My good friend Andre sent me another tidbit from Barbados. It's interesting just because it's Caribbean.
Apparently Barbados is the bully of the Caribbean (like the US is the bully of the rest of the world). Barbados has the strongest economy in the region and supports a big part of Trinidad and Tobago's economy. Nevermind that Trinidad and Tobago is many times larger than Barbados and wallows in mineral resources.
Anyhow, in return for Barbadian economic good will, Trinidad seizes their fishing ships that wander into Trinidad's economic zone. The Barbadian prime minister got a little tired of this and threatened to cut all ties with Trinidad. Trinidad of course threatened to take action if Barbados made efforts to damage Trinidad's economy.
It's an interesting pickle. Barbados could sue in the UN Court. Of course Trinidad has a right to defend their exclusive maritime zone so I suspect Barbados would lose in court. I also discovered that Barbados has an armed forces. Amazing, no?
Anyhow, it reminds me of other goings on in the world. Why do people bite the hands that feed them?
I was going to write about something entirely different today. I'm not going to let the secret out yet. But, my brain is kind of scrambled so I thought I would just throw out some quick thoughts on a few news items I found interesting.
[i]"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - South Korean scientists described on Thursday how they cloned several human embryos and extracted valuable stem cells from one, and said their achievement showed an immediate need for a global ban on cloning to make babies."[/i] This whole thing is ridiculous. If lives can be made better through cloning technology you can count me in. Please explain to me why you would rather die than "play God." I would dance naked in the snow and sacrifice chickens if there were proven medical benefits.
[i]"SAN FRANCISCO - Accusing the mayor of trampling the law, conservative groups went to court Friday to challenge the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses in San Francisco, as hundreds more gay couples rushed to tie the knot before the opportunity slipped away."[/i] I hate to say it, but I agree with the conservative groups on this. Gavin Newsom's actions do not conform with due process. It wasn't within his right to arbitrarily grant same sex marriages when California law already makes it illegal. If he wanted to change things he should have taken the fight to the state supreme court or the legislature.
[i]"A U.N. official sided with the United States in its dispute with Iraq's powerful Shiite Muslim clergy over elections, saying Friday it would be hard to organize a vote before the June 30 deadline to hand power to the Iraqis."[/i] So there. How can people be so blind? There is not sufficient infrastructure to hold reasonable polls. A direct vote at this time would be a joke. Now we'll see if Ayatollah Sistani keeps his word.
Bitterness. Sadness. Hope. Enthusiasm. I found it all today when I browsed Iraqi blogs. It left me with a tangle of impressions and feelings to sort out. It gave me a moment of pause to consider where I stand on the war. I reached an encouraging conclusion.
Iraq's history extends beyond the duration of record. One of the earliest systems of writing was invented in Iraq by the Sumerians. The oldest written story comes from Iraq (The Epic of Gilgamesh) The Code of Hammurabi (the first known written legal code) came from Iraq. Mesopotamian folk tales even found their way into the Bible. It is a land overflowing with history and tradition and pride.
In modern times, when the people of Iraq can see how others in the world enjoy self-determination it stings that they can not pursue the same ideal especially given the depth of their pride and the power of their history. Since the end of the Abassid Caliphate Iraqis haven't experienced even a brief chance to pursue their own ends. Turks, Mongols, Iranians and Brits took their turn owning Iraq. Two world wars and an extended cold war saw Iraq used as a pawn. But, Iraq survived and the people are still their awaiting their chance.
An unspoken sentiment sadened my own heart as I browsed Iraqi blogs was a question without answer. "Why?" I think this question is at the root of bitterness I find in their blogs. Why are we so poor when we could be so rich? Why did we have to live with Saddam? Why did the U.S. help him? Why did they not kill him in the first Gulf War? Why did the UN not help us, the people of Iraq?
As a pragmatist I can only say that hindsight is 20/20. It happened to Iraq because that is the course history took. Now is when we decide to change that course. War against Saddam was the first step down the new path. Correcting what has already been done is seldom easy though. People were hurt some were killed. Some still live in uncertainty wondering if they will have electricity or water, if they really dare to speak their mind, if they won't shortly be living in fear and silence again.
Many of them reflect on the past and the now with sadness. These are living people undeserving of the ugliness they have witnessed.
There is an emerging enthusiasm. I believe the human spirit is irrepressible. It can be bridled or cloaked but given a chance it will flare to life. They write with caution but their desires are unmistakable. They see the opportunity laid before them and their imagination has been sparked. They still live with the results of recent history, see it in their daily lives. But more importantly they continue with their daily lives because they can see a brighter day ahead.
The blogs themselves are evidence of the cautious hope Iraqis share. For the first time in decades Iraqis are discussing their hopes and fears and desires. They are agreeing and they are disagreeing. They talk about a flood of news and opinion with faint wonder and suppresed excitement. You can almost hear them whispering when they write about the music they hear on AFN Iraq, but they listen and then they talk. They dance around the Kurd/Shia/Sunni tangle, but they suspect or hope it can be resolved and even offer opinions on what the solution should be.
I was troubled by the thread of suspicion that tied all of these blogs together. It's not unwarranted. The U.S. gave Iraq to Saddam. When he emerged into the world at large we drove him back into Iraq and allowed him to do as he pleased therein. When we should have ended the depravity of his reign, the U.S. and the UN thought it better to cut him off from the outside world and pretend it wasn't happening.
The U.S. took war to Iraq for political reasons. But there were ideological reasons that weighed in the decision. One of the unwritten frontier laws that shaped America was taking responsibility. I've heard liberals howl about how we put Saddam in place suggesting it's hypocracy to remove him. That's an argument that makes me sick. He needed to go. We did put him in place. When the chips were down it became our responsibility to remove him. We did that too.
Iraqis are glad to see Saddam gone. They don't long for those days. But many of them won't be sorry to see America leave. They want to determine their own lives and their own rules. They would like to see America gone in months or years but we will likely be there for decades. Iraqis are realizing that and it is another source of suspicion. They fear we will stay and pull strings and turn their nation into our own personal Arabic playground.
I think that is categorically unfounded. We could have done so in Germany or Japan but it happened in neither. We will be there for decades guaranteeing that the seeds of democracy take root. We will protect them from terrorists and civil war with the lives of our own men and women. And when we do leave Iraqis will know democracy, they will have their own lives and their own rules and they will be allowed to live as they see fit.
Again, hindsight is 20/20. America made decisions with undesirable consequences in the past. We will do so in the future. That is the nature of the human condition. What is special about Americans is that we make an effort to correct our mistakes. I believe leaving now would be a monumental mistake. Three factions are jockeying for political influence. The infrastructure is so fragmented that for 10 months utilities have been free simply because there is no mechanism to issue bills. Many Iraqis are asking for direct elections but if bills can't even be issued by utility companies how could a direct election be held? If we leave now, if we abandon them now they will shortly be wracked by civil war or crushed by a new dictator or made to mirror Iran.
The process is slow. Iraqis are like any other people and want things now. Especially when it is right that they should have it but it is in everybody's best interest to see it done right and to see that theirs will be a lasting achievement.
I am troubled by the sadness and bitterness and suspicion I found. But, regardless of motives or history, America has done a good thing. The cautious hope, the emerging dialogue, the burgeoning enthusiasm is proof positive. I hope we can prove to them that our interest is not in governing them but in guiding them.
I found a lot of interesting things to write about today. I stumbled across the Democratic Underground forum. Their rules page is entertaining in the extreme. There will definitely be a post about that.
Gavin Newsom (San Francisco Mayor) threw some gas on the gay marriage fire. I really would like to write on that but I've done a number of posts on that topic recently. For now, sufice it to say that I think the issue is spiralling out of control and will probably result in a less than favorable situation. Dumb fuckers.
The really fascinating thing I came across today is an article on the Foreign Policy in Focus website called [i]"African Policy Outlook 2004"[/i].
AIDS was a big topic in the report. The authors excoriated the United States for failing to provide leadership and money for the UN's Global Fund. I can't deny that the Global Fund is a good idea. But, as with all things UN, the US is expected to pay the bill and somebody, anybody, else gets to spend the money.
The report says: [i]"The U.S. has promised only $200 million per year over the next five years--this is less than one-tenth of what would represent the U.S. ' fair share."[/i] The U.S. pledged 1.6 billion dollars through 2008. This is more than twice any other pledge to date, approximately 1/3 of the total amount pledged. I think we've done good by the Global Fund.
The U.S. has provided a significant amount of money to the Global Fund, and allowed it to be used as the UN sees fit. But, in the interest of our own interests the U.S. created the Global AIDS initiative. It has been funded with 2.3 billion dollars and is working with American biotech firms. Africa Action says: [i]"It is likely to pose a challenge in its approach, favoring prevention over treatment, and its close ties with the pharmaceutical industry raise serious questions about its commitment to ensuring low cost access to treatment for HIV/AIDS programs in Africa."[/i] Close ties with pharmaceuticals is a liability? The very people who research and produce drugs should not be associated with AIDS research? My density is greater than I thought. Foolish man that I am, thought that bringing the forces of market competition to bear on the situation would speed the efforts and increase the over-all funding on research and development. And how is an approach favoring prevention a bad thing? I was taught that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Finding a cure for AIDS should be secondary to finding a vaccine. Finding a cure is important but that means playing catch-up. AIDS will not stop spreading once a cure is found. It will stop once a vaccine is found.
The remainder of the report discusses human development, economic development and strategic attitudes towards Africa. It's mostly not very realistic. For some unknown reason, the US is responsible for every bad thing happening in Africa and if we give them enough money and aid, Africa will magically transform into a happy family of peaceful wealthy democratic nations. I submit that the problems plaguing Africa could not be solved if every resource at America's disposal were dedicated to Africa. Disease, famine, poverty, civil war, attempted genocide. Diving into the African morass would be foolhardy. The U.S. does and should provide aid to Africa, but the idea that we have some sort of responsibility (or realistic ability) to solve their problems is a bad joke at best.
The report argues that the U.S. approaches Africa from an imperialist perspective. We see Africa as a puddle of resources we can draw from at will and a potential base of military operations. They complain that our aid to Africa is unduly balanced in favor of combatting terrorism and that anything else we provide African nations is in the interest of securing resources (specifically oil, of course). The numbers probably support their premise, I haven't researched them, but I think their premise is faulty. Africa is largely lawless. It is in everybody's best interest to see that Africa has the capacity to combat terrorism. As the Middle East becomes more dangerous for terrorists, they will gravitate to Africa where they will be relatively safe. Who would notice another fellow walking around with an AK-47 when half the continent is consumed by civil wars?
The economics in Africa are not much better, but throwing money at them won't help either. The U.S. is interested in importing resources from Africa and there are good reasons for it. Africa Action implies that the U.S. is intent on raping Africa as the Europeans did in the 1800s. I think our resistance to expanding assistance in Africa belies that opinion. America has seen that Africa is all but hopeless at this point. Miring ourselves more deeply in the mess would only hemorrhage money and resources from America and would ultimately be of little benefit to the people of Africa.
It's a no-brainer that we would be interested in African oil, and for more than one reason. It is a resource that African nations can use to build their own wealth and their own economies and it weakens the strangle-hold Middle Eastern countries have on OPEC. The Middle East remains a dangerous place. Saudis have had their hand at America's throat for decades through their influence in OPEC. Developing resources (oil and otherwise) in other parts of the world levels the playing field.
The concluding paragraph of Africa Action's report says: [i]"As the U.S. presidential election looms at the end of the year, it remains to be seen whether an alternative candidate can successfully articulate a different vision of U.S. global leadership, more responsive to international challenges."[/i] In translation they want a president who is willing to be instructed by the UN. One who will be willing to fight loosing battles and achieve nothing without the sanction of the world at large. I hope their wish goes unanswered.
I'm not sure California legislators could be more useless. Feng Shui and now foie gras. The San Francisco Chronicle says: [i]"State Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, D-San Francisco, is expected to introduce a bill this week that would virtually prohibit foie gras by essentially putting the Western United States' sole producer out of business while denying chefs ready access to the hyper-fattened duck liver."[/i]
Ducks or geese are force fed grain which engorges their liver to produce the delicacy. PETA says the ducks don't like it much. Of course, I don't suppose they like giving up their eggs much either. And I don't suppose cattle like to be slaughtered for t-bones. And sheep probably aren't thrilled with sheering day. And I'm fairly certain chickens would rather keep their heads.
I have a hard time thinking that it's appropriate legislation. If you don't approve of foie gras don't eat it. But don't determine that nobody should be allowed to eat it. What really makes me crazy is Senator Burton's comment: [i]"I've eaten foie gras. It ain't my cup of tea."[/i] Does that mean that if it were he wouldn't be pushing the legislation?
Kevin Cooper, Festival Cruise, M. Moore, Senator Kerry.
It was kind of a slow day news-wise. The death penalty case at San Quentin is interesting, but I want to wait and see what the 9th Circuit does. I do have a question though. Does anybody care that Denzel Washington and Mike Farrell are lobbying against the sentence?
Courtesy my good friend Andre from Barbados, three Festival Cruise ships have been impounded in various ports. Apparently Festival owes money to the French company Alstom (the people who built the Queen Mary 2). Festival Cruises (based in Genoa) says that it is in negotiations and that it is still a viable company. Passengers were stuck in port for a couple of days while the two companies bickered over who had to pay to send them home. I would love to find out who footed the bill.
Michael Moore is adding more detritus to the puddle of left-wing demagoguery(sp?). According to Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9-11 won't answer the question "Why do they hate us?" but will attempt to answer the question "Why don't they hate us?" It reminded me of an op/ed by Ted Rall that just about sent me off the deep end. Read "Suffer the French Schoolchildren." It's a guaranteed adrenaline rush.
I heard John Kerry say on the radio that President Bush is a worse president than all of the previous eleven presidents combined. And has cooties. So nyaa. (I made up the cooties part). Doesn't exactly make the heart swell with confidence does it? Tell me again that the Democrats aren't campaigning on the "It's not much but it's better than Bush" platform.
I already posted my general opinion of the gay marriage issue. It really is a fascinating debate though. I didn't think I would be writing on this topic again so soon, but I've been toddling about on the web and found something I think is very interesting. I have to modify some of my previous thoughts on the granting of gay marriage as a state right. Although I still don't believe that it will become a Constitutional Amendment.
I exchanged some comments with a fellow about gay marriage and the potential for a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting or precluding gay marriage. User jimdoney says: "The defense of marriage act has been passed nationally and has been subsequentally passed in over 75% of the states in this union." There's more but I will get to that in a little bit. I did my homework and found a transcription of the act which says: [i]"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."[/i]
I then remembered something from my high school government class about the provisions granted to the states in the constitution. I once more toddled about and found a text of the Constitution. Article IV, Section 1 says: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."
The Defense of Marriage Act wriggles through Section 1 where Congress can "prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved and the effect thereof." Presumably marriage is proved by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act by the following: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
As far as I can tell all this means that while gay marriage may not be illegal according to the Massachussetts State Constitution, it is illegal according to the federal law of the United States of America which overrides state law in any case. Somebody willing to escalate the legal battle could take it to the circuit court at any time and in all probability have the Massachussetts ruling over-turned.
Vermont chose a wiser course of action by granting civil unions. It's not hugely popular among a lot of people but it is marginally more palatable than marriage and has the potential to sneak under the wire of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Anyhow, I ran across a prophecy of doom article on The Intellectual Conservative. I think his consideration is misguided at best. The meat of the article was that should we redefine marriage we will open the door to a never ending degradation of the institution of marriage where people will be marrying their favorite farm animals and NAMBLA (the circus freak rejects) will be clamoring for ever-broadened definitions of marriage. I summarily reject his concern for the simple reason that animals are property and while they may be protected by various laws, they are incapable of entering into legal agreements (they're animals for Christ's sake!). NAMBLA I can also reject because of the age of consent. Minors are precluded from entering legal contracts. Besides paedophilia (sp?) is a serious criminal offense and as far as I'm concerned paedophiles ought to be dancing at the end of a rope upon conviction.
Which sort of brings me back to Mr. jimdoney and my doubts regarding the passage of a 27th Amendment on this issue. Mr. jimdoney says: ". . . what makes you think that a rallying cry of people trying to make the same fundamentals of an act that has already recieved approval nationally will be squashed when all they are trying to do is make the fundamentals of the act untoucheable through ammendment ratification?"
Sorry, but it's not a matter of "all they are trying to do." It's tinkering with the very foundations of freedom and equality that makes our country unique in all of history. People do not take that issue lightly. Only once in over 200 years has the Constitution been used specifically to limit the rights of Americans, and that was in 1917 with the Prohibition Amendment. It was an abject failure and was repealed in 1933.
I think the lesson to be learned from Prohibition was that the Constitution must never be used to limit the rights of the people of the United States. That is what a defense of marriage amendment would be, a constitutional limitation to the rights of American citizens. Homosexuals represent about 4 percent of the American population. Voicing our passion to live freely is our only recourse in American politics as our combined numbers are a drop in the bucket. A Constitutional Amendment could be passed even if every homosexual closeted or otherwise voted against ratification.
Such an amendment is a chink in the armor of Constitutional protection. Defining marriage seems a small thing and favors a vast majority of Americans. But does it not open a door better left closed? Does it not set a precedent that the Constitution can be used not only to protect the rights of citizens but also to take them away? Gays may not yet have a legal right to marry, but an Amendment means we never can have that right.
I don't like the Defense of Marriage Act very much, but I will abide by the laws of this nation because I believe we have the right of things and good sense will prevail. I think the Defense of Marriage Act is in accord with the Constitution and is sufficient protection until people can decide whether gay marriage is really the scourge of the universe. But, the idea of turning it into a Constitutional Amendment scares the bejesus out of me. And hopefully out of a lot of other people. The definition of marriage [b]is[/b] a frivolous issue and I don't think 75% of America will be prepared to fiddle with the Constitution on its behalf.
Afghanistan's Loya Jirga has crunched out a constitution, officially creating the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. I suppose it's a step in the right direction, but I can't say I have a lot of faith in the long-term success of this particular document. I found a copy of [url=http://www.swisspeace.org/upl...%20new%20constitution.pdf]Afghanistan's Constitution[/url] and read it a couple times.
It really is an interesting document. It struggles to achieve admirable goals considering the current infrastructural situation in Afghanistan. It attempts to find a middle ground between Islamic law and Western legal principles. It has adopted structures from European democracies and from America. I think the document is a true effort by the people of Afghanistan to form a functional democracy.
It's too bad it won't work. The most glaring problem in the document is that it is ultimately subject to Islamic law. The 3rd article says that "In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam." Article 149 says that "The provisions of adherence to the fundamentals of the sacred religion of Islam and the regime of the Islamic Republic cannot be amended." Furthermore, only Muslims are electable as presidents. So, they have a constitution that theoretically creates a democracy but still rests upon the tenets of Islam. Sustainable?
Another problem stems from European influences. The very first section of the Afghanistan Constitution which outlines the right guaranteed to the citizens and the responsibilities of the State says that "The State shall abide by the UN charter, international treaties, international conventions that Afghanistan has signed and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Sounds like a recipe for European and UN meddling if you ask me. In addition, excepting elections and potential referenda, Afghanis are pretty much precluded from the operation of the government. The situation is that the people of Afghanistan are [i]allowed[/i] certain rights, and the wise and powerful among them will take care of everything else.
Probably most problematic is the proportional elective body. In tribal Afghanistan, the warlords will not be happy taking second place to the larger ethnic groups. The Afghanis modelled the general structure of their government on the U.S. with an executive branch, a judicial branch, and a legislative branch made of two houses. The House of the People, Wolesi Jirga which is elected, has a good bit more influence than the House of Elders, or Meshrano Jirga which is a combination of 2/3 members elected by councils and 1/3 members appointed by the president. The system has checks and balances in place, but it also can clearly be abused in such a way that a given majority will be able to run roughshod over the remaining representatives.
I think the document is gravely flawed. However, I think it does show some dedication on the part of Afghanis to pursue a more cooperative and peaceful form of government. It is encouraging. Unfortunately, there are other considerations beyond the structure of their constitution.
Afghanistan is practically lawless at this point. Only the presence of international forces is keeping the lid on this pot of boiling water. Once the U.S. is finished wiping out Al'Qaeda and the Taliban our service men will leave the country and Afghanistan will most likely revert to anarchy. The central Afghan armed forces is around 10,000 strong. There are individual warlords with greater military strength. There is no mechanism available to enforce the provisions of the constitution. How can a government persist without presenting even the possibility of a threat of force?
Idle Thoughts: An Anti-Blogger, Massachusetts, Electronic Paper
Here's a pretty good [url=http://www.kuro5hin.org/story...]anit-blog rant[/url] . I can't really say I disagree with a lot of what this person says. Except the iMac part. I would rather use a typewriter. And I don't drink latte. What really struck me is that you could replace the blog references with magazine references and the article would still be mostly accurate. How many magazine articles can you find about saving money, saving time, or having better sex? Magazines have recycled about half a dozen ideas in a few bazillion articles but people still enjoy them. Go figure.
One other thought on what the anti-blogger had to say. The explosion of bloggers is probably a good thing in the long run. Does it not pressure companies to make sure their technology is capable of keeping up with their users? I call that a positive market influence. Regardless of how inane my blog or any other might be in content.
Massachusetts of course is a big deal in the news. Goody for the gay marriage thing but a State Constitutional Convention has already been arranged. Whatever comes of the convention will be voted on in 2006. I have a suspicion (it might be more of a secret desire) that two years from now Massachusettsers (Massachusettsians?) will find that there isn't really a reason to care and will uphold the current state of affairs.
Electronic paper. Just because I think it will be the coolest thing to come down the pike since the grape leaf. I'm a shameless gadget geek and will be first in line to buy this stuff when it hits the shelves.
I heard an ad on the radio yesterday by the some teachers' union urging the public to support the Albertson's union and their efforts in Southern California. I've been vaguely aware of the strike for the last four months but like Arthur Dent's yellow bulldozer, the whole catastrophe didn't come together in my mind until today.
I ran across an announcement for a food drive on behalf of the strikers. This is the meat of the announcement posted on a bulletin board at UCLA:
[i]"With their struggle to preserve affordable health care benefits stretching into its fourth month, many workers are experiencing severe financial problems and are struggling to provide their families with basic necessities. In an expression of solidarity, we are asking the UCLAW community to contribute non-perishable food items, disposable diapers of any size, jarred baby food, cereal, powdered milk, and other necessities to the workers and their families."[/i]
I can't decide whether this is gall or bleeding heart idiocy.
Why does this make me crazy you ask? (You know I'm going to tell you whether you asked or not. Isn't blogging fucking brilliant?) The U.S. economy is improving, but it's not going great guns yet. Hiring is on the increase but many people are out of work, many others are in danger of losing their jobs while the economy is still testing the water. Here you have a bunch of yahoos who actually are still employed sitting on their asses bitching about how bad they have it.
What happens if they win their strike? Grocery prices will necessarily be increased to compensate for the additional benefits. The strikers might not care much since they get a discount. But everybody else who has to buy groceries will most certainly care. Not least of which are those folks who have been unemployed for the past year and are struggling to make ends meet as it is.
The UCLAW announcement is the thing that made me start howling obscenities at my computer screen (and by extension at the strikers. I hope they heard me). If I were in the neighborhood I would take the employment section of the L.A. Times and drop it in the bin. Or maybe some community college schedules. These people wouldn't need food and necessities if they were actually working. Instead they sit and complain and chant cutsie slogans and wave their clever signs and beg for handouts because they aren't pulling in a check.
Get off your butts and go back to work. You could have spent the last four months paying for college credits or hunting for a better job (quiz: when is the best time to look for a new job? While you still have one.) or at the very least putting food on the table.
I have little appreciation for the third parties who are endorsing these bums. Unions might have (and have had) a purpose, but mostly what I see is extortive beggary. I was not taught to twist somebody's arm to better my own position. I was taught to better myself and earn a preferable position. This is America, the land of opportunity. I refuse to believe these people are incapable of improving their own lot and will give short shrift to anybody who suggests it.
I think these people provide a valuable service and would normally have nothing but esteem for them as working people. But, the bottom line is that they're grunts. Grocery Store Clerk is the kind of job I was expected to add to my resume while I was in high school. There's a reason these jobs are low paying and lacking in benefits.
These are the folks showing solidarity:
NLG (National Lawyer's Guild) WJP (Workers' Justice Project) APILSA (Asian Pacific Islander Student Association) PILF (Public Interest Law Foundation) LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender)(I may be excommunicated from the LGBT community if I'm not careful. See my thoughts on gay marriage.) La Raza (The Race an advocacy group for hispanics).
Thanks a lot guys. I can't tell you how exciting I find the prospect of buying milk at six bucks to the gallon.
I'm not a fan of unions in general. France (Come on. They are good for something.) has shown us the error of that path. I will support Albertson's by continuing to shop there during the strike. Should they buckle to these graspers, I guess I'll have to drive a couple extra miles to the local Country Square Market.
I can start at the beginning. I actually liked some of the pre-game entertainment. The tribute to Challenger was mostly well done. The fake astronaut on the fake moon was a little kitschy(sp?). Willie Nelson and the gum-chewer didn't do much for me. Beyonce was fair enough I guess but for some reason she creeps me out.
The game was good. Quality Superbowl football playing. The Panther's kicker cost them the game when he booted the ball out of bounds. Still it came down to the final nine seconds and was an exciting game.
The real topic of course is the half-time show. And the commercials actually. These were the real spectacles. And they were most dissatisfying. First, the commercials were really not that entertaining. There were only two commercials that were worth a laugh. The McDonald's wrapper in the dryer was good. The Seven-Up commercial cracked me up. The remainder were worthless. The best of the rest were boring the worst juvenile (flatulent horses and crotch-biting dogs?).
And now we come to it. The half-time show. Bottom line is it was not entertaining. P. Diddly or Piddly or whatever ridiculous appellation he's adopted for the week is just not my cup of tea. I actually have Nelly's Country Grammar album but it strikes me as being the rap (or hip-hop, I haven't determined the difference yet) equivalent to pop music. It's fun, it's great for white noise, but it has no depth (and if I had kids they would listen to the radio edit). Kid Rock is a howling screamer of second rate quality. Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson can both be superb entertainers. I'm not sure they belong in any kind of hall of fame but I won't deny that they're entertaining. Excepting Sunday's little oopsie. Janet's gender bending S&M dance routine was just bizarre. Timberlake apparently can't sing without having somebody's hand clutching his crotch (ditto for Diddy and Nelly).
Finally and inevitably, we come to the boob shot. Planned or not? I watched the spectacle, I've examined the stills, and read the disclaimers and I'm convinced it was not a mistake or even a 'wardrobe malfunction'. CBS assigned MTV the task of organizing the half-time entertainment and now are seeing the error of their ways. Juvenile toilet humor commercials aside, I don't think CBS would have allowed the stunt to happen. Of course, I don't think MTV really asked permission.
What evidence is there that this was planned? MTV promised some shocking moments during half-time and this certainly is something MTV would find entertaining. I think it's clear that the outfit was rigged because Janet's leather dominatrix outfit would not have torn so easily, nor would her bra. Besides that, what is the chance that it would have torn off in a square so precisely located and sized that only her right breast would be exposed and no bra ora additional flesh? Also, Timberlake gathered the 'torn' cloth in his fist and held it at his side. Do you really think he was unaware he had something in his hand that shouldn't have been there? Maybe he thought it was his crotch. Furthermore, closeups reveal snaps on the outfit. The cup was intended to come off. MTV, Janet, and Timberlake definitely planned this. CBS probably didn't but gets to deal with the fallout.
Is this appropriate? Somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 million people tuned into the Superbowl including children. It was unequivocally, inarguably, inappropriate.
I do find it kind of remarkable that for all the brilliance and creativity of American culture, we also suffer from some of the foulest and most juvenile antics performed in the name of artistic license. That might actually be worth a blog at some point.
