comments.

Quote of the day

2007-09-11T09:24:00.000-05:00

"I don't believe in the Boogeyman or the Lochness Monster and I don't believe in Al Qaeda"

MOS DEF

Remember Middle School?

2007-09-10T21:16:00.000-05:00

So, I am teaching 9th grade English this year and a book came up in discussion and I realized how horrible and ridiculous the story was.

Does anyone remember "Johnny Tremain"? The story of a silver apprentice who poured molten silver on his friggin' hand and thus, couldn't be a silver apprentice anymore? Then, because of his inability to function in society became an errand boy and, totally by accident, became friends with Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and other forefathers of our country? Then, found himself involved in every major event that happened during the lead-up to the Revolution?

What a ridiculous book.

What are other ridiculous books you remember, besides "Call of the Wild"?

If You're Going to Pullout You Should Do it All the Way

2007-09-09T21:02:00.001-05:00

As is common with most conflicts in the world there are many misconceptualizations that are often fed by the media or personal ideology, or sometimes a convergence of the two. One such misconceptualization that I have found particularly vexing lately is the Israeli "pullout" of Gaza. I find the term "pullout" to be a misnomer at best and a not so subtle falsification at worst. In August 2005, Ariel Sharon, the Prime Minister of Israel at the time, implemented a radical new policy in Gaza, he decided to pull the Israeli settlers (who illegally, according to international law, occupied Palestinian land, just as the settlers in the West Bank do) out of Gaza. The number was actually infinitesimal, 8,000, compared to the 280,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Sharon, and some of his fellow war criminal cohorts in the Israel government, posited this pullout as a grand, political gesture from the Israelis, as an attempt to reach across the bargaining table and initiate peace.

Unfortunately, this is a facile and constructed notion. The pullout, a) was not done in some sort of benevolent fashion in order to foster negotiations and b) was not really a pullout at all. The Israelis had discovered that having settlers in Gaza was becoming a financial burden. In fact, is was simply not expedient. At the time the 8,000 Israeli settlers were accompanied by over 12,000 IDF soldiers, whom were charged with protecting the Israeli settlers. Moreover, the Gaza Strip was becoming increasingly water barren. The Israelis were not sure if they could continue to provide the Israeli settlers with water and they decided, amid much controversy from the ultra-right, to evacuate the settlers.

So how as this not a pullout you ask? Well, the Israelis still control the borders and airspace of the Gaza Strip and they still have the ability to wantonly shut off electricty and water to Gaza. Furthermore, the Israeli control the flow of goods in and out of Gaza and often allow only the most critical of supplies in the Strip. The Israelis also control the Gazan ports on the Mediterranean, collecting value added taxes on all goods that come into Gaza.

The Israelis and those of pro-Israeli prediliction often argue that the chaos ensued after the pullout demonstrates why there should be no such pullout from the West Bank. However, this is nothing more than an effort to perpetuate a seeminly interminable occupation. Gaza is still occupied, it is just a different type of occupation, equally illegal, but different from the occupation of the West Bank.

In order to understand this conflict it is important to think analytically about commonly held perceptions. We cannot allow the preponderance of notions, like the pullout, that are so distant from reality to continue. Many people exhibit an insouciance for the facts and an inability to engage in a deeper examination of reality. Perhaps some find the truth jejune, if so then one should avoid making categorical assertions about the conflict, or anything for that matter. I think that I will try and continue to offer evidence in a few more blogs to obliterate and debunk these ideologically driven, malevolent mischaracterizations.

10 Reasons to Go to Church(I agree) by Teddy Roosevelt

2007-09-09T18:19:00.000-05:00

1. In this actual world a church-less community, a community where men have abandoned and scoffed at or ignored their religious needs, is a community on the rapid downgrade. It is perfectly true that occasional individuals or families may have nothing to do with church or with religious practices and observances and yet maintain the highest standard of spirituality and of ethical obligation. But this does not affect the case in the world as it now is, any more than that exceptional men and women under exceptional conditions have disregarded the marriage tie without moral harm to themselves interferes with the larger fact that such disregard if at all common means the complete moral disintegration of the body politic.
2. Church work and church attendance mean the cultivation of the habit of feeling some responsibility for others and the sense of braced moral strength which prevents a relaxation of one's own moral fiber.
3. There are enough holidays for most of us which can quite properly be devoted to pure holiday making.... Sundays differ from other holidays - among other ways - in the fact that there are fifty-two of them every year... on Sunday, go to church.
4. Yes, I know the excuses. I know that one can worship the Creator and dedicate oneself to good living in a grove of trees, or by a running brook, or in one's own house, just as well as in church. But I also know as a matter of cold fact the average man does NOT thus worship or thus dedicate himself. If he stays away from church he does not spend his time in good works or in lofty meditation. He looks over the colored supplement of the newspaper.
5. He may not hear a good sermon at church. But unless he is very unfortunate he will hear a sermon by a good man who, with his good wife, is engaged all the week long in a series of wearing and humdrum and important tasks for making hard lives a little easier.
6. He will listen to and take part in reading some beautiful passages from the Bible. And if he is not familiar with the Bible, he has suffered a loss...
7. He will probably take part in singing some good hymns.
8. He will meet and not to, or speak to, good, quiet neighbors.
9. I advocate a man's joining in church works for the sake of showing his faith by his works.
10. The man who does not in some way, active or not, connect himself with some active, working church misses many opportunities for helping his neighbors, and therefore, incidentally, for helping himself.

I think I may start going to church again.
These are all true, and I could use some of that 'community', I guess, since I left college, you know?

It Stings, Then It Really Starts To Burn

2007-09-09T09:25:00.000-05:00

Oh how the mighty have fallen. I'm not normally one to pack it in this early in a season, but after watching my Wolverines in person yesterday afternoon, I believe I can safely say that all the big games will be lost this year along with too many of the other ones.

I'm the biggest Lloyd Carr fan there is, but it does seem apparent that a change is needed. If these kids can't get up for a pride game as big as the one yesterday, then there is a program-wide dilemma. Program-wide dilemmas fall on the coach's shoulders in the world of college football. Whether that is fair or not, I don't know.

What I do know is that the kids weren't ready to play yesterday or the week before. I know Michigan's playbook looks archaic too much of the time. I know recruiting is being heavily affected by these last two performances. I know I don't want to go the way of Notre Dame.

I also know that two years before Bo showed up, Michigan had it's last losing season (I'm not saying this will be a losing season, but for the era, it looks like it will be the worst), and then came 30 of our best years.

Change can be a good thing, even when it is painful.

So here is my next coach wish list:
-I want arrogance because that's a must at U of M
-I want an offensive minded head coach with a nasty defensive coordinator
-I want someone to uphold the tradition
-I want someone to uphold the ethical standards
-I want youth (in his 40's would be fine)
-I want to be beat Ohio State like it was the 90's again

Pretty simple I think.

What Is And What Should Always Be

2007-09-08T16:37:00.000-05:00

Apparently Robert Plant is in talks with Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones to embark on a reunion tour, with John Bonham's son Jason on the drums. Since I missed The Police reunion tour this summer, I may be able to justify spending a week's worth of income on a ticket if Zep chooses to grace the Motor City on its tour circuit. For the sake of decency, hopefully they do not bring any fish backstage with them. (Grant knows what I'm talking about)

Back again for the first time

2007-08-30T01:37:00.000-05:00

Well...I'm back in the good ol' U.S. and A now. As Grant so presciently posited, I have all kinds of things to write about...but Im not going to write now. Im going to wait for something to impinge strongly enough on my nervous system, because we can only write about that which does, and bring some class back to this web log. Just kidding, given the circumstances, Andrew did a fine job adding a post or two over the summer during the absence of Grant and myself. Anyway, I just wanted to check and let everyone know (and by that I guess I mean Andrew and Grant) that I plan on returning to my usual posting pace. That is all...

By the way, Andrew, mabrook (congrats in Arabic) on your letter to the editor. Concise, cogent and wonderfully suberversive.

Quick Triumphant Return of the Summer

2007-08-24T15:34:00.001-05:00

After living far too long without the internet at hand, I am back. Cool stuff going on here over the last couple weeks. Way to go Andrew and contributors I do not know. Adam should be back any day now with his rants.

Yay internet!!

It Feels Like the First Time

2007-08-22T14:15:00.000-05:00

The first opinion I have ever written to a newspaper got published today, in the Oakland Press. Here it is for your viewing (dis)pleasure.

We need to seriously reconsider our governments foreign policy since the end of World War II. Since the end of that tragic conflict, our nation has interfered in the affairs of several countries around the world, using excuses such as "spreading democracy," "halting communism," "getting rid of illegal weapons," and "deposing dictators." While none of these wars have been fought in defense of our nation or because our rights were in danger of being usurped, we must ask ourselves if these wars of choice were necessary. Roughly 100,000 US lives have been lost in these undeclared wars and countless billions of our tax dollars have been spent, and what do we have to show for it today? The Korean conflict ended in a stalemate and the peninsula is still divided. The North Vietnamese Communists quickly took over the US-backed South right after we left. We still await the outcome of the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, but already hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died in Iraq. I won't even begin to mention the countless minor military incursions and the overthrowing of democratically elected leaders that we have been involved with in this period, and it is absolutely absurd that we are even entertaining the idea of attacking Iran. We have to ask ourselves one thing: who really benefits from endless conflict? It is certainly not the average American. Whatever happened to the idea our founding fathers espoused of limited government, free markets, and using the military for purely defensive reasons?

Great Scott!

2007-08-21T14:49:00.000-05:00

The DeLorean is making a comeback, albeit in a small way. At a small warehouse in suburban Houston, about two cars a month will be hand built from the leftover parts abandoned after John DeLorean's company went under. A local entrepreneur had been selling parts and repairing the cars for years but decided there was enough of a demand to start selling a few cars with the parts he had acquired from the supplier that had originally made materials for the car in the early 80s. Out of the 9000 DeLoreans made in the two years of production, about 6500 are still on the street today.

If some of you are wondering what the significance of this is, watch one of the best movies of all time, "Back to the Future."

The Official 2008 Presidential Candidate Blog

2007-08-10T16:30:00.000-05:00

This is where anyone can write about which candidate they think would be best qualified to take over the reigns of this absurdly out of control wagon we call America. Or you can make your argument against any certain candidate on here. Maybe Obama isn't black enough. Maybe Hillary wouldn't sit comfortably in the chair at the desk in the Oval Office. Or maybe Rudy looks too much like Dracula. Whatever your opinion on presidential candidates, comment on here.

Govt. Admits Role in African American Successes

2007-06-23T20:37:00.001-05:00

By Allen W. Watson, National News Service Contributor

WASHINGTON-In a move that is certain to attract much attention by the media, the federal government declassified information this past Wednesday on a secret program developed jointly between the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Reagan’s executive office in the early 80s, aimed at helping the African American community pull itself out of the cycle of poverty in the inner cities.

The ambitious project, known as The Black Android Cultural Advancement Project, involved $67 million worth of research to create robots that were basically indistinguishable from real African Americans. The initial aim was to insert these robots, also known as ‘Negroids,’ into the sports, political, and entertainment realms so as to encourage young blacks in the inner cities to strive to become successful and to better their lives.

A former HUD official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said over the life of the project, Negroids were created at different stages of human development. For instance, the first Negroid to be created and used in the field was one to replace the real Michael Jackson. Just before entering the studio to record “Thriller” in early 1982, the FBI made a deal with the real Michael Jackson, allowing him to live in a government-sponsored exile of sorts, in an undisclosed Caribbean country. The robot Jackson was then put in the real Jackson's place without anyone knowing the difference, says the official. What ensued was one of the best selling albums of all time being made by an African American artist. “Obviously, there were some kinks we had to work out on subsequent models,” the official jokes, referring to the robot Jackson’s bizarre lifestle after “Thriller.”

An example of a Negroid being practically “born” into the world is Tiger Woods. Contrary to popular belief, Woods was adopted by a bi-racial couple in the early 80s, after spending most of his childhood in a foster home, a former Reagan aide adds. HUD planted him in the foster care system as a test to see the viability of young Negroids interacting with normal children. Tiger went on to become the highest-paid African American athlete of all time. “The funny thing is,” the same official jokes, “is that unlike most government projects, this one paid for itself in just a few years. The tax money we receive from wealthy Negroids pays for the project a few times over.”

It is not known whether or not the federal government is still involved in making Negroids, or any other ethnic robots designed to encourage the targeted group. Funding was cut for the project in 1994, amid budget cuts for HUD. The project was put back on the shelf, but there have been rumors of the existence of a similar project involving Hispanic robots, or ‘Mexroids,’ being created by the California state government.

While it is impossible to know exactly how many Negroids were created, some government officials put the number in the low hundreds. A partial list is as follows:

-Michael Jackson

-Oprah Winfrey

-Michael Jordan

-Tiger Woods

-The Wayans Brothers

-Colin Powell

-Condoleezza Rice

-Dave Chappell

-Tupac

-50 Cent

-Barak Obama

Thoughts?

2007-06-22T19:16:00.000-05:00

I find it funny that a show featuring a 'No Spin Zone' could mention the terms 'liberals' and 'left wing' so often.

Shouldn't 'No Spin' feature no dividing terms of any kind?

*Added*

I also find it interesting how many people are starting to find the two party system faulty. Now, I haven't paid attention to politics long enough to sense a long-term trend (yeah, 'long term trend.' Take that 'Global Warming 'Experts'') but it seems to me that people are starting to realize that people must be able to compromise in order to get anything done.

With the President and Congress with 26 and 25% approval ratings, respectfully, it seems that people are finally realizing that when people are polarized, nothing can be achieved. I find it really encouraging to see people realize that they must start working together and stop 'listening to reply', but 'listen to think.'

It's too bad that not enough people believe this or understand it to make a third party viable at all.

HURRAY FOR HAMAS!

2007-06-17T00:13:00.000-05:00

Everyone deserves a place to lay their head...especially terrorists!

Welcome to the Gaza Strip. Please leave all bombs with coat check.

We're here, we're queer, we don't want anymore bears

2007-06-09T00:12:00.000-05:00

This is part two of my campaign platform for 2008 (if you don’t know what I am talking about scroll down and read my last entry about abortion). If you couldn’t tell from the title, this post is about homosexual rights, particularly marriage and open service in the military. Incidentally, I find it amusing and incredibly condescending when people talk about “gays”. I guess I just picture some Nascar loving, wife beating, Coors light drinking inviolate wearing a cutoff flannel shirt, a pair of faded hammer pants and John Deere hat screaming “Gays ain’t getting married in ‘merica”. I’m not really a P.C. person by nature, it just feels demeaning to me, so I try and use the term “homosexual”. Enough non-sequitors (or “null-sets” if your Mitt Romney).

For once I am going to try to avoid taking some circuitous and verbose path to getting my point across, I think homosexuals should be afforded the same legal rights of marriage as heterosexual couples. This is no way an issue that the State should be able to control. To the State, marriage is nothing more then a contract that affords two consenting adults with certain privileges. Although our government has increasingly interfered with the rights of corporations to enter contracts (i.e. the Sherman Anti-Trust Act), I feel that it is an innate right for all individuals to enter into a contract with whomever they please. If two gay men or lesbian women want to enter into this contract, why should the government care? Well, I would posit that they really do not care, instead they are placating to their puritanical, status quo loving constituents.

Ostensibly, this issue is loaded with moral questions that make it so controversial. The Religious Right, which is a wing of conservatism that focuses solely on abortion and gay marriage, has historically posed the biggest opposition to the gay marriage, civil unions etc. And I do not want to ignore the religious element of this issue. In fact, I would suggest that this is where it should be solved, within religious institutions. The State needs to back away and provide the same contractual benefits to same-sex couples as they do to heterosexual couples. Churches should decide whether or not to sanction the marriage. Speaking of non-sequitors, the whole slippery-slope argument is so irrational it makes me want to stab myself in the eye with a soldering iron. There are those that argue if we allow homosexuals to get “married”, or at least afford them with the same rights as heterosexual couples, then our society will instantly evolve into a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. Incestuous couples will be allowed to wed, everyone will have to join N.A.M.B.L.A., man/pig relationships will be allowed etc. Whoever sees this as a logical progression of State sanctioned, contractual benefits for same-sex couples should be sterilized.

Those from the religious inclination who believe that homosexuality is a sin will be comforted by the fact that, according to their beliefs, God will judge them one day and he will judge the churches that will inevitably sanction same-sex couples. From a philosophic standpoint I do not believe that the State should legislate morality. Coercive morality is not morality at all. Let the churches decide.

Secondly, and hopefully with a little more brevity, I would assert that the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy of our military needs to go. It is outdated and reflects a worldview more suited for medieval times. Britain and France both allow homosexuals to serve in openly serve in the military and there is seemingly no problems reported because of it. Honestly, is a soldier going to be concerned with the sexual orientation of the man or woman standing next to him when confronted with a pugnacious, bellicose enemy? More then likely, he or she will simply be more concerned with his comrade’s ability to assist in winning the battle. Personally I believe that not allowing gays to serve in the military is an absurd and anachronistic policy.

I assert that there are two dimensions that must be examined when discussing homosexual rights, the religious/moral aspect and the role of the government. I believe that this is an issue that the government should categorically avoid. In other words, afford homosexuals with the same rights as everyone else. The State should not pander to the illegitimate slippery slope argument. Minority rights should be protected and respected. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case in the U.S.

One final point to consider: One of the major points of contention surrounding the homosexuality debate concerns the biological aspect of homosexuality. In other words, is homosexuality a choice or is it an innate quality? Many Christians would argue that it is a choice. However, most Christians also believe that man is inherently born into a state of depravity; we are all sinful by nature. If homosexuality is a sin and all men are born with sin, would it not be reasonable to deduce that some individuals are naturally inclined towards homosexuality?