| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
So our endless winter has decided to dump more than a foot of snow on the area. By midweek, temperatures will rise and there will be widespread flooding. I'm surprised that the cities haven't thought of an enterprise that involves vacuuming up the snow off the streets and shipping it (melted) by rail to Los Angeles. They can have it...
Imus Not Be Getting It...
OK, so this rancid old shock jock gets canned over some racist and sexist remarks, apparently thinking he was funny by paraphrasing hiphop-style lyrics. ...And yeah, what he said was pretty stupid and offensive; I won't argue with that.
The knees of the liberal mediocrats have been jerking rather predictably. Let's string up this Bad White Boy and oh, what a shame people can't learn to be a bit more sensitive!
Reading today's newspaper columns and commentary, I did notice a repeated and glaring omission. The fact is, degrading racist and sexist comments far worse than Imus' gaffe (and have had an arguably negative impact on the Black community) have been being broadcast for years all over the airwaves courtesy artists who aren't Caucasian. Where's the outcry from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton over those remarks?
Is this really something a guy should lose his job over? (Not that he'd be destitute with what he's making, but still.) Why couldn't the offended parties taken a more fair-and-equal approach by simply exercising their own freedom of speech? They could have just called him a "dried up old dead-cat head" or something like that. (Which is kind of on the immature side, but hey, sometimes people can only learn if they get a taste of their own medicine).
Some may try to differentiate between Imus' remark and rappers by pointing out that Imus made a personal attack on a specific group of individuals, whereas rappers aren't directing their remarks at anyone in particular. On the other hand, consider how influential hiphop culture has been to an entire generation with regard to their attitudes about race and sex, and how those attitudes may have had an effect on black women as individuals. One possible silver lining in this is that it might open up debate with regard to issues like double standards and accountability. If Imus was only trying to paraphrase the kind of remarks common to the hiphop community, then why is it OK for the hiphop community to say those kinds of things in the first place?
Does it all really have to do with context?
Evangelists Behaving Badly, Part Eleventy-Three
I suppose there's not much to add here that hasn't already been said elsewhere on the blogosphere about evangelist Ted Haggard's fall from grace. (Haggard was featured here earlier in this clip from the documentary, "The Root of All Evil?" where he had a confrontation with atheist Richard Dawkins.)
Why is this a seemingly common problem among the more vocal religious leaders (and ironically, the more conservative and anti-gay ones)? My guess is a lot of them are suffering from projection. Being more attuned to their own personal demons, they subsequently project their own perspective onto the rest of the world. Or they feel as though joining the ministry or clergy will help keep their demons at bay. Their inner struggle becomes central to their lives, and they subsequently feel "the calling".
Some have expressed discomfort over the "outing" of conservatives and their sex scandals, as if the "outers" were committing the hypocrisy of shaming the opposing side for being gay, etc. ...Of course, that's not the point. The point is that the conservative figure has been shown to be a hypocrite and fraud for committing acts they had been so vocally against.
The Next Topic Du Jour?
Rising health care and prescription drug costs have become an issue of increased concern for many Americans, and are increasingly falling under scrutiny by a skeptical public. This is the subject of at least two documentaries set to be released this year.
True to his anti-corporate leanings, Michael Moore is set to release a new film entitled "Sicko", which is sure to draw attention if only due to the controversial nature of its producer.
Another documentary, newly released, is Big Bucks, Big Pharma, which "pulls back the curtain on the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry to expose the insidious ways that illness is used, manipulated, and in some instances created, for capital gain..."
another clip from the same video
It's interesting to note that in the advertising clips show in the first segment, the actors are being vexed and worried about various modern-day dilemmas such as remembering phone numbers, the many appointments they have to keep, etc.
Let's put two and two together. Could many of these "maladies" really be the result of living in a stressful, information-overloaded society that is now quite different from the way people used to live? Or, could it be that the label of "malady" is given to any failure to conform to the expectations of the modern day lifestyle, and then pushed as a reason to sell (often addicting) prescription drugs?
"Attention Deficit Disorder" is a classic example. How many children have been misdiagnosed with this "disorder" when they're really behaving the way kids naturally behave -- active, curious, and prone to get bored if the teacher doesn't know how to make the lessons more interesting?
Furthermore, the effects of a mismatched environment on the mental health of other species has been well-documented. Stress, isolation, boredom and confinement may cause zoo animals to develop neurotic behaviors. Could similar situations create similar conditions for the most intelligent species of all?
Dr. John Abramson talks about how doctors tend to overprescribe medications for their patients.
Big Pharma, Bad Science -- (The Nation article)
Big Pharma Snared By Net (Guardian UK article)
Freud Would Have A Field Day With The Muslims, Too...
"Pierre Rehov's feature examines the phenomenon of suicide bombers through interviews with their family members, along with prisoners whose bombing attempts have been thwarted. The film's revelations about the bombers' true motivations are both surprising and shocking....
Rehov was interviewed by the Counterterrorism Blog on the making of the film.
[excerpt]:
What insights did you gain from making this film? What do you know that other experts do not know?
I came to the conclusion that we are facing a neurosis at the level of an entire civilization. Most neuroses have in common a dramatic event, generally linked to an unacceptable sexual behavior. In this case, we are talking of kids living all their lives in pure frustration, with no opportunity to experience sex, love, tenderness or even understanding from the opposite sex. The separation between men and women in Islam is absolute. So is contempt toward women, who are totally dominated by men. This leads to a situation of pure anxiety, in which normal behavior is not possible. It is no coincidence that suicide killers are mostly young men dominated subconsciously by an overwhelming libido that they not only cannot satisfy but are afraid of, as if it is the work of the devil. Since Islam describes heaven as a place where everything on earth will finally be allowed, and promises 72 virgins to those frustrated kids, killing others and killing themselves to reach this redemption becomes their only solution.
The Exciting Malice Ann Coulter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In Internet parlance, a troll is generally defined as "someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion.'
Their posts are often filled with taunts, inaccuracies, fallacies of logic, etc. designed to "bait" the other posters into responding. For some, a successful troll is that which generates a melee of followup postings. For others, object of the game is not truth or honesty in discussion, but to make their opponents look foolish. Trolls often consider their efforts successful when they can elicit emotional responses from posters, outwit them in "flame wars", or otherwise make them appear as if the troll has the upper hand.
During the infancy of Internet culture, it was more common to fall for the bait of a troll. Online users are generally wiser these days. If a troll doesn't change its schtick, eventually posters become wise to the troll and stop responding to it.
Many have likened Ann Coulter to an internet troll. She certainly brings out some of the more creative pejoratives I've read, even among those who should really know better. Unlike the Internet troll however, Coulter has the advantage of not having to address direct counterattacks to anything she writes. Instead, she gets invited to appear on Jay Leno and other talk shows.
"Exciting" is the operative word here. What used to be the realm of stuffy middle-aged folks like George Will and Phyllis Schlafly has been rebranded and given a sexy makeover. Perhaps that, in the year 2006, is what is needed to get people to take notice. ...As I noted in a previous essay, many Americans are so overwhelmed by demands on their time and attention that they tend to take their information in sound bites -- the more provocative and entertaining, the better chance of being noticed.
Coulter has been playing the game using a woman's intuition: it's currently fashionable to be right wing, outrageous, a shit-stirrer in the era of South Park, gangsta rap, gory video games, FOX News, Jackass, etc. And it's, like, so totally apropos in this era of tabloid-style "news" to adopt the tone of a know-it-all gossip columnist who knows how to use humor as a weapon. Her style "reads" like a snarky sorority girl at a loud cocktail party with the "like, I am SO SURRRE's" edited out.
Being outrageous is still IN. Looking like Barbie (the novelty factor) while being right-wing and outrageous is a double-plus IN. Being Controversial never hurt sales, either, whether you're right or wrong. People will want to know what all the fuss is about.
Her style is seemingly calculated to draw out the longest trolled-reaction possible, which will only garner Coulter more attention. Like an Escherean paradox, many of Coulter's statements seem calculated to pile irony on top of irony, virtually guaranteeing she'll get responses. Consider:
- An unmarried woman wearing a low-cut cocktail dress on the cover of a book entitled, "Godless".
- A woman who makes misogynistic statements, which results in her liberal critics, who supposedly are above that sort of thing, resorting to misogynistic invectives.
- Critics who complain that Coulter relies too much on ad hominem and other logical fallacies while lapsing into ad hominems and other logical fallacies themselves.
- Being guilty of what she accuses others of doing (while claiming the others are "hypocrites"). Examples:
- Accusing the 9/11 widows of "profiting off tragedy", while her post 9/11 books have become bestsellers.
- Accusing the "liberals" of using "sacred cows" to hide behind, while utilizing one of the oldest right-wing "sacred cow" tricks in the book: "God". What politico dares to step forward and challenge the idea of "God"?
- Calling for the death of American public figures whose political views she doesn't agree with, while accusing "liberals" of "treason".
- Accusing "evolutionists" of "concocting stories", then immediately concocting stories about what "they say".
Critics who attack her hyperbolic style miss the point. Coulter is a cartoonist who uses words instead of pictures. Just as an editorial cartoonist might depict the Far Right as a group of ignorant bumpkins with pitchforks, statements such as: "[all] liberals are guilty of X" -- while more than likely false if taken at face value -- will get people to thinking if there's a grain of truth behind the hyperbole.
Unfortunately, for both fans and foes alike, words have a tendency to be taken more seriously than cartoons. Cartoonists "say" outrageous things all the time in their work, yet few if any become media personalities. The comments on the 9/11 widows notwithstanding, a more important controversy surrounding her latest book has been her attack on evolution -- unsurprising, given the recent news surrounding the "Intelligent Design" controversy. In her chapters addressing that subject, Coulter -- neither a scientist nor all that interested in the sciences (apart from their relevance to political issues) -- decided to crib her arguments fro -- I mean -- consult with "Intelligent Design" proponent William Dembski.
What we're served up with is a snide rehashing of old arguments that have been debunked within the more esoteric circle of the creationism/evolution debate. Her arguments are currently being assailed by evolutionary biologists on both left and < a href="http://www.caidweb.org/blog/">right sides of the political spectrum:
Of course, "liberals" and the theory of evolution are not mutually inclusive. Belief in a higher power and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive. There are conservative believers of evolution, conservative atheists, church-going, God-fearing liberals, and there are those who believe in God as well as evolution. ...No matter to a polemicist whose aim is to divide. In a two-party system, it's easy to fall into the trap of the false dichotomy.
Even if Coulter knows it's all B.S., so what?* She's found a profitable niche for the persona she has created. She most certainly knows that what sticks in the mind of John Q. Sixpack isn't going to be boring facts and figures that require a university degree in a specialty field to understand.
What's going to make John Q. Sixpack contribute to Coulter's bank account is the entertainment value of her commentary coupled with some very simple, but tried-and-true, emotion-based themes:
The Other Side is Wrong, Dangerous, and To Be Feared
The Other Side is Bad For Your Children
It's Fun To Annoy and Discredit The Other Side
Those who "get the joke" have suggested that Coulter should simply be ignored. I disagree. Successful mediocrats like her are well-versed on how to use the tools of manipulating mass opinion with inflammatory rhetoric. Coulter's career as an attorney primed her ability to use provocative language in order to draw out a desired response. Therefore, her arguments and rhetoric should be viewed by opponents as a challenge to hone and master their own skills at verbal fencing. Opponents should learn to bolster their own arguments and credibility, while learning how to stay cool and argue with the upper hand.
Like the troll who enters the forum and is met with the challenge to prove the claims they make, opponents should learn how to counter and deflect the tricks of the pundits. ...And if they can't, then perhaps they should reconsider their positions.
In other words, don't focus on Coulter the person. Perhaps we shouldn't even be focusing on the arguments she makes per se. Instead, learn more about the art of propaganda and media techniques. For example, Coulter dishes out truckloads of negativity. Should we really be fighting negativity with more negativity? Is Coulter attempting to draw out more negativity from opponents to make her critics sound tiresome as well? Is there any truth to certain statements she makes? ...and if so, learn to keep oneself in check.
For what it's worth, I have no problem with the criticism of "liberals". Left unchecked, there's a tendency for either side of the political spectrum to fall into kneejerk patterns of thinking; of laziness, excess and corruption with too much power. She says what others are often afraid to say in public, but aren't afraid to say in private. Taunting political sides in order to draw out that side's hypocrisies has merit. It's the deliberate pandering of misinformation that she should be called on.
What the USA needs right now is its own version of Anne Robinson -- a cool, no-nonsense personality who's entertaining, isn't afraid to be an intellectual and whose only interest is to cut the B.S. What the science and education community needs is a spokesperson to fill the void that Carl Sagan left behind -- a charismatic and respectable personality who isn't connected to punditry, making it less easy to be dismissed by critics.
With the country entangled in a quagmire war, Bush's approval rating at an all-time low, gasoline prices at an all-time high (not that it has anything to do with Bush, but what are little details like that to John Q. Sixpack?) right-wingers are predictably returning to emotional issues like gay marriage and religion in order to cloak themselves in an air of moral righteousness. Predicability precludes boredom and the eventual seeking of fresh ideas. Will the American public eventually tire of the long procession of negativity and scapegoating tactics and look for a new voice who actually offers something more positive and constructive to say?
Perhaps she should simply be allowed to run her course until her formulaic refrain wears out its welcome -- just like any other fashion trend. Coulter's side is falling out of favor. Eventually, the old formulas -- which sounded fresh and acerbic ten years ago -- will become predictable and tiresome, just as folk music and protest marches -- ideas that were fresh and outrageous 40 years ago -- have become trite and cliche for the Left. Will the strident bully taunts of the Right eventually grow stale as well?
Let's see how long she lasts in the spotlight this time...
Further Reading:
ScienceBlogs Entries on Coulter
Right Wing Professor's Blog (review of "Godless")
Ann Coulter's Flatulent Raccoon Theory
*Note Coulter's body language in the Jeremy Paxman clip. Her eyes wander all over the place like she's attempting to memorize lines -- not someone who is genuinely passionate about the subject they're talking about.
Ann Telnaes cartoon for 12/06/05...
Fighting The Mediocracy With Media
Also making the rounds is the issue regarding a porn site (nowthatsfuckedup.com) which had been allowing American troops free access to his site in exchange for gory war pictures.
Selected articles and commentary:
Orlando Weekly: "The Most Depraved Site On The Internet"
This blog provides an overview while mercifully blocking out the gory details in the photos. (Viewers can click to see the uncensored versions).
"Some have questioned why we published the photos" (site forum)
Irregular Times [Warning: contains uncensored pictures] The photograph of this corpse is labelled, "What every Iraqi should look like". So much for the pretense that America is liberating Iraq. This soldier ... has identified his enemy quite clearly: He's not there to liberate the Iraqis. He's there to kill them. He wants them all dead.
Well, it seems that the authorities didn't care too much for this exercise of free speech, which led to the arrest of the webmaster on 300 counts of obscenity in Polk County, Florida. Christopher Wilson, the webmaster, was held on $101,000 bond (later freed on bail). A website, FreeChris.org has been set up in his defense.
U.S. Used White Phosphorus In Fallujah
...Not exactly new news, since it had been rumored of their use since the event of the attack. But officials are only now beginning to admit it was for more than just "illumination":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm
[Excerpts:]
"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.
The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination.
[...]
White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If the substance hits someone's body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen.
Globalsecurity.org, a defence website, says: "Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful... These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears... it could burn right down to the bone."
A spokesman at the UK Ministry of Defence said the use of white phosphorus was permitted in battle in cases where there were no civilians near the target area.
But Professor Paul Rogers, of the University of Bradford's department of peace studies, said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians.
...Now, the "official word" is that the weapons were only used against "enemy combatants". But this Italian documentary suggests otherwise; that the weapons were used indiscriminately, resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians. Warning: graphic and disturbing imagery
According to the account given by the American soldiers in the documentary, phosphorus particles can burn through skin -- and continue burning -- in effect, being capable of cooking a person from the inside out. (According to a hazardous materials description, it "...reacts with moisture on body tissue surfaces to form phosphoric acid, which approximates sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acids in corrosive intensity.") For a more graphic and detailed look at some of the photos shown in the video, which supposedly represent the effects upon the human body, click here (WARNING: very graphic). But only if you're really, really curious; otherwise, I wouldn't recommend anyone look at these photos (at least without having a sturdy paper bag handy).
OTOH, war being what it is, there's the possibility that these photos are "disinformation" in that they don't really represent what they claim to be; and, according to some skeptics, they are merely bodies in that have been exposed to the elements for a prolonged period of time. I suppose one would have to be a forensic expert to be able to tell the difference.
Hazardous Materials Description of Phosphorus Pentoxide
A rebuttal to the Italian documentary, with commentary
The Characters Are Writing Themselves...
Imagine being the novelist who, once having established an underlying theme, sees the story neatly coming together while the characters "write themselves". ...Literally.
This quote comes courtesy Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa (thanks to James Howard Kunstler's blog):
"...Americans are used to going to the gas tank (sic), and when they put that hose in their, uh, tank, and when I do it, I wanna get gas out of it. And when I turn the light switch on, I want the lights to go on, and I don't want somebody to tell me I gotta change my way of living to satisfy them. Because this is America, and this is something we've worked our way into, and the American people are entitled to it, and if we're going improve (sic) our standard of living, you have to consume more energy." 
I want the world
I want the whole world
I want to lock it all up in my pocket
It's my bar of chocolate
Give it to me
Now!
