"ATHENS, Greece - The remake of the 1974 cult horror movie "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" opened Friday in Greece with an introduction demanded by psychiatrists: Schizophrenics aren't always violent. The distributor took the action after Greek psychiatrists demanded that the Greek title be changed because it insulted schizophrenics and stigmatized people with psychological disorders. "
The Greek release is titled "The Schizophrenic Murderer with the Chainsaw." My other personalities are deeply offended and may seek legal action.
“STOCKHOLM (AFP) - Contrary to recent US claims that its war on Iraq forced Libya to give up its nuclear weapons program, former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said that diplomacy should be given most of the credit.”
I can tell you how the ‘diplomacy’ worked. Bush and Blair convinced Gadhafi that he would need to find his own Hussein style hidey-hole if he didn’t do something differently.
“CHICAGO (AP) - In the midst of the low-carb craze, a new study suggests that by eating lots of carbohydrates and little fat, it is possible to lose weight without actually cutting calories — and without exercising, either.”
Hello? Is anybody home? There are two types of diets. Low carb, hi protein or hi protein, low carb. Every diet ever has recycled these two concepts. They work identically by reducing your caloric intake. If you want to lose weight eat less exercise more.
“SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 29 — With a budget deficit of about $14 billion, California could use a major infusion of positive energy. So it may be appropriate timing that in this most Asian of mainland American regions, State Assemblyman Leland Y. Yee, Democrat of San Francisco, has introduced a resolution that urges the California Building Standards Commission to adopt standards that would aid feng shui, the ancient Chinese practice of promoting health, harmony and prosperity through the environment.”
I swear it’s not a joke. We’re $14 billion in the hole. Who in their right mind could possibly imagine that redecorating government buildings will help solve the problem?
“Reuters: Polymer-based, counterfeit proof banknotes that were also introduced last month were hit by rumors that the bills would be withdrawn because they had no year of issue printed on them. . . The central bank has been forced to issue stern admonitions. "Any individual who refuses to circulate the bank notes issued by the State Bank of Vietnam will be named as a lawbreaker and will face tough punishments," deputy governor Nguyen Thi Kim Phung said last month.”
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
Oops, too far. Actually, I think the Industrial Revolution is a more convenient place to start. More specifically, the Industrial Revolution in the United States. Eli Whitney is a prime example of American creativity with his inventions of interchangeable parts and the cotton gin. During this time, the tone and pace of American industrialization and productivity were set and have continued unabated (excepting the occasional setback) right down to this very day. Henry Ford certainly deserves a mention as a modern example at this point for the assembly line which is practically unchanged and one of the very foundations of modern production methods.
The U.S. was uniquely positioned to take the fullest advantage of the Revolution and adopted it with an enthusiasm that has remained a hallmark of the American people ever since. We had the Christian ethic which translated conveniently and powerfully into the American work ethic, we had (and still have) a vast resource base, and a labor shortage that made the adoption of technology a necessity.
The flavor of American productivity had been set. If we fast forward to around the turn of the 20th Century, the point can be illustrated even more vividly. By that time, the world had seen an explosion in science and the result was a gadgeteers wet-dream. Thomas Edison sort of represents the epitome of this particular phenomenon. People have argued that his greatest invention was the telephone or the lightbulb or the phonograph, but I think his real contribution was the invention of the invention factory. It has become an integral part of many companies like IBM, Xerox, GE, Dow Chemical, and the very structure of others most aptly illustrated by the biotech industry. Companies like Genentech, Celera Genomics, and Curis are in the business of inventing or developing medical treatments by trial and error.
Anyhow, as we carry on through the 20th Century we see how Americans have adopted and pursued technologies with almost feverish enthusiasm and have created entire industries based on such technology. Multi-billion dollar industries have come from American application of the internal combustion engine, powered flight, motion pictures, television, radio transmission, telephone communication, transistors, and the internet.
In the current climate of exported jobs, failed health care initiatives, and a creaking educational system, people are asking what's there? Why should we go? I think a more telling question might be what will find on our way there? Our efforts to explore and conquer the space surrounding our little chunk of dirt will unquestionably lead to new technology and new industry and of all the people in the world, I think it is the Americans who will ultimately prove capable of capitalizing this new frontier. Bush's challenge to NASA is not simply for the sake of going to the Moon or to Mars, it is to demonstrate that there are real tangible benefits to such exploration. It is to foster corporate research and investment into new technologies and new industries for the long-term benefit of America.
It might not do a lot of the short term health of America. Everybody immediately says yeah, that sounds great but what about the problems today? Well, my response to that is we can pour a bazillion dollars into welfare and unemployment, but it won't improve the problem. My experience working for social services has taught me that our current welfare system creates a vicious circle of dependence and often doesn't do anybody any real favors. Money spent on a long-term vision is immeasurably preferable to an 'instant gratification' solution even if it isn't so sympathetic.
The primary in New Hampshire is winding down. I think Kerry will take it. It's certainly shaping up to be an interesting election. We're still early in the race and I think it would be premature to make any predictions beyond what's going on in New Hampshire right now. But the campaigning is fascinating. So, I'm going to take a few minutes to make some observations and maybe speculate (just a little).
The Democrats are not really inspiring confidence in their party at this point. The in-fighting and back-biting is pretty intense and I think it will affect the overall success of their bid for the White House. Another thing that seems to be happening is that the foundation of their campaign is to beat George Bush (the one thing they agree on). It sounds good to the left wingers. California will certainly eat it up. But I don't think it will help them much in middle of the road states. They come across as saying "I'm not great but I'm better than Bush." This is really the same logic that was used before the war "No matter how bad Saddam Hussein is, President Bush is worse." It didn't work very well then either. I think the Democrats are playing not to lose instead of playing to win. There's a huge difference.
Gay marriage has been something of a hot-button topic of late. I think it’s more of an attention getter than an actual issue of any import. The debate is fascinating but even though I’m a gay man, this particular issue parallels my opinion of God’s existence.
[i]God says so.[/i]
I could be generously described as an agnostic. I don’t know whether God exists. The evidence at hand makes me suspect He doesn’t. While the history of religion and its influence on history, politics, and culture is fascinating, I don’t really believe that the actual question of God’s (or Gods’) existence(s) is terribly relevant.
[i]Marriage is an institution dedicated to successful procreation.[/i]
Fair enough. People get married for the sake of raising children. Does that mean sterile couples should not be allowed to marry? What about post-menopausal women? I suppose it could even be argued that based on this position marriages should be [i]dissolved [/i]after menopause but I think a minimum of 18 years of hell is worth something. The defense is that sterile men and women slip through the cracks because it’s not feasible to determine whether they actually are sterile. Post-menopausal women may have already had children but gotten divorced or widowed and could be entitled to marriage because they have successfully procreated. But if marriage is dedicated to successful procreation why is it not made requisite that marriage applicants provide proof of their ability and intent to procreate? This argument blatantly grasps at straws in an attempt to arbitrarily exclude homosexuals from marriage (and it makes me think of that woman on South Park who always screams “What about the children? Think of the children!”)
[i]Gay marriage will undermine the sanctity of marriage. [/i]
This is dangerously close to a religious argument, but in its secular form the idea is that gays are making a mockery of marriage by pretend-marrying. Taken a step further this argument also suggests that heterosexuals will then start believing that marriage itself is somewhat farcical. For pretend-marriage one only need look as far as Las Vegas (think Brittney Spears). Furthermore, I’ve read that internet divorces are pending in some states. If marriage is sanctified how appropriate is a point and click divorce? The second point would insult me if I were straight and married and my example is best formed as a question. Do you honestly believe that someone else’s homosexual marriage will make your heterosexual marriage less meaningful? I pity those of you who answer yes.
The previous arguments are sort of the foundation of the anti gay marriage faction. The first is somewhat persuasive (“Won’t somebody please think of the children?!”). But it is lacking, especially in light of the adoption situation. I actually can argue the reverse. If marriage is in the best interests of children, gay marriage should be encouraged because it will increase the pool of families willing to adopt. I know from experience working for CPS that there are more children than there are adoptive parents and that is a very sad situation.
[i]Gay marriage will provide an example for heterosexuals.[/i]
An optimistic argument if not wildly inaccurate (and potentially hypocritical). And also insultingly self-serving to my mind. In theory, straight couples will be inspired by gays who, having no ulterior incentive, remain together in loving devoted monogamous relationships. First, I think gays have a lot of proving to do in this respect. The record is not encouraging. Second, most straight couples will probably be slightly negative of neutral on gay marriage. They will be vaguely uncomfortable with the general idea but probably will be willing to live and let live. In fact they probably would simply prefer not to know (Too much information! Must go blind!). The idea that they will care so much about the opinion of homosexual couples is flat out ludicrous. This argument is diametric to the sanctity of marriage. While both effectively fan the flames neither has any substance.
[i]We’re people too. We deserve the same rights as everybody else.[/i]
I think this is the most swaying argument. America’s foundation is the belief that people should be allowed to live as they see fit provided it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others. Some may find homosexuality distasteful but it doesn’t contravene anybody’s rights. We see here a perfect opportunity to agree to disagree (an American art form). It makes me think of a scene from X-2 where Nightcrawler asks Mystique why she doesn’t stay in disguise all the time. She responds, “Because we shouldn’t have to.” I agree. The thing is while gays may not be expressly permitted to marry we are still capable of pursuing the same legal benefits. It doesn’t matter to estate lawyers or insurers who is chosen as beneficiary. Many agencies approve homosexual adoptions. The latest trend suggests that many companies don’t necessarily mind extending benefits to same-sex partners. Again, this argument sounds good, but upon examination it makes me think that what gay marriage proponents are fighting for is a slip of paper with somebody else’s signature on it.
I believe marriage is a mutual, inter-personal agreement between two people based on love, trust, and honesty. No amount of priestly blessings or judicial gavel-pounding can make that agreement more or less binding than the convictions of the people entering the agreement. What this means is that I am neutral on the issue of gay marriage. I don’t need anybody to approve my commitment to the person I love. Besides, it might just be me, but don’t gay rights activists sound like a bunch of whiners?
I do, however, think there is a deeper, more subtle issue at hand. Does the federal government have the authority to determine this issue for the entire union? I don’t believe that it does. The individual states have the authority to determine the application of their own respective civil union laws and common property laws and I don’t believe that it is within the right of the federal government to make this decision.
The spectre of a Constitutional Amendment has been raised by President Bush. I think it unlikely that Americans can be persuaded to add an amendment to the Constitution for the sake of defining marriage. Americans learned their lesson with Prohibition and there is almost no possibility whatsoever that the necessary votes could be collected for a Constitutional Convention on such a frivolous issue.
One last thought I have on the matter is that American society is powerfully self-correcting. It may take years or decades but the social institutions in America will continue to drift in a liberal direction. We are in the midst of the greatest social and political experiment ever and one that has never at any point been taken lightly. Our forefathers put in place a framework which permits (and encourages) change but one that prevents radical and potentially destabilizing change. For a significant time, America was considered the most liberal of nations. Europeans assumed that liberalism was one of the secrets to our success and leapfrogged forward dramatically, making America one of the “Last great conservative nations in the world.” I saw a recent magazine article (I’m afraid I don’t remember the publication) that compared the nations of the world in terms of liberalism. Most of Europe was considered extremely liberal, value-driven and ‘progressive’ while the United States was described as conservative and belief-driven (their little chart actually compared us more closely to the Islamic world than the European world). I was thoroughly pissed after reading the article. The gist of it was that America is somehow deficient and backward. It was cleverly written, but standard left-wing rhetoric nonetheless. Apparently, our nation is fundamentalist in its own right and compares unfavorably with the enlightened nations of Europe. They all seem to miss the point. America is an experiment, carefully controlled through its own corrective properties. We are slow to change, not because we can’t but because we try to be as certain as possible that the change is in our best interests. That is why I am not passionate about the issue of gay marriage. Eventually it will become a non-issue. Gay marriage will then be permitted out of apathy if for no other nobler reason.
I hadn't intended to post today, but I came across an article that made my head want to explode.
[i]"The Bush administration has alternately fought with, derided and sidelined the United Nations (news - web sites) for more than a year as it pursued the war in Iraq (news - web sites), then reserved postwar authority mostly for itself. But now American officials are asking the United Nations for assistance in getting out of a dangerous political stalemate in the still embattled country. "[/i]
So, it seems we've seen the error of our ways and gone crawling back to the wise and powerful UN.
Or not. The United States is not interested in creating a 51st state in the Middle East. We do not expect the Iraqis to arbitrarily adopt our exact form of government. In fact, we have encouraged discussion and consideration from the people in Iraq. The United States is not asking for help from the United Nations because we are incapable of arriving at a solution to the impasse. We are asking for help from the United Nations because Iraq is asking for that help.
The United States's philosophy in Iraq is not to control that country. Nor do we see it as our job to instruct them on the shape their government should take. The United States military is in Iraq and will stay their to guarantee that the people of Iraq are allowed to choose their own style of government.
We will not allow despots or fundamentalists to seize power. We will not allow civil war or rebellion. We will not allow a return to tyranny in any form. But we will allow the Iraqis to seek out the assistance and information they feel they need to build the kind of place they wish to live in. Even if that means sending an invitation to the United Nations for their help.
These smug bastards who are laughing in their sleeves because we've gotten our "comeuppance" are setting themselves up for a rude awakening. What they don't seem to recognize is that the American military is the rule of law in Iraq until the Iraqis find their own rule of law. While the United Nations will be allowed to advise and observe and suggest they will not be allowed to decide, determine or administrate. That power will be jealously guarded for the citizens of Iraq by the strength of the United States.
[i]"I see no reason why Iran should backtrack on its pledges," ElBaradei said, adding that U.N. inspectors were working in Iran this week. "Obviously it would have serious implications if they do not cooperate fully with us ... I hope and I am confident they will continue to cooperate."[/i] Are these the same serious implications the UN leveled against Iraq for its lack of cooperation? Please.
[i]The Oklahoma Attorney General's Office, out of courtesy to the world court, asked a state Appeals Court to delay the execution of Osbaldo Torres, a Mexican citizen.[/i] You know. . . As a traveler I am aware that during my stay in a foreign country I am subject to the laws of that nation. I am reminded of the case of that young American man who was caned in Singapore for vandalizing some cars. Torres was convicted and sentenced in accordance with American law. Tend your own knitting, world court.
[i]U.S. forestry officials announced on Thursday that they would significantly expand the amount of logging allowed in California's Sierra Nevada mountains in what they described as an effort to curb wildfires. . . "I personally witnessed the human suffering and catastrophic damage caused by those fires," Forest Service Regional Forester Jack Blackwell said. "I am personally convinced that future droughts in the Sierra Nevada, coupled with periods of wind and high temperatures, could lead to the same devastation there," he said in a statement. "It is my professional responsibility to take decisive action."[/i] All I can say is . . . Thank you! And I would like to plug a great website at this point: [url=www.pushback.com]www.pushback.com[/url]
[i]Bob Keeshan, who gently entertained and educated generations of children as television's walrus-mustachioed Captain Kangaroo, died Friday at 76.[/i] The world is a little lonelier today. We miss you already Captain Kangaroo.
Lisbon, 2000 the European Union challenged itself to oust the U.S. as the world's most competitive economy. Today results are "mixed" (read failing miserably).
France and Germany are not even meeting the requirements for participation in the EU with deficits in excess of 3 percent of their GDP (and getting a free ride on the back of the Euro currency). Unemployment is above 8 percent. Productivity grew at a rate of less than 1 percent. Meanwhile, conservative fiscal policies aimed at protecting local European economies have inflated the value of the Euro (as compared with aggressive Fed policies and their effect on the value of the dollar).
What does all this mean? It means the EU is cutting off its nose to spite its face. Businesses are afraid to invest in Europe because of entitlements (also read taxes) and the risks involved with bankruptcy in Europe during poor economic situations. People don't care if they work because of entitlements (this time read welfare) and because they don't get much of a paycheck after taxes are taken to pay for others' entitlements. Their attempts to insulate Europe from American economic influence means that the price of European exports can't compete with American products, tourists don't feel they can afford to visit Europe, and foreign companies don't want to invest in that climate. It's a vicious circle really.
They have attempted to model a federal economy in Europe after the American example. However, they've missed a few crucial points (or perhaps ignored them for various reasons). First, Europeans have never found the idea of a free-enterprise market economy a very comfortable thing to contemplate. The socialist unions have the reins of power firmly in hand and refuse to permit businesses the freedom to pursue financially competitive strategies. Second, the EU thinks it is in competition with the U.S. That alone places them at a disadvantage as compared to America. The EU is not only attempting to become more competitive than the U.S. it is attempting to undermine us. Their economic policies are intended to harm us as much as they are intended to help the EU. While we are not in competition with Europe we aren't above taking advantage of them (Frontier Law "Them what's first, gits.") and everybody has to admit that Americans are nothing if not good at exploiting economic opportunity. Approve or not, people all over the world love American labels and America is well aware of this fact.
Why do you think that the Fed has maintained interest rates at such historically low levels? Why is the greenback being allowed to devalue? Why are American productivity and exports exploding while the EU is creaking ahead with glacial momentum?
Because we have seen the shape of EU economics and in the spirit of laissez-faire we have seized the opportunity. By maintaining low interest rates we encourage investment and expansion from American investors and by initiating a controlled devaluation of American currency we practically create a market for our exports. In short the EU has inadvertently (and I have to say somewhat stupidly) handed us a golden egg on a silver platter.
It's been a while since I've had time to update my blog. I started my holiday travelling in November so I haven't had a lot of time or opportunity for updating.
In any case, I think that the coming of the new year presents an opportunity to look back and maybe learn a little bit about where we might be headed.
Globalization has been a big topic in the news recently. Specifically, jobs are being exported at breakneck speeds. Software engineers and customer service representatives and manufacturers are losing jobs in America. Apparently it's all for globalization. Well, I'm not a citizen of "Globali." I want Americans to have jobs and make money and lead the lives they want to lead. Citizens of Globali need to figure out their own means of living. It is not America's duty to employ the rest of the world. I fear it's too late to think that it can be undone.
Some think my attitude is selfish, greedy, lacking compassion. Sorry folks, but why am I obligated to feel more badly for the rest of the world than I do for my own fellow countrymen? I'm not heartless or completely without compassion. America should help the rest of the world when help is needed. We have done so for more than half a century.
We have propped up failing economies with American money. We have rushed to the aid of flood and earthquake and fire disasters in every corner of the world. We have built and rebuilt collapsing infrastructures in Europe, Africa, Asia and South America. We have given billions in aid and billions more in loan forgiveness. Perhaps even more tellingly, American citizens have given their own personal time and money to aid citizens of other countries. Volunteers have raced to help the victims of disaster simply out of the goodness of their own hearts.
Who has responded in kind? We are not immune to trouble or disaster. When tornadoes flatten half the mid-west and earthquakes raze towns and cities on the west coast and the Mississippi River floods and hurricanes crash into the east coast and wildfires burn hundreds of thousands of acres what do we get? We get a moue of sympathy.
The record does not make me angry or bitter. It makes me a bit sad and dis-spirited. I'm proud to think that Americans remember where they've come from. I'm proud that the people of this country know that the world is a small place and that it is right that we should offer help to our fellow humans in times of need.
Given the record as it stands now, I wouldn't blame America if we pulled our aid efforts from the world theater and lined our borders with the National Guard and sent a sympathy card when 50,000 people die in an Iranian earthquake instead of sending money and engineers and medicine and volunteers. It would be as much as we've been offered.
But, in looking at the past I think Americans have learned that two wrongs don't make a right. I think that, as a people, Americans possess unequaled creativity and ingenuity and nearly bottomless generosity.
In looking to the future, I suspect we will continue down the one-way street towards Globali. Money and food and medicine and technology and creativity and even jobs will flow from America for the sake of the huddled masses who have not or can not come to our golden shores. We will bear the envy and bitterness and back-biting of the citizens of Globali. And in the meantime America's kindness, cleverness, and ingenuity will guarantee that hard times will always be followed by good.
