tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59218322024-03-14T12:56:33.601-04:00AMERICAN COPROPHAGIA"All the News That's Fit to Eat."Blicerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08376399624186759155noreply@blogger.comBlogger2883125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921832.post-33661295718853811542010-11-12T00:51:00.001-05:002010-11-12T00:51:45.829-05:00Maureen Dowd: monstrous fucking death-cakehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/opinion/10dowd.html?_r=1&hpwJames Hussein Dixonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08591583421476993488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921832.post-14302646174898337432010-11-03T01:09:00.000-04:002010-11-03T01:10:06.501-04:00Fuck.James Hussein Dixonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08591583421476993488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921832.post-23524196562935495322010-10-02T11:55:00.002-04:002010-10-02T12:00:56.761-04:00Economist Ann Pettifor on Pope, Secularism, impending disaster, etc.An excellent <a href="http://www.debtonation.org/2010/09/the-grand-vacuum/#more-4198">reflection</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>We here in the UK have had blanket coverage of the Pope’s visit, which has apparently been global. On the whole the coverage irritated me, because, as always, the trivial dominated public debate. ‘Pope’s battle to save Christmas’ was a typical headline. ‘Pope: don’t let the PC brigade wreck Christmas’ – screamed Murdoch’s Sun newspaper. These headlines derive from the Pope’s speech at Westminster where he was quoted as saying that “there are those who argue that the public celebration of festivals such as Christmas should be discouraged, in the questionable belief that it might somehow offend those of other religions or none.”<br /><br />All of which I believe, misses the point. It is true that Christmas is being wrecked. But not by the PC brigade, despite the Sun’s attempt to discredit efforts to end discrimination. Instead Christmas is increasingly wrecked by capitalism’s ruthless exploitation of its values and sentiments, and by the unrestrained consumption unleashed by the finance sector’s interests and values. That is what the Pope should have attacked, explicitly. He could have taken a leaf out of the book of that admirable campaign, Operation Noah (and here I declare an interest) which has attacked the super-consumption associated with Christmas, and campaigns to ‘Reclaim Christmas’.<br /><br /><br />Instead, the Pope’s attack diverted attention from the meaning of Christmas, gave succour to the prejudices of readers of the Sun, and focussed instead on those who would defend a faith, Islam, currently under attack from all sides. (For a rebuttal to some of the anti-Muslim feeling, do watch Michael Moore on the New York Mosque: how all Muslims are often painted with the terrorist brush, and his defence: “I went to Catholic mass yesterday, but that does not make me a paedophile”.)<br /><br />Which is why I was so struck by a letter in today’s Guardian, from Simon Clarke of Lewes, East Sussex, which is not, I believe, available online, so here it is reproduced it in full:<br /><br />“While the Vatican presents itself as a champion of moral values, the abuse scandal and the prejudicial doctrines towards women, homosexuality and birth control leave me marvelling at the hypocrisy. But then I can’t but agree with the pope’s analysis of where secularism has got us, which incidentally matches radical Islam’s view of the decadence and immorality of the materialism of the west.<br /><br />“Fifty odd years of unrestrained consumption and declining moral values have exposed to a large degree the failure of secularism to put in place an alternative morality. This failure I think can be directly linked to the resurgence of conservative religion as people become ever-increasing victims of unrestrained capitalism and the dominance of markets.<br /><br />“Moral leadership is essential to us all, and if no one else will step forward with the message then we should not be surprised when religion does. We are in desperate need of a secular morality that puts human beings ahead of the bottom line and that’s where the “aggressive” secularists fail miserably, as they attack religion for all its obvious flaws but offer nothing in its place.”<br /><br />So there we have it: a vacuum of moral leadership: a vacuum hollowed out by finance capital. While the pope cited the global financial crisis as an example of what happened when pragmatic solutions were applied in the absence of ethical considerations, that did not come across to me as an attack on unethical capitalism, and support for its victims, the millions rendered unemployed or impoverished by the reckless gambles of the finance sector.<br /><br />We, as a society, battered and beat by the financial crisis, are searching for moral leadership (from faith or political leaders) that elevates the values and ethics of human security and well-being above the capital gains of a a few greedy gamblers. A moral leadership that would chase the moneylenders out of the temple that is our democracy; that would limit and restrain finance capitalism, and once again render it servant, not master of society and the economy. Despite the pope’s efforts to instil moral leadership, we still yearn for that grand vacuum to be filled.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />It is true that the Pope's great encyclical on "Love in Truth" specifically and intelligently attacks the global financial death machine, a fact Pettifor doesn't acknowledge. But she is fundamentally correct -- the Pope is letting the focus get shifted away from what really matters by participating in stupid "War on Christmas" debates. And his credibility is undermined by his implication in pedophilia and his hateful scapegoating of gays.speakingcorpsehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04927298398549659202noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921832.post-74116576252268295412010-09-28T23:53:00.005-04:002010-09-29T15:36:31.740-04:00everybody always say..."Yes, we know what you're against, but what are you for?". <a href="http://www.julietschor.org/">Juliet Schor</a> answers the question:<br /><br /><iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/12034640" width="400" height="300" frameborder="0"></iframe><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/12034640">Juliet Schor: Plenitude</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user1891999">toddboyle</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>Scatshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17197480253556490197noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921832.post-9211880647647006892010-09-25T13:10:00.003-04:002010-09-25T13:24:05.580-04:00popery<a href="http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/09/papists-secularists-and-capitalists.html">Seymour</a> on the Pope's visit to the UK. Nicely put, imho:<br /><br /><blockquote>When Dawkins et al repeat this ridiculous canard [that religion is the cause of the Irish conflict] and apply the same logic, mutatis mutandis, to the explanation of the Israel-Palestine conflict (or worse, to the 'civil war' in Iraq), I know all too well that this isn't really about atheism, or secularism. It is about representing those who do not partake of the relative wealth and stability of the Anglophone imperial core as tribal-minded, bloodthirsty, backward idiots. We do not have conflicts based on rational interests, each making a claim to universalism, in which imperialist powers have weighed in on one side. We have petty, parochial struggles over atavistic ideas which are childish premonitions of modern, scientific truth claims, and where imperial power is invisible. Indeed, as Eagleton suggests, part of the whole basis of Dawkinsian befuddlement and outrage over religion is the feeling that things couldn't be so bad as to require a spiritual, much less messianic, solution. Class privilege benights its beneficiaries in this respect.<br /><br />...<br /><br />... To the imperial chauvinism mentioned above, we could add his intolerance of cultural difference - he has said, for example, that he experiences a visceral revulsion at the sight of a woman in a burqa, a sensation which is probably similar to that which I feel on witnessing an upper middle class white Oxonian telling Muslim women that what they're wearing disgusts him. In relation to the Pope's visit, he described his Romanness as the head of the second most evil religion in the world. What, I wonder, might come first? Buddhism? Judaism? Hinduism? Jainism? Zoroastrianism? No? Ah, right - so it'll be Islam again. One form of religious intolerance informs another prejudice, one which is bound up with race-making processes across the 'white' world. Such a ranking of religions according to alleged harm is not really to do with atheism. Far from having an emancipatory, enlightened content, it precisely reinforces a hierarchical ordering of human societies and cultures at the apex of which invariably sits largely bourgeois, largely white, and largely male liberals of no faith, other than in the sanctity of the Holy Profit. For these and other reasons, the 'new atheism' is mainly a reactionary current...</blockquote>Scatshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17197480253556490197noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921832.post-38012907095947163662010-09-09T04:07:00.005-04:002010-09-09T04:19:25.189-04:00you take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have...So Petraeus sez burning books is bad because it hurts the troops. Which raises a couple questions:<br /><br /><br />1) Is anything ever bad anymore without having a bad consequence?<br /><br />2) Is anything ever bad anymore without having a bad consequence for the troops?<br /><br /><br />And I suppose the converse question should also be raised:<br /><br />3) If you do something bad, but can show that no troops were hurt, was it really bad?<br /><br /><br />A game:<br /><br /> Team 1 thinks of an action commonly thought of as bad. Team 2 then must think of a way in which this action hurts the troops.<br /><br />If Team 2 has an answer, they win. If Team 2 has no answer, then the action isn't bad thus Team 1 broke the rules of the game and therefore Team 2 wins.Scatshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17197480253556490197noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921832.post-68812009160896027952010-08-17T14:50:00.002-04:002010-08-17T14:54:47.390-04:00Innocence<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEija0xupEDFdyWI-yHelbMN7apxHcMchhb7yhrwj018KUmcLAJWJCBecbxeIUkc5ybB5WISYbNqAk7LNAr5XJKtiy6oxutu9fXvSeau7zbEe5csSpAG03fUQT3umcDORb0dw8J3/s1600/Eden+Abergil+Israeli+army+facebook+photos.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 220px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEija0xupEDFdyWI-yHelbMN7apxHcMchhb7yhrwj018KUmcLAJWJCBecbxeIUkc5ybB5WISYbNqAk7LNAr5XJKtiy6oxutu9fXvSeau7zbEe5csSpAG03fUQT3umcDORb0dw8J3/s320/Eden+Abergil+Israeli+army+facebook+photos.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5506453352590123762" /></a><br /><br />True innocence is that of the teen soldier who may only barely <a href="http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/israeli-ex-soldier-defends-her-facebook-snapshots/?hp">intuit</a> the enormity of his or her crimes; of the larger crimes of the army within which he or she is a cog; of the near-unconscious imbrication of his or her sexuality with these crimes toward other human beings; and lastly of the crime of innocence itself.James Hussein Dixonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08591583421476993488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921832.post-87067969089506084042010-08-11T09:49:00.004-04:002010-08-11T11:22:11.788-04:00HitchensArguably the two most prominent public intellectuals to come out in favor of the Iraq War in 2003 were Christopher Hitchens and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/magazine/05iraq-t.html?_r=1&ref=world">Michael Ignatieff</a>. I remember my seething outrage at Hitchens, of all people, taking perverse joy in <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2003/12/4/tariq_ali_vs_christopher_hitchens_on">contradicting</a> the common sense of the left of that time, palling around with the terrorists in the Bush White House, etc. His key argument at this time was focused on ousting Saddam Hussein as a service to the Iraqi <a href="http://www.markdanner.com/press/show/5">people</a>; this ethical orientation superceded all discussions of oil, profiteering, and religious fanaticism that were clearly in play with other neocon pundits. I took him for yet another tool of a fascist administration, and little more.<br /><br />In recent years, we have seen him <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/995phqjw.asp">defend</a> his original stance, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58">waterboard</a> himself and publish lavish screeds against <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2165033">religion</a> and a memoir. And now he appears to be <a href=" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/christopher-hitchens-im-d_n_676681.html">dying</a>.<br /><br />I find myself strangely obsessed with this development and fearful of what the discursive landscape will look like without him. Perhaps this has something to do with Hitchens' writing since his fateful advocacy on behalf of Bush et al in 2003 and beyond, much of which can be interpreted as a twisted, involuntary apologia. It has been as though Hitchens has been trying to extricate his particular position from those who were by his side during the rush to perpetual war, the lovers of torture, shock and awe, a blockbuster clash of religions, not to mention anti-intellectual fervor on the home front-- to preserve the "good" kernel within his convictions both then and now. Hitchens has always seemed to really believe in the inherent goods of Western demystified modernity-- a vision of what culture might consist of minus religion, fundamentalism, intolerance, etc. It is essential to recognize how romantic and old-fashioned this promised land of cultural freedom is, how tied up in myths of collective literary production-- the idea that all might be resolved if everyone can write, drink, display wit, hash it out together. On this count, Hitchens has turned out to be, great irony notwithstanding, the last true believer.James Hussein Dixonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08591583421476993488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921832.post-42177181647001962662010-08-04T13:52:00.001-04:002010-08-04T13:52:45.510-04:00hoo-ray<a href="http://www.thebaffler.com/issue/current">The Baffler</a> is back!Scatshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17197480253556490197noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921832.post-90864036109337319022010-07-07T18:32:00.002-04:002010-07-07T18:34:37.229-04:00assholesSo apparently if you are a newsperson you cannot "<a href="http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/cnn-drops-editor-after-hezbollah-comments/?hp">respect</a>" anyone in Hezbollah. By standards of journalistic objectivity, you have to hate him.James Hussein Dixonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08591583421476993488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921832.post-922556961631297222010-06-24T20:52:00.004-04:002010-06-24T20:59:57.936-04:00he deserved itI finally read the <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236">Rolling Stone article</a> that got McChrystal fired. The most damning revelation was, unsurprisingly, not reported on by the establishment media: <br /><br />His favorite beer is <a href="http://www.budlightlime.com/agegate.aspx?ReturnUrl=/default.aspx&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1">Bud Light Lime</a>.<br /><br />Good riddance.Scatshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17197480253556490197noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921832.post-6995770850522353662010-06-22T18:56:00.004-04:002010-06-23T10:21:21.958-04:00death sells<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjE97PPnf9PYnMYSl-QNECxBhBn0JlamTBavN5wL9Kl87VKrB1QWCwv2LIiol6Quab3pI4diP1klF5n_raXswqVrxHOMNMmXyJxEnHN_lupdcR571oMf5j3hul5ovYUzs7iAHB/s1600/062210spirit.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 281px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjE97PPnf9PYnMYSl-QNECxBhBn0JlamTBavN5wL9Kl87VKrB1QWCwv2LIiol6Quab3pI4diP1klF5n_raXswqVrxHOMNMmXyJxEnHN_lupdcR571oMf5j3hul5ovYUzs7iAHB/s400/062210spirit.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5485735879575850642" /></a><br /><br /><br />Not as bad as Finchy's video below, but still...oy.<br /><br /><br />via <a href="http://gothamist.com/2010/06/22/spirit_airlines_keeping_it_classy.php">Gothamist</a>Scatshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17197480253556490197noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921832.post-91977122650122415652010-06-21T01:56:00.002-04:002010-06-21T05:18:34.333-04:00more like this please<blockquote>In a historic action and unprecedented action today, over 800 labor and community activists blocked the gates of the Oakland docks in the early morning hours, prompting longshore workers to refuse to cross the picketlines where they were scheduled to unload an Israeli ship.<br /><br />From 5:30 am to 9:30 am, a militant and spirited protest was held in front of four gates of the Stevedore Services of America, with people chanting non-stop, “Free, Free Palestine, Don’t Cross the Picket Line,” and “An injury to one is an injury to all, bring down the apartheid wall.”</blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.iww.org/en/node/5119">link</a><br /><br /><br />And this:<br /><br /><blockquote>Residents of the Florida Keys, an island chain potentially threatened by the ongoing BP oil disaster, are taking matters into their own hands...This involves training, clearing beaches to make potential oil cleanup easier, and organizing response teams...Residents are bypassing the obstructions that authority has placed in the way, and affecting changes through their own efforts.<br /><br />...<br /><br />Direct action has also won concessions from BP. After community members showed up uninvited to a meeting involving city officials and BP residents, they were promised that BP would pay $10,000 to fund hazardous materials training for 100 people. Not a ton of money for the Fortune-ranked fourth largest company in the world, but it will probably make a difference to local preparedness.</blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://blogs.alternet.org/c4ss/2010/06/17/direct-action-is-key/">link</a>Scatshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17197480253556490197noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921832.post-52367208452191093192010-06-21T01:25:00.001-04:002010-06-21T05:11:48.816-04:00a funny<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiS1e6Xv6N5nU7F1vcN2bXnlJW8hB0BDc9wUXD9WFvrXdkx7Ba5I6T4or3TTVAlzV0rfghNKrxBF0o9JMXjOJCllsf_AJ4Lm0Yt49zJ6xJLCCGciwBPZomlEk-pFWGr-97TGmzE/s1600/public_opinion.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 349px; height: 363px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiS1e6Xv6N5nU7F1vcN2bXnlJW8hB0BDc9wUXD9WFvrXdkx7Ba5I6T4or3TTVAlzV0rfghNKrxBF0o9JMXjOJCllsf_AJ4Lm0Yt49zJ6xJLCCGciwBPZomlEk-pFWGr-97TGmzE/s400/public_opinion.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5485093977386108658" /></a><br /><br /><a href="http://xkcd.com/756/">link</a>Scatshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17197480253556490197noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921832.post-86901114641519658682010-06-07T18:13:00.002-04:002010-06-07T18:18:34.260-04:00Bullshit and deathIsrael is and will forever be protected by its bullshit rhetoric by which Israelis are converted into "Jews" and critique of the state is converted into sacrilege against the enduring memory of the victims of the Holocaust. The latest victim is Helen <a href="http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/an-end-for-helen-thomas-and-the-helen-thomas-rules/?hp">Thomas</a>, who appears to have "brought this upon herself" precisely because she idiotically bought into this rhetoric by insisting that the JEWS get out of Palestine as opposed to the Israelis. In doing so, she missed an important opportunity to draw a distinction that no one seems capable of making-- and this is the heart of the entire problem.<br /><br />This rhetoric allows murder to turn to "controversy" and bellicose actions in international waters into misunderstandings that allow for Antisemitism to flourish. It makes possible unthinkable shit-supervolcanoes such as <a href="http://trueslant.com/leorgalil/2010/06/07/the-we-con-the-world-video-a-blockade-to-peace/">this</a>. I can say no more about this fucking shit or I'm going to have a stroke.James Hussein Dixonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08591583421476993488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921832.post-2232822305492082102010-06-04T17:25:00.000-04:002010-06-04T17:26:46.754-04:00Brooks does Gladwell<blockquote>David Brooks (New York Times, 5/28/10) informs us that the idea that "government should have more control over industry" is one of the "predictably partisan and often puerile" reactions to the oil spill. The lesson that smart people derive from the spill, Brooks says, is "that humans are not great at measuring and responding to risk when placed in situations too complicated to understand."<br /><br />What follows is, as Matthew Yglesias pointed out (5/28/10), largely cribbed from a 1996 New Yorker essay by Malcolm Gladwell (1/22/96) that argued that "accidents are not easily preventable" because of various psychological pitfalls that humans are prone to--e.g., in Brooks' paraphrase, "people have trouble imagining how small failings can combine to lead to catastrophic disasters," and "people have a tendency to place elaborate faith in backup systems and safety devices."<br /><br />In other words, it's all very complicated, and what we need to do is work on "helping people deal with potentially catastrophic complexity" so we can "improve the choice architecture."</blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/05/28/the-bp-spill-is-not-as-complicated-as-david-brooks-wants-you-to-think/">link</a>Scatshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17197480253556490197noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921832.post-13000990658175783322010-06-02T06:46:00.003-04:002010-06-02T06:50:42.332-04:00I see you<a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jl64BJXcQfEi139LaAlsnU0XWS-QD9G2LOB82">link</a><br /><br /><blockquote>Federal officials are hoping film director James Cameron can help them come up with ideas on how to stop the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.</blockquote><br /><br />Yes, I'm aware that Cameron is an expert at most things underwatery, but still...has all other "expertise" been exhausted that they're turning to film directors? Or do the people in charge just see this as a cool opportunity to meet somebody famous?<br /><br />Whither America?Scatshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17197480253556490197noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921832.post-53486769343503737592010-06-01T09:31:00.002-04:002010-06-01T09:45:41.116-04:00live on, AmCopAmCop swam into an anoxic area and began to suffocate-- but that doesn't mean there aren't still some immense and virulent shit-storms out there in desperate need of address.<br /><br />Bush's chickens continue to come home to roost on Obama's watch, and while the comparisons with Katrina are sick and ridiculous, this is a major embarrassment and easily his lowest moment. But even this is a mix of act and image. What the press wants, what the public wants, is more than anything the -<a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2010m5d29-Obama-in-the-Gulf-deja-vu-oil-over-again">appearance</a>- of trying to do something-- for O to fly over the Gulf, to "face" the "reality," and thus be shown working hard to "do" something. He cleans house in the department responsible but does so so quietly that it's barely reported on, while leaving the cleanup to BP's talented publicists. After many false calls, this is the true beginning of the end.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Israel does what it can to protect O's reputation by draining attention from the Gulf with perhaps its most disgusting, shit-covered act ever-- at least since two years ago. The Gaza activists might, amidst appalling sacrifice, have achieved something great here-- they have reopened the discussion about the blockade and exposed unequivocally Israel's present <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/a-special-place-in-hell-the-second-gaza-war-israel-lost-at-sea-1.293246">fascism</a>. Israel is still holding 100 of them... what now?James Hussein Dixonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08591583421476993488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921832.post-68620054193127407272010-04-16T17:17:00.001-04:002010-04-16T17:18:13.888-04:00Antishock doctrine?How do we characterize those <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/business/17goldman.html?hp">crimes</a> that are "persecuted" long after they are obviously occurring, in the face of which we are supposed to be "shocked" but which in fact surprise absolutely no one on the planet and merely remind us of our powerless, which we were well aware of before?James Hussein Dixonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08591583421476993488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921832.post-32319966647911755862010-04-11T01:22:00.009-04:002010-04-11T02:23:15.034-04:00whee<blockquote>RICHARD DAWKINS, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain “for crimes against humanity”.<br /><br />Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author, have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.</blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7094310.ece">link</a><br /><br />Well, sure, I guess. Have at it, I suppose. <br /><br />The priorities though are pretty dubious. Hitchens, to his credit, once upon a time went after much more vicious criminals like Henry Kissinger. Apparently sitting heads of state are exempt from the injunction that Dawkins and Hitchens are trying to use here. Nevertheless, even with them excepted, if I was making up a hit list of criminals against humanity in dire need of prosecution, I'm not even sure the Pope would make my top 100.<br /><br />You would think an atheist biologist would likely take aim at the purveyors and beneficiaries of the assorted unverifiable doctrines and mythologies that are driving humanity toward a truly species-threatening outcome. Given Dawkins' epistemology, capitalist economics or the legitimacy of nation-states is no more or less rational than monotheism. Although it's kinda hard to argue that even systematic kid-diddling is a greater evil than bringing on a global ecological catastrophe. <br /><br />Hell, you don't even have to get that grandiose about it. Are the forty-five thousand people killed yearly by the US healthcare system (nevermind the wars of aggression) a lesser crime than those for which he wants to keel-haul the Pope? Why not indict some industry executives or their apologists and lackeys? Or, I dunno, Bush/Cheney for the systematic torture of adults. Why is that less of a priority than the systematic torture of children?<br /><br />But I guess an economic system that is grinding the planet into ash will let you do science basically unmolested. Whereas sexual autistics who follow dudes in funny hats will like yell at you and make you feel bad or something.<br /><br />Maybe he's fighting the good fight though. God knows, if Dawkins & Co. don't keep the bone-readers at bay, will there even be enough scientists left after the apocalypse to help us with the urgent task of terraforming Earth?Scatshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17197480253556490197noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921832.post-9466548376452740652010-04-02T11:01:00.005-04:002010-04-02T11:20:16.649-04:00Pop Jihad<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAZXEioeXd8cnQLAfX7yHo1R3TBC5_NScUW2k1caUDc2VLaozdaJAh-WYGMM5DTnhSItIDJNkrHTS2h7Hx2mwc4AHFSVVrGKQ2d19oanhW93VkX_pOqHcSPyPAUspq9aw6EttF/s1600/breathless.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 294px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAZXEioeXd8cnQLAfX7yHo1R3TBC5_NScUW2k1caUDc2VLaozdaJAh-WYGMM5DTnhSItIDJNkrHTS2h7Hx2mwc4AHFSVVrGKQ2d19oanhW93VkX_pOqHcSPyPAUspq9aw6EttF/s320/breathless.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5455559082797706594" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgO1u9CKPwthwDE3JhQjo_4mEsYRhSTqgjp-0b34TQDHdz054S07R9c3fLa2JBhLGqAjGfYTerKewO-j9zjENOGM0DR6-2RY2CiD4cKRiwCBGXOHWf_bRWqMmcBYeQwbPuTpypX/s1600/bonnie_clyde_465x402.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 277px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgO1u9CKPwthwDE3JhQjo_4mEsYRhSTqgjp-0b34TQDHdz054S07R9c3fLa2JBhLGqAjGfYTerKewO-j9zjENOGM0DR6-2RY2CiD4cKRiwCBGXOHWf_bRWqMmcBYeQwbPuTpypX/s320/bonnie_clyde_465x402.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5455556994869751154" /></a><br /><br />This morning I find myself utterly stunned by <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/world/europe/03moscow.html?hp">this</a> image of Dzhennet "Abdullayeva" Abdurakhmanov with her assassinated husband Umalat Magomedov. According to state-sponsored-- which should already give us pause-- Russian newspaper Kommersant the widow was one of the Moscow suicide bombers.<br /><br />For me this is a new image: "Jihadists"/"extremists"/"terrorists"/etc. wholly sutured to the pop-cultural image bank of Bonnie and Clyde couples-on-the-run. The first thought in my mind was: this has to be a joke. These MUST be actors. Putin has concocted this she-badguy to put a face on his latest state of exception.<br /><br />But then it occurred to me that this is the only logical conclusion of a media cycle that began with 9/11 and Osama bin Laden. This internet-era phase of Jihad has from the start been about invisible netizens forcibly inserting themselves into the streams of popular culture at the moment that all distinctions between media content are falling away. The doomed teen romance, one part Godard, one part Jay-Z's "'03 Bonnie and Clyde," merely takes us full circle. <br /> <br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6Rt1_SEBU_TbfoIGdRa4-WUyBqVp6JTpOSpYFm0Bs6O93A3KpyKDeiR05l4AZu39QXXgeE5qWcOzs27KqhzhGNnXZOxVTf2JpHu73TPRKZFWHC-DTYedQrDwaJZvUZdV-sk3h/s1600/Jay+B.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 212px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6Rt1_SEBU_TbfoIGdRa4-WUyBqVp6JTpOSpYFm0Bs6O93A3KpyKDeiR05l4AZu39QXXgeE5qWcOzs27KqhzhGNnXZOxVTf2JpHu73TPRKZFWHC-DTYedQrDwaJZvUZdV-sk3h/s320/Jay+B.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5455560196568098834" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrO8rwv5zqP8zsugk0XiVNsj1AcgRH4PewzZ9hyFM2bwulINjkGATpI_QywOAW3GfhrkfMEpQfTC7GdKx5kG2svSEuG7Rqg4avMuYnZnsbKYKYD-IL4Wnclw6aq4MOjjA61XKB/s1600/Bomber.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 278px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrO8rwv5zqP8zsugk0XiVNsj1AcgRH4PewzZ9hyFM2bwulINjkGATpI_QywOAW3GfhrkfMEpQfTC7GdKx5kG2svSEuG7Rqg4avMuYnZnsbKYKYD-IL4Wnclw6aq4MOjjA61XKB/s320/Bomber.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5455555565952570434" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRtOEz8ucdIh6T_FDMldOftuQ8GdfXxXH-KVXBBAyRJGK46UdSIkpH6cRgMLopjdt43DJ8i1QcNNx8WpiDTEXm2UCpHuW65AwJOBKhOUp6nRRv8jxTXBAoBa8gs6yu9PSLBqGO/s1600/o_badlandds.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 214px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRtOEz8ucdIh6T_FDMldOftuQ8GdfXxXH-KVXBBAyRJGK46UdSIkpH6cRgMLopjdt43DJ8i1QcNNx8WpiDTEXm2UCpHuW65AwJOBKhOUp6nRRv8jxTXBAoBa8gs6yu9PSLBqGO/s320/o_badlandds.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5455558913927288546" /></a>James Hussein Dixonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08591583421476993488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921832.post-18209789422499897862010-04-01T12:01:00.000-04:002010-04-01T12:02:44.856-04:00our source of useful ideas<blockquote>WASHINGTON—In an effort to reduce wasteful spending and eliminate non-vital federal services, the U.S. government announced plans this week to cut its long-standing senator program, a move it says will help save more than $300 billion each year.<br /><br />According to officials, the decision to cut the national legislative body was reached during a budget review meeting on Tuesday. After hours of deliberation, it was agreed that the cost of financing U.S. senators far outweighed the benefits they provided.<br /><br />...<br /><br />"Even just the space the Senate currently occupies could be put to better use," consumer advocate Michael Dodgerson said. "Were the government to open a day-care center, a homeless shelter, or even an affordable restaurant in that building, it would make more of a difference in the lives of everyday Americans than what's there now."</blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.theonion.com/articles/us-government-to-save-billions-by-cutting-wasteful,17171/">link</a>Scatshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17197480253556490197noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921832.post-9294472206959714252010-03-28T15:30:00.002-04:002010-03-28T16:00:07.913-04:00caretaking vs. transformationRick Perlstein, author of <span style="font-style:italic;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nixonland-Rise-President-Fracturing-America/dp/0743243021">Nixonland</a></span>, on the prospects for transformational politics:<br /><br /><param name="movie" value="http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/template-images/vucast/flash/player.swf" /> <param name="FlashVars" value="image=http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/files/dsXjmo/Untitled1.jpg/main.jpg&title=&path=rtmp://flash.its.vanderbilt.edu/public_affairs/perlstein_100322.flv" /> </param> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /> </param> <embed src="http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/template-images/vucast/flash/player.swf" FlashVars="image=http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/files/dsXjmo/Untitled1.jpg/main.jpg&title=&path=rtmp://flash.its.vanderbilt.edu/public_affairs/perlstein_100322.flv" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="374" play="true" loop="false"></embed><br /><br />Perlstein is a student of liberal presidencies and right-wing backlashes and makes some pretty interesting observations. In spite of the title, the talk is quite sympathetic to Obama. Hilariously, he also notes that in the 60's in addition to the Birchers, whom I knew about, was the National Indignation Society, which I didn't. I wish they'd survived, if only for their name.<br /><br />Basically Perlstein is noting some historical patterns of "transformational presidencies" and making suggestions about how Obama could conceivably have one. Unlike Reich, he doesn't see the healthcare bill as quite doing the job it needs to, mostly because it doesn't tell a clear story about liberalism vs. conservatism. <br /><br />The Q&A is also worthwhile. It is noted that the New Deal and Great Society wouldn't have been possible without social movements like the CIO and civil-rights movement respectively. Perlstein is ambivalent on whether the netroots constitutes a sufficient movement to generate real change; on the one hand dismissing the idea that we need to get in the streets in order to have a social movement, but on the other noting how netrootsia has been boxed out by the Obama admin., and then on the third hand noting how they nearly scotched the health bill thus demonstrating their power...but not their lack of it...confusing.<br /><br />As always with Obama, he concludes that it's still "up in the air" and the only thing to do is "wait and see" if BO initiates a more forceful phase II of his operation. While this is likely a proper attitude for an historian such as Perlstein, this posture is poison to social movements. If we don't get real change without movements, but can't get a movement underway because everyone is waiting to see how it turns out and hoping for the best, we're sunk.Scatshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17197480253556490197noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921832.post-85340470184455783092010-03-25T05:01:00.002-04:002010-03-25T05:32:09.466-04:00a public serviceIt took all day and all night, but I have finally done due diligence and read the entirety of the new healthcare bill. It turns out we were all wrong.<br /><br />Basically once you get past the legerdemain, what it boils down to is that starting in 2011 ten uninsured families will be eligible for free health care for life courtesy of Uncle Sam. Said families to be chosen by National Lottery so do fill out your census forms. Each subsequent year will incorporate one additional American family into the system.<br /><br />Thus passing the bill will indeed do some good which is better than no good. The bill is, therefore, good. In light of such facts, complaint and criticism have become churlish. Although it will of course take some time for the remainder of American families to reap the benefits, this is clearly and undeniably an important first step in a new and promising direction.<br /><br />Now on to immigration reform! No doubt there will be much ink spilled about mass deportations and citizenship and "systemic overhaul" and what-have-you. I submit that when the dust finally settles, if we do nothing else than deport ten less immigrant families per year, we should nevertheless count ourselves victorious.Scatshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17197480253556490197noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921832.post-85842445312752069872010-03-24T04:00:00.006-04:002010-03-24T20:56:16.353-04:00YES!!!According to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/">this</a> handy-dandy little gizmo, starting in 2014 I will save $570 per year on health insurance.<br /><br />Sweet!<br /><br />Unfortunately said gizmo does not tell me if that insurance covers much. But whatever. $570!!<br /><br />As someone who cares deeply about his own purity, starting in 2014 I'll donate $570 per year to <a href="http://www.pnhp.org/">PNHP</a> or like organization.<br /><br />Or maybe in four years I'll grow up and embrace pragmatism or seriousness or something, buy an iPad and donate $70 to the Obama campaign. <br /><br />No doubt by that time, despite rising popularity, he'll somehow manage to be in the fight of his life against Palin and Joe the Plumber's bastard spawn. Only with my unwavering attention to the news cycle and diligent conversational support against Teabaggers and Chomskyites alike will he be able to pull out another squeaker and save us all from Retard Apocalypse once again.<br /><br />Decisions, decisions. Mercifully, I've got four years to figure it out. Either way it's all win-win though. The future is bright!<br /><br />(It should be noted that in 2014 we can fully expect Obama to be gearing up for his third term made possible by some Bloombergian machination involving an arcane reading of the commerce clause. Two-terming is for losers.)Scatshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17197480253556490197noreply@blogger.com0