One of these things is EXACTLY like the other

I know this statement is going to elicit a "well duh" from a lot of you, but conservative talk radio just doesn't make sense anymore. Let me qualify that statement by saying that I don't actually listen to most of talk radio. Glenn Beck is about the only show I will listen to, mostly because he is the only one who doesn't seem to be just a Republican stooge. But even he seems to have gone along with a lunacy brewing amongst all the conservative pundits lately in the form of an all out irrational fear and hatred of Barack Obama.

Look I get that conservatives would be against Obama. He is, after all, a Democrat and a liberal one at that. It's not that they hate him that has me puzzled. It's that they hate him SO MUCH MORE than Hillary Clinton. Like seriously, a lot of these guys are leading me and a lot of other people to believe that come November if the Democratic primary falls in favor Hillary, they will actually be voting for her instead of their own candidate, John McCain. You get that? They actually prefer Hillary to a Republican! But if the Democratic primary falls the other way, holy crap get ready for the apocalypse because apparenly if Obama becomes president everything in the world is just going to fall apart.

Can some rational person please please PLEASE explain this to me, because I have listened to both candidates. I've heard about where they stand on the issues. And save for a few minor details and the minutae of rhetoric, I see zero difference between the Hillary and Obama. Like none. Nothing. Zip. Don't believe me? These two graphics are from the very informative website ontheissues.org. It breaks down the political philosophy of every single senator and congressman based strictly on their voting record. Conservatives are trying to say that Obama is even more liberal than Hillary. Really?

Seriously, do you see a difference, because I really don't. Again, I get conservatives hating Obama. I just don't get how they can hate him so much more than Hillary. Really it's just a feat of logic that conservative radio has managed to dig down deep inside its soul and actually find positive things to say about a Clinton period. Isn't that a sign of the apocalypse right there? Hm... maybe they have a point about this Obama guy.

Home runs or, ya know... HOME RUNS?

So Roger Clemens just went before Congress to testify about his “alleged” steroid use. I know I may not be the best person to comment about this whole matter considering I could really give a damn about any sport that I am not actively engaged in, but who the hell even cares if a baseball player wants to take steroids? If the Major League Baseball Commission (or whatever that ruling body is) doesn’t care enough to give frequent and mandatory drug screenings to their players, why should the government even get involved? If the powers that be want to ruin their own sport (have you noticed that, unless it’s the Red Sox, Yankees or Cubs, nobody REALLY cares about who goes to the World Series anymore?) I say let them – it’ll be one less game that makes me feel like a little girl because I can’t name any of the players or their stats.

Frankly I just don’t get the whole steroid thing anyway. Why somebody would willingly inject a foreign substance into their body – something that has been shown to cause (amongst other things) heart attacks, strokes, tumors and kidney failure – just so they can hit a ball a little bit farther is beyond me… especially when you consider the reason why a guy becomes an athlete in the first place. Professional athletes may feed you a line of crap about their “love of the game” or the “thrill of competition” blah blah blah. If that were really the reason the started playing baseball there would be no twenty million dollar contracts. The main overriding reason why guys desire to become big time athletes is simple: to get… LAID. Even those ridiculously lucrative contracts are only there to serve that main purpose. So if the main reason you got into professional sports was to get laid, then why would you take a substance that also shrinks your penis, makes you impotent and gives you acne and man boobs? Wouldn’t that pretty much rule out any laying of any kind? People talk about ‘roid rage as another side effect of steroids. Personally, I don’t think it’s the steroids. I think it’s the realization that after doing everything humanly (and chemically) possible to become the best athlete they can possibly be, in the end these guys are nothing but flaccid, tiny pricked neo-virgins with slightly better batting averages. I’d want to kick the shit out of somebody too if that happened to me.

So I say open up all professional sports to steroid use. If Roger Clemens, or whoever, wants bigger muscles and doesn't care about the eenie weenie peenie, more power to him. Once the women of the world realize that all those athletes they’ve been lusting after can’t even hold an erection, it’ll give my fellow audio/visual geeks a little more bedtime action.

Place head on table. Smash repeatedly.

So let me see if I understand this correctly. The Republicans have narrowed the race down to two guys: one who half of them can't stand because he's "too liberal" and another who half of them can't stand because he's a Mormon. What's more, they absolutely cannot shut up about it.

Seriously GOP, are you people TRYING to get Hilary elected?

How Ron Paul Cured My Apathy

I swore off politics over a year ago. Actually let me clarify: I swore off politicians over a year ago. Believe me, I've got opinions on just about every issue (global warming, healthcare, Michael Moore, Abu Ghraib, voting in general) that I'm always willing to share with anyone who will listen. There are all sorts of aspects about this country that I would like to see changed. The thing is, I've stopped believing that any real change would ever come about because of a politician. I mean did segregation end because of the politicians who were in office at the time? No, as near as I can tell it ended because the attitude of the public was finally starting to shift in that direction. Did the Cold War end because a Republican president figured out a way to bankrupt the Russian economy? No, it ended because the Russian way of government was inherently flawed and it bankrupted itself. Did our economy boom in the nineties because a Democrat took over as president? No, it boomed because the personal computer simplified entrepreneurship while the internet encouraged faster buying and selling. And did the Iraq War end because congress finally had a Democratic majority? No. In fact most of the Democrats who campaigned under the anti-war banner ultimately voted to keep funding the operation! As near as I can see, politicians don't tend to change things that aren't about to change anyway on their own.

As voters I think we understand this, at least subconsciously, which is why we tend to vote for politicians based more on what they believe than on what they'll actually do. We vote for somebody because they believe abortion should be abolished… even though they won't really push to overturn Roe vs. Wade. We vote for somebody because they think there should be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage… even though they won't attend more than a token assembly on the matter. We vote for somebody because they oppose the war… even though they won't actually do anything to stop it when the vote comes up.

I have barely lent a moment's worth of attention to the presidential primaries these last several months. I figured all the candidates would be saying pretty much the same things anyway. The Republicans would emphasize the war on terror while the Democrats rallied us toward universal healthcare. The Red states would be placated with speeches about the 2^nd Amendment and the sanctity of marriage, while the Blue states would be whipped into a frenzy over global warming and taxes on the rich. Come November, I felt pretty confident that we would be deciding between two candidates who had been deemed "most electable" by their respective parties, but whose ideas wouldn't vary all that much from the status quo… or even from their opponent's talking points.

Then I started reading about Ron Paul. I'd heard his name mentioned before, mostly by conservative talkshow hosts who considered him to be the token fruitcake of the Republican Party. Even though he operates under the Republican banner, Ron Paul's voting record shows a philosophy centered more in Libertarian than Conservative thought. What's more, he apparently has no problem telling his compadres in the Grand Old Party exactly when and how he thinks they're wrong. And his ideas, doled out in convenient-for-TV sound bites, did sound ridiculous. I mean he wants to eliminate the income tax and not replace it with an alternative source of funding! He wants to cut back or completely dissolve various government agencies including the IRS, the FBI and the Department of Education! He thinks the federal government has no right to determine the legality of moral issues like abortion, drug use or even prostitution! And, perhaps most insanely, he wants to pull back all of our troops, not just from Iraq, but from every single foreign base we have! This guy is a Republican?!? I was ready to write Ron Paul off as just some political nut who would never make it past the primaries.

Still, there was something intriguing about a presidential candidate who was so unapologetically different from any of his opponents. More than anything, Ron Paul struck me as the kind of person who, given the chance, would actually follow through on his ideas… even if those ideas made him inherently "unelectable." Even though I didn't agree with everything he had to say (or even most of it), I went to the internet to learn more about him. I read about the issues on his website. I listened to his interviews on YouTube. I scanned the blogs that painted him in a good light and compared them against the ones preaching his insanity. And the more I delved into the logic behind his "crazy" ideas the more I found myself saying, "Hey, you know what, that actually sounds crazy enough to work."

Where will our country get money if we eliminate the income tax?
Well, eliminating the tax has to go hand-in-hand with cutting trillions of dollars from our budget by eliminating useless drains like our military presence overseas.

Won't pulling our troops back make the terrorists come fight us on our own soil?
It may briefly encourage the leaders and the true zealots. But if they can no longer point to an American base in their neighborhood and tell people, "That is the enemy!" it's going to be rather hard inspiring people to fly thousands of miles to blow themselves up.

But is he really going to cut education from the federal budget?
Well why not let the local districts decide how best to impart knowledge to the children of their particular demographics… as opposed to teaching everyone towards some federally (and subjectively) standardized test.

And he could actually pave the way for legalizing marijuana?
Hey, if a guy suffering from chronic pain can get relief from a ten-dollar bag of weed purchased in the free market, maybe it'll encourage the drug companies to stop their price gouging.

But how can the free market solve the entire healthcare crisis without government oversight?
When you look at it, the cost of healthcare didn't start going through the roof until the government got involved with HMO's during the seventies. Politicians are obviously incompetent with this sort of thing so why not go back to a working system?

The more I read, the more I watched, the more I listened, the more it became apparent that Ron Paul wasn't merely a "one issue" candidate. Rather, he seems to view all the issues as inextricably linked to each other. We need to cut federal programs like military and healthcare to retain enough money in the budget so that we no longer need the income tax… which will leave more money in the pockets of citizens to afford healthcare. By getting the government out of the global warming arms race, you let the market – with its inventors and entrepreneurs – find us a more efficient fuel source. The moment some privately held corporation can turn a lucrative profit by producing energy that is cleaner, cheaper and safer than oil, you better believe we'll be spewing less carbon into the air… which would eliminate our dependence on foreign oil… which would eliminate our need to police the Middle East… which, in turn, would save us trillions of dollars and produce fewer terrorists.

No wonder it's been difficult for the pundits to sum up Ron Paul in thirty-second sound bites! He's not suggesting falsely simple band-aids for individual problems. Instead he's proposing an entirely holistic approach to success, trusting that each and every reform (aided by nothing more than the spirit of capitalism) will naturally lend itself to the next, ultimately producing a cure for everything that ails us… well maybe not "everything", but a lot of things.

I can't tell you how long I've been waiting for a politician like this. A politician who understands that no issue exists in a vacuum. A politician who realizes that a strictly liberal or strictly conservative stance is not an effective way to solve complex issues. A politician who doesn't mind sounding crazy in thirty-second sound bites, but remains confident that the whole overall message will eventually get through to people… and that the message will appeal to a lot of them. What's more, this is a politician who doesn't sound like a politician, which I think I appreciate most of all. When somebody asks Ron a question, he doesn't launch into a circuitous line of rhetoric, striving for a happy balance of "electable ambiguity." He'll actually say, "Yes" or "No" before defining where that "yes" or "no" fits into his "big picture."

Even though my knee-jerk reaction has been to cringe at a lot of Ron Paul's ideas, I have found myself (quite unexpectedly, and in stages) agreeing with them wholeheartedly. Even more unexpectedly, I have found myself believing that this is a guy who will actually follow through on those ideas. That's right. After swearing off politicians altogether, I have found myself trusting in one to be my president. Oh the horror. I initially tempered that grinding shift of gears with the realization that Ron Paul would likely never make it past the primaries anyway. In an age where people want increasingly quick and easy fixes to their problems, a guy like Ron Paul, with all of his complex and un-sound-bite-friendly ideas, remains, as ever, unelectable.

But you know how buying a new car suddenly makes you notice the same make and model on the road everywhere you go? After deciding that Ron Paul was the kind of candidate I would actually vote for, I immediately discovered that I was hardly alone in my thinking. I started seeing his signs everywhere. I started hearing friends and family dropping his name into conversations. Even the talkshow hosts seemed to be giving him ample airtime now. According to news reports, even though Rudy, Mitt and Huckabee were routinely topping the official polls, Ron Paul somehow managed to raise more campaign money than any of them. To believe the buzz in forums like MySpace, YouTube and the always-lively blogosphere, Ron will likely command the entire market of Republicans (about 25% of them) who oppose the war, and may actually be the go-to candidate for all those "undecided" folks. The more I look into it, the more plausible it seems that this guy could be a real and viable competitor in the primaries, and not just someone with a small but vocal cult following.

I realized I could no longer be cavalier in my support of Ron Paul. If there was a legitimate chance that he could effect an upset victory in the Republican primary, well then it was my duty to help make it happen. I've donated money to the campaign. I'm registering Republican for the first time in my life so that I can vote in my state's primary. And I'm focusing as much effort as possible encouraging people to at least look into Ron Paul and see what he's about. It will require a bit of time and effort to understand the whole truth behind his positions. It will mean reading a few paragraphs on his website and not depending on those one-sentence blurbs from AOL's front page. It will mean watching an entire ten-, twenty- or even sixty-minute interview on YouTube, and not just those short-but-meaningless sound bites on Fox News.

The cynics and the pundits say the general public has neither the patience nor the interest to invest that kind of time into researching a candidate. The very fact that Ron Paul's ideas can't be expressed as TV-friendly blurbs would seem to be a crippling hindrance. Frankly I tend to think just the opposite. As a nation I think we're eager for somebody who is a bit more complex; somebody whose ideas can't be categorized with simplistic terms like "Red State" or "Blue State." We don't want to get into another election cycle where our only two choices for commander in chief are an apparent imbecile and a guy who can't seem to decide how he voted on something. I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one who has been waiting for a candidate like Ron Paul. I think there are a lot more like us out there.

I think my generation in particular has the unique desire and the ability to push for real change in this election year. We're in our mid-20's to late-30's – old enough to start caring about the issues, educated enough to sort out our own decisions, yet still young and idealistic enough to take a chance on something new and different. In a recent blog, I called this Generation X/Y hybrid "The MySpace Generation", and I defended our poor voting record and general apathy toward the current "Us and Them" state of politics:

Perhaps what looks like apathy is just "our generation" unconsciously biding its time, watching and waiting until "they" vacate the premises. We know there's nothing we can really do as long as "they" are still in control, so why waste "our" time and "our" energy on useless rallies and campaigns that will only serve to get another one of "them" elected?

I went on to suggest, completely tongue-in-cheek mind you, that perhaps MySpace would become "the platform where the new revolution begins." If numbers are anything to go by, that little joke may have been more prophetic than intended. Ron Paul's page on MySpace currently boasts over 107,000 friends. Compare that to frontrunners Rudy, Mitt and Huckabee, who have only 64,000 friends combined. There is a political passion running through the younger generation, and Ron Paul has tapped into it in a way that no other Republican has. And now that I'm on that bandwagon I can sense the momentum building. It's palpable and I'm daring to believe that we have not only a politician who is "crazy enough" to get the job done, but a fed up public who is ready and eager to embrace a little craziness.

I encourage everyone – but especially my proverbial "peeps" from the MySpace Generation – to spend an hour looking into Ron Paul. Look beyond the labels. Look beyond the sound bites. Look beyond the polls. Look at the big picture. And when you find yourself agreeing with his ideas for America (perhaps in spite of everything you previously believed) . Get registered now – not just as a voter, but as a Republican. Get out to the primaries and make your vote count for once by electing someone who promises real change and not more empty talking points. And while you're at it, encourage others to do the same thing. I think we can actually make a difference with the right person this time around – though it's going to require more than simply "friending" that person on MySpace.

So in the words of my generation: "Just Do It." Ron Paul cured my apathy. He made me believe again in the power of a politician. Maybe he can do the same for you. The Ron Paul revolution is on. Get in on it while there's still time.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED LINKS:

RonPaul2008.com - The official campaign site. Start by clicking on the Issues link and familiarize yourself with Ron's ideas.

The Ron Paul Library - Delve a little deeper into the issues with this archive of Ron Paul speeches and letters

The Google Interview - An hour-long dialogue with Google exec Elliot Shrage. Ron Paul takes the necessary the time to speak freely and fully about his stances on the issues.

The Glenn Beck Interview - A series of clips (5-10 minutes long) shot on December 18 where Ron once again has the time and freedom to express his views in more than just a sound bite.

Clip 1 - Our National Sovreignty Under Threat / A Grass Roots Majority
Clip 2 - The Economy and Government Spending
Clip 3 - The Currency Crisis / Eliminate the Federal Income Tax
Clip 4 - Iraq and the War on Terror
Clip 5 - Prosperity and the Power of the Free Market
Clip 6 - Ron Paul's Supporters
Clip 7 - Libertarianism and the Responbilitiy of Freedom

Hack me some global warming

I think of all the hack writers out there that America seems to love so much, Michael Crichton is my personal favorite. I say “hack writer” with all due respect. If you’ve read any of his books, you know that Crichton is a very intelligent, very well informed and very well researched man. And like the other hacks out there, Crichton simply uses the vehicle of fiction to present new and burgeoning ideas to the public in a way that is more palatable than a science book or lecture. Dan Brown uses the medium to present cult and religious ideas. Vince Flynn uses the medium to present the uncomfortable truth about the CIA and Black Ops. From a purely storytelling point of view, none of these guys are especially good writers. In fact if their stories didn’t incorporate some element of real life intrigue, nobody would even buy their books. Case in point: The DaVinci Code. This wasn’t a popular book because of its gripping narrative. It was popular because people were so intrigued by the new and scandalous ideas he was presenting… so much so that a lot of the public used nothing more than this work of fiction as the basis for arguing that Jesus and Mary Magdelene were married.

But as I said, out of all the hacks and bad storytellers, Crichton is my favorite. Yes, like those other hacks, I read his books more to learn about new ideas in a palatable way. The actual story is something I find myself slogging through as a necessary evil in order to glean the actual information he’s trying to present (the glaring exception to this rule being Jurassic Park, which ruled in every way possible. Even still, he does a better job than those other guys. First of all, there’s rarely a moment of dialogue that sounds contrived. The people speak like normal people, even when they are talking for multiple paragraphs about this scientific study or that misunderstood concept. His characters actually have a bit of depth to them. Even his villains have motivations for what they’re doing and aren’t mere stock characters who are just intrinsically evil. But most of all, I appreciate the fact that Crichton doesn’t feel the need to put in an obligatory but incredibly misplaced and often gratuitous sex scene – something those other hacks do with such uncomfortable, almost squeamish incompetence that you wonder if they’ve ever actually had sex before.

Anyway, that whole lead-up was to say that I just read another Michael Crichton book: State of Fear. This one is Crichton’s chance to express his thoughts on global warming. Like most of his other books, I found myself slogging through all the actual plot and story just to get to the parts where the characters would engage in debates about the science Crichton was presenting. And it doesn’t take you long to realize that Crichton really thinks the whole global warming movement is a bunch of crap. Pretty much every argument a global warming acolyte would throw out there as evidence, Crichton’s characters deftly smack down… with actual references and graphs, complete with footnotes to back it all up. By the time I got to the end of the book, I realized I didn’t actually need to read it. Pretty much all the points made in State of Fear were presented much more succinctly (without petty things like storytelling to get in the way) in a speech I’d read on Crichton’s website.

The basic gist is this: there is absolutely no consistent data indicating that global warming is actually happening. I could summarize several points here, but honestly, the tiny little bit of data I could regurgitate could just as easily be rebutted with rhetoric. Better that you go to his site, click on the speeches page and find the global warming speech yourself. It’s a long read (though certainly not the 500 pages of State of Fear) but it’s quite illuminating and Crichton backs up a lot of what he says with not only science but lessons from history. Besides, I’ve already presented a boatload of my own thoughts on global warming here and here.

One of the things that was in the book that you won’t find in the speech is a rant by an eccentric college professor about the politics of fear in this country – from where the book draws its name. Basically he says that if you look at the American media, the use of words like “catastrophe, crisis, disaster, dire, dreaded, unprecedented” has increased one thousand percent since 1985. In 1985 “catastrophe” was said on the news about as often as the word “budget.” But then the Cold War ended. The big fear of Russia and mutually assured destruction had been lifted, so there was nothing for those in power to use in order to keep the people afraid and in line. So they started making things up to be afraid of. DDT, food additives, foreign diseases, breast implants all became cause for alarm, even though the science was incomplete, and would later even prove to be false. According to this character, global warming is just the next in a long line of things designed to rally the public behind the easiest motivator of all: fear. And in ten years when the science finally catches up to everyone, it will be pushed to the side in favor of something else designed to scare the bejeezus out of us. But in the meantime, how much money will we waste on “solutions” that have no scientific viability; money that could have been used to feed god knows how many people.

Okay, I’m ranting. As I said, I’ve written my own thoughts on global warming before. Bottom line, check out Michael Crichton. His book. His speeches. It’s all good and will make you (gasp) think. He may be a hack, but he's very good at it.

An Inconvenient Prize?

Can somebody please tell me why Al Gore won the Nobel PEACE Prize? Forgive me for my ignorance, but I always thought that prize went to somebody who, ya know, worked to bring PEACE to the world or to an area that has not known peace.

Recent winners have included a guy who tried to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes, a guy who formed a bank to provide loans to people in extremely impoverished areas and a woman who stood up against political oppression in Kenya. Now, regardless of what you think about global warming, how exactly does raising awareness about the issue equate to bringing peace to the planet? I'm honestly stymied.

Zap Zap! Free Speech! Blah Blah!

I don't usually post random YouTube videos to this blog, but I've had two people bring this video to my attention thus far today and I just wanted to put my own two cents in before the media cacophony begins. The video shows a college student attempting to ask John Kerry a question during a Q&A session and then the escalation of events until he is arrested and eventually tasered. Watch first, then read my thoughts below:




Hm... I don't really even know what to think about this. Yes, the kid was exercising his fundamental right to free speech. Yes, he was trying to engage John Kerry in a dialogue of pertinent questions. And yes, he had his mic cut off and yes he was arrested and yes he was tasered because of all of this.

Unfortunately I can see this getting blown out of proportion as some kind of "free speech violation" when the fact is, the kid stood up and attempted to monopolize what appears to be a more or less informal Q&A session. He was told repeatedly to ask his question, but rather than asking kept spouting information from a book he'd read. Then once he asked the question, he asked MORE questions and then MORE questions after that. Yes, I get the point that this was his only available forum to ask these pertinent questions to John Kerry's face, so I AM tempted to react the way others are surely reacting, with anger at the fact that he was silenced and arrested, anger at the overreaction of the police.

Then again, he DID try to monopolize an event that was not his to monopolize. And when he was escorted away, he DID resist arrest to the point where it required half a dozen police officers to subdue him, and even then he fought. Personally I don't blame the police for tasering him when they did.

What this brings up is a larger problem, a larger question of: How do WE as normal everyday constituents find a forum to air our questions and grievances and expect to have them actually ANSWERED. Unless you are a member of the press, you can't ask these questions directly to a politician's face. And even then you certainly can't expect a real and legitimate answer to your queries and the opportunity to say, "No, excuse me sir but you DID NOT answer my question."

No clear answers on this one as far as I'm concerned. I just hope this opens up a HEALTHY debate and not just a bunch of crybaby activists whining about "free speech" this and "free speech" that.

It's wet ain't it? DRINK IT!

People are all up in arms about this whole Aquafina thing. For those of you who aren’t aware, apparently there was some big news report a couple months back, which revealed that Aquafina, the bottled water company, was selling its customers (gasp) tap water. I didn’t see the report myself, but I did hear the shocked tales of horror from at least three people within the first week whenever the topic of bottled water came up in conversation… that’s right, I have boring friends and we talk about bottled water, okay? Even though it’s been a couple of months it still somehow keeps getting brought up with new people. Each time I hear the indignant tap water proclamation I have the same reaction: “Yeah… and?” Seriously was anybody surprised by this revelation? We’ve been hearing for years that most of the bottled waters out there are nothing more than tap water. And it didn’t take a genius to realize Aquafina fell into this category. In this day and age of marketing, any bottled water company who gets its water from a bona fide spring is going to mention that fact in big bold letters on the label. Aquafina bottles by contrast have always said, simply, “Purified Drinking Water.”

Oh don’t get me wrong, as somebody who routinely drinks more than his daily recommended eight glasses of water, I definitely have preferences when it comes to buying the bottled variety. Poland Spring will always be my top choice if available, but I’ll take a Dasani or an Aquafina if that’s what’s available, or even a Vasa (the brand of choice on the Jersey Turnpike apparently) if that’s all I can find. As long as I can’t taste anything foul in the water, I don’t care where it came from. And the simple truth I’ve found about bottled waters is that as long as they’re cold, pretty much all of the major brands taste just fine. The lone exception to that rule is Evian, which tastes like an oil slick to the point where I seriously just don’t understand why people still buy it. Is it the French name?

But seriously, why should I care if my bottled water comes from a tap? The water I drink at home comes from a tap. Filtered through a Brita obviously. As far as I’m concerned bottled water, especially those individual-sized bottles, are intended for “on the go” drinking only. I really don’t understand those people who have cases and cases of bottled water inside their house. I can almost get on board with the people who buy those big five-gallon jugs that they stick in their refrigerator, but even then I have my reservations. Unless you are legitimately concerned about the actual safety of your water (i.e. you think it contains lead or some other kind of contaminant), why wouldn’t you save money, fridge space and landfill volume by using a Brita or some other kind of filter, which removes like 99 percent of whatever might be lurking inside your water – and 100 percent of whatever might make it taste bad?

Ironically it seems like the people who are most concerned and/or horrified about this big Aquafina “revelation” are the ones who tend not to drink a lot of water anyway. I’m not sure if they realize it, but all the soda, coffee and juice they are drinking probably contains tap water as well. Somehow I doubt Coca-Cola, Starbucks and Snapple are importing jugs of spring water to make their beverages. In instances like this, when you’re contemplating which brand of bottled water to buy, I say let your taste buds be your guide. If the water tastes fine, it’s probably fine. If it tastes like crap, mountain spring or not, change brands. To quote a Sprite commercial, “Obey your thirst,” not those sensationalistic talking heads on the news. Now drink up.

(On a completely unrelated note, kudos to you if you caught the Goonies reference in this blog's title.)

You Got Wagged

Whenever I think back on the first year or so of this war (the one in Iraq in case there’s any confusion), I can’t help but think of the movie Wag the Dog. For the uninformed, the basic plot of the movie is that the president of the United States, in order to take people’s mind off a scandal he’s involved in, hires a Hollywood producer to “stage a war.” They rally the American people behind the phony war by using every possible gimmick they can think of to tug at the heartstrings and foster a sense of unity and patriotism. I actually hadn’t seen Wag the Dog until the Iraq war was about six months in and even though the movie was already several years old by that point the similarities between reality and fiction were downright eerie.

There was the compelling footage: In the movie it was video of a young girl running through the streets, dodging bullets while clutching a cat (which they CGI’ed in later) to her chest. In real life, there was footage of the Saddam statues being pulled down and the shots of Jessica Lynch being wheeled by on a stretcher.

There were the hit songs: In the movie, they hired Willie Nelson to compose numerous uplifting songs that would get people emotionally attached to the war. In real life, Toby Keith released “American Soldier” while the Top 40 producers infused quotes from soldiers, their families and the president into sappy pop songs.

There were media created heroes: In the movie, Woody Harrelson plays the war hero William Shuman (“Old Shoe”). In real life, Jessica Lynch gets a book deal and a movie of the week for being a cutie pie caught in the middle of a dramatic rescue attempt.

Then of course there were all the symbols: In the movie, the architects behind the war threw “old shoes” into trees and onto power lines in honor of the aforementioned hero. In real life, yellow magnetic ribbons and American flags with some variation of the slogan “Support the Troops” went on the back of every car on the road.

With the exception of the far-fetched idea that the entire war in the movie was completely made up Wag the Dog was, almost without exception, strangely prophetic of what would start happening in 2003. I’ve been thinking about that movie and its similarities to reality a lot over the last couple days as I read the book Last One In by Nicholas Kulish. The story is about a gossip columnist who gets embedded with the Marines at the beginning of the Iraq war. Amongst other things it explores how the media in this war totally dropped the ball and made a farce out of the whole operation by presenting a completely distorted picture of the truth, all in the name of better ratings of course. It talks about reporters smearing grease and dirt on their faces and posing for stand-ups in front of burning vehicles to make it seem as though they were right in the middle of some important battle. It talks about reporters making up stories about anything, even if it was ninety percent bullshit, just so they could fill airtime or print space. It’s a very intriguing (and funny) read, which I highly recommend.

Anyway, all that lead up was to preface the fact that Lynndie England has been in my head. Remember Lynndie England? She was the soldier who became the face of the whole Abu Ghraib scandal because of an infamous picture of her pointing at a naked prisoner while smoking a cigarette. She was sentenced to eleven years in prison for her part in the “torture” of Abu Ghraib prisoners. From the very outset of that whole Abu Ghraib thing, my spider senses were tingling. Something just didn’t sit right with me about the way it was handled, or covered, or just plain perceived. And even to this day, I can’t help but wonder if the whole thing was just another incident of the tail wagging the dog – like it was nothing more than a big smoke screen intended to rally us together while distracting us from something else.

There’s no question that this war has been far from popular. Even before the decision was made to invade there were people screaming, protesting, sending up righteous anger at what they viewed to be evil and arrogant American imperialism. The “architects behind the war” did everything they could to rally people together with the aforementioned songs, symbols, heroes and whatnot. But I think they also sensed that even the people who were in support of the war needed some kind of outlet for their own anger. Supporters needed to show everyone that they only supported the “noble” aspects of the war. They needed everyone to see that they weren’t merely blind “let’s-just-kill-them-all” warmongers who had no respect for human life. Abu Ghraib and the accusations of torture gave them that opportunity. It allowed war supporters and detractors alike to meet on common ground where they could direct their anger at a few mutually agreed upon patsies. And the media, as predicted, went right along for the ride.

In case we’ve all forgotten, the “torture” in question at Abu Ghraib involved stripping prisoners naked, letting dogs bark at them and forcing them (the prisoners) to form naked human pyramids. As far as I was concerned, that always qualified more as a dumbass fraternity prank than anything that might resemble torture. And at first it seemed like a lot of the conservative radio shows I listened to thought the same thing. But then all of a sudden even they joined the angry throngs in condemning the “torture”, boldly stating that those involved should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. And as I said, Lynndie England became the ultimate face of evil in the whole thing. So much so that I can’t help but wonder if she’s in jail right now because she was simply a pawn in some evil and fucked up game of wag the dog.

She really did make the perfect villain. Unlike Jessica Lynch who was cute with long and pretty hair, Lynndie England had short hair and mannish features. The infamous picture that everyone has seen shows her with a cigarette not only in her mouth – an obvious “dirty” habit – but actually dangling from her lips in a way that could only be described as white trash. And of course, she was seen standing next to a naked man, pointing at his penis no less. Everything about that picture conjured up four words: “white trash dirty whore.” It was easy for people to hate her. It became easy for people to condemn her. I wonder if there would have been the same reaction had it been an attractively longhaired and feminine girl in that picture. But the thing is I firmly believe that this is the only way this whole thing could have transpired. The architects of this particular Alternate Reality Game knew what they were doing. They would never have allowed a picture of a good-looking person to be “leaked” to the media in relation to this scandal.

I honestly feel bad for Lynndie England. She is sitting in prison right now for the oh-so-heinous crime of pointing at a man’s dick. The country needed a bad guy (someone other than George Bush) and they got one. It’s like the old Hebrew ritual of the “scapegoat” (and actually where the modern term originated from) where once a year the priest would place the sins of all the people onto a spotless goat and then banish it to the wilderness so the nation could once again become blameless in God’s eyes. Lynndie England was our scapegoat in every sense of the word. We put our own sins onto her. Everything that we didn’t like about ourselves when it came to this war manifested itself in her smirking, cigarette smoking face. We put our willingness to go to war, our eagerness to go to war onto her. Our own righteous justifications for war – terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, taking down an evil dictator, liberating a people – weren’t enough. Even for those of us who were in support of the war, there was still an unspoken well of guilt for the sins we were committing to accomplish what we genuinely believed to be worthwhile goals. We needed to put that guilt onto somebody else and send them away lest we (God forbid) blame ourselves. The architects gave us Lynndie England as a worthy sacrifice. And we accepted her eagerly.

And that sickens me. That’s why I don’t understand people that are currently against the war who were once in favor of it. What made you change your mind? The media’s reports? People claim that the war is being run badly. That very well may be so, but my question is: How the hell would you know? Because the media says so? Because some politicians say so? Do we seriously still trust these two disparate but irreversibly interlinked groups for our Truths? What is it going to take for us to stop believing every freakin’ word that comes out of their mouths? When will the dog finally start wagging the tail for once? Or better yet, when will the dog realize that its tail has become incurably infected and simply gnaw it the fuck off?

The MySpace Generation... who cares?

I was cleaning out my computer this week and stumbled across something I'd written back around election time. It was originally written with the intent of submitting it to one of the local alt papers around here, but I apparently never found the time to actually finish and polish it. It was in pretty jagged shape when I came across it this week, but I thought the ideas I was presenting were good and valid and worth seeing the light of day. So I fixed it up a bit and, even though it's a little dated, I figured I'd finally share it with the world at large. Enjoy.

=====================================

WE ARE THE MYSPACE GENERATION… AND WE COULD CARE LESS
by Brian Hodges

I received a rather long internet forward on my MySpace bulletin board this week which basically said, "Hey couch potato, make sure you go out and vote next Tuesday!" Like most forwards that don't involve filling out surveys or watching videos of indie rock bands on treadmills, I gave it a only quick skim before devoting my attention to more pressing matters like creating my own South Park character and scanning for hotties amongst my friends' friends list. I fully expected the bulletin and all its content to fade from memory by the time I logged off the site. But before clicking away to post an animation of some fat chick having sex to a friend's comment area, my eyes happened upon one particular line: "They're calling our generation the Apathetic Generation."

The composition of this particular bulletin indicated an author of better writing skills than your typical 14 to 23-year-old MySpace user, so it made sense that the original poster was probably someone closer to my age and the apathetic generation to which he referred was my own. Born in 1978, I've always been rather confused as to which generation I technically belonged. A quick check of Wikipedia simultaneously places me in Generation X, Generation Y, The MTV Generation and something called "The Boomerang Generation." But no matter which "our generation" the author was actually indicating, I could only assume that the "they" to which he alluded meant the people of our parents' generation, which for the average MySpacer means the Baby Boomers.

Normally an attack like this doesn't bother me enough to give it a second thought (isn't that what apathy is all about?), but for some reason this particular criticism, made in this particular context, stuck with me well after I'd finished approving new friend requests and changing my profile song to "Crazy" by Gnarls Barkley. What this nameless "they" was saying, according to the author, was that despite being faced with a war, a nuclear threat, human rights violations and a laundry list of other issues, "our generation" is still too lazy and uncaring to go out and vote. I went back over the post several times and the more I read that one key line, the more self-righteous my apathy became.

When "they" say "our generation" is apathetic, what "they" are really saying is that "we" aren't like "them." "We" don't do all the things "they" did at our age. "Our generation" doesn't mobilize for reform on college campuses. "Our generation" doesn't march on the Capitol building waving placards and hurling slogans. "Our generation" doesn't engage in civil disobedience while singing defiant folk songs. And "our generation" certainly doesn't rally around political candidates who might end the tyranny, bring peace to our country and harmony to the world. If this is what "they" mean by an "apathetic generation" then I guess I'd say "they" are right.

But can "they" really blame us? After all, "they" are "our generation's" role models. "They" thought trying to change the world was all noble and groovy for about a decade or so until they realized there was more money to be made selling real estate. "They" were all about fighting The Establishment and standing up for the little man until "they" realized they could use their law degree to defend The Establishment against little man's lawsuits and earn a fatter paycheck. Woodstock, Marin County, the Sunset Strip, places where "they" used to hang out, smoke dope and say, "Love is all you need," are now nothing more than giant spaces for them to build luxury condos and hang billboards advertising Big Macs, timeshares, and the next season of Big Brother. "They" were passionate. "They" were going to make a difference. And yet look at what "they" produced. Frankly, I think things might have turned out better if "they" had taken a cue from "our generation" and just said, "Eh, whatever."

If there's anything "our generation" has learned from "them", it's that politics is not the way to change the world. We tried it out for a while… more to see what all the fuss was about I think. During the 2004 Democratic and Republican Conventions, "our generation" descended on Boston and New York and tried to capture some of the allure of the late sixties. We marched. We protested. We spoke out on matters we only kind of understood. But the trend died quickly… probably when all the young men realized this particular political revolution wasn't manifesting with its own sixties-style sexual revolution. And as soon as it became apparent that those hot Blue State chicks weren't putting out after the rally, we went back to work at Best Buy so we could save up enough money to buy a Razr phone with internet capabilities – allowing us to check our MySpace while on the go.

Maybe "our generation" doesn't vote. Maybe we don't give two shits about who ends up controlling Congress next Tuesday. But does anyone among us – from "our generation" or "theirs" – really and truly believe that a different set of politicians will be the thing that brings about a new and better America? "They" have already proven their own lack of faith in the power of the vote by moving on from the passionate activism of the 1960's to the apathetic consumerism of pretty much every decade since. All "our generation" is doing is skipping over "power of the vote" and going straight to apathy.

That being said, "our generation" is far from apathetic. We do care about things. We really do. It's just that right now, honestly, we have no idea whatsoever how to fix the mess that "they" created. Perhaps it will come to us in time. Perhaps what looks like apathy is just "our generation" unconsciously biding its time, watching and waiting until "they" vacate the premises. We know there's nothing we can really do as long as "they" are still in control, so why waste "our" time and "our" energy on useless rallies and campaigns that will only serve to get another one of "them" elected? Better to just sit here quietly, listening to our iPods, playing Final Fantasy, and deciding which MySpace friends to put in our Top 8 List. Who knows, maybe MySpace will become the platform where the new revolution begins. Maybe with every silly blog we post, with every YouTube video we embed, with every slutty self-portrait we upload, we will slowly but surely come together as one unit who will finally bring down The Establishment "they" were ultimately powerless to stop. And unlike the misguided stunts "they" pulled in the preceding generation, our tactics will be less likely to get us shot by the National Guard.

So to all the "they's" who want to call us "The Apathetic Generation," we say enjoy your election next Tuesday. We won't be there, but we'll be thinking of you. And when your solution to everything once again fails to solve anything, we'll be here, predictably not caring. We'll just keep on doing what we do everyday; hanging out on MySpace and waiting for you to die.

An Inconvenient Following

I am seriously this close to being done with the whole Global Warming movement. I’m sure this will be an unpopular blog. Or who knows, maybe there is a quiet mob out there like me who will echo the sentiment. Who am I kidding though – most likely nobody but my MySpace contingent actually reads this crap anyway so why hold back? I should back up for a second and clarify that it’s not the Global Warming movement in and of itself that has inspired this latest of rants. Anyone who has read my essay “Is the Truth Really That Inconvenient?” knows that I haven’t closed off my ears to the debate entirely… or even a little. I simply have a lot of questions that nobody in the planet-hugger community seems willing or able to answer. Beyond that, I’m frankly suspicious that this whole movement, while it may have started out with good intentions, is being hijacked by disingenuous people more focused on money and power than actually fixing the problem. Where I really grind my axe these days is with two specific groups: A) Loudmouth global warming activists who are painfully (or willfully) ignorant of how global warming actually works; and B) Al Gore groupies. But it’s when you combine these two groups of earthy well wishers that I actually start to become afraid for the next few years.

Let’s start with Group A. All of us probably know at least one person in this group. I’ll set the scenario for you. See if you recognize it. You’re chatting amongst friends or shooting the breeze with somebody on IM when you make the mistake of making an offhand comment about the weather. The people of Group A don’t hesitate a beat before responding, “Well, that’s global warming for you.” It doesn’t matter what your comment is. It’s hot outside. Global warming. It’s cold outside. Global warming. It’s windy. It’s rainy. It’s dry. It’s muggy. Global warming… Okay, let me explain how global warming works. First of all, look at the first word: GLOBAL. You cannot gauge the plight of an entire planet by pointing to a weeklong heat wave in New England, nor is a freak cold snap in April indicative of glaciers melting and the impending ice age. In fact, if you have a week’s worth of unusually hot weather and then a week’s worth of unusually cold weather, as far as the GLOBAL temperature is concerned, nothing has changed. If January is five degrees warmer than usual and July is five degrees colder than usual, in the eyes of the overall climate, everything has balanced itself out. But the people in Group A either don’t understand that or are deliberately ignoring it so they can fuel their own activist fires. To listen to these people rant, you’d swear there was never any such thing as droughts, monsoons or hurricanes before the Industrial Revolution.

I’m going to say this just as clear as I can. Even if we take this “environmental crisis” at face value, the day-to-day effects of global warming are not dramatic enough to be noteworthy. Pointing to floods, tornadoes, heat waves or even glaciers collapsing in slow motion does nothing to prove your point. The things that lend credence to global warming aren’t sensational or visual at all. You know what they are? Numbers. Statistics. Data from all over the world painstakingly compiled into hugely boring tables and graphs that show the GLOBAL temperature rising by fractions of a degree. One quarter of a degree on a boring chart like that is far more damning than ten degrees on a bank thermometer. That is where the inconvenient truth really lies… even if it isn’t as compelling to look at. So please stop invoking global warming every time I decide to make small talk about the weather.

Okay, now for Group B. The Al Gore groupies. These people infuriate me more than Group A, who at least have the luxury of just being ignorant. The Gore groupies are different in that they really do seem to understand the causes behind global warming and are willing to condemn people, countries and corporations for all the damage they’re causing via their actions. Yet when it comes the actions of Al Gore, they turn a blind eye to that inconvenient bit of truth. In his movie, Gore urges everyone to make sacrifices to reduce energy consumption and lessen their carbon footprint on the planet. Yet when Gore’s own energy consumption habits were examined, it turned out that his house consumed nearly twenty times more electricity than the average American home. Twenty times! Add to that the fact that he flew around the country promoting his movie in a private jet and one has to wonder just how seriously Gore takes his own message. These aren’t groundbreaking revelations I’m making here. Pretty much every conservative radio show in the country has used this information against Gore over the last several months. But what continually strikes me as so odd is the way the Goreists consistently absolve their fearless leader of his conduct simply because he is the one getting the message out. “The private jet’s emissions are worth it if it means he can speak at more assemblies,” they urge. What other committed following would say that? If some Christian evangelist traveled the country preaching against, say, homosexuality and then it turned out he had been getting it on with male prostitutes after the show, would his followers say, “Well that’s okay because he’s out there spreading the right message”? Of course not! They would disavow themselves of him and his actions immediately.

The one argument I constantly hear being made in defense of Al Gore and his carbon footprint is that he “buys carbon credits” to offset his pollution. Essentially he pays a certain amount of money to companies with low carbon emissions, or to companies developing renewable energy technologies, or to organizations who do things like plant trees. Something to that effect. I’m exactly not sure how it all works, but the bottom line worth focusing on here is that Gore is validating his sins against the planet by paying money for them. Is it just me or does this all vaguely similar to the medieval Catholic doctrine of “Indulgences” where rich people could pay money to the church who would then give them (no joke) a “pre-emptive license to sin.” If a man knew he was going to have an affair, he would pay a certain amount of money to the diocese, and then his priest, rather than encouraging him to turn from his sinful ways, would simply absolve him of all future adulteries. The inherent hypocrisy wrapped up inside this doctrine was one of the primary triggers for Martin Luther’s grievances and the resulting Protestant Reformation. So why, just because Al Gore has more money than the rest of us, is he allowed to pollute at will? If he's supposed to be at the forefront of this movement, why doesn't he pay out that carbon credit money in addition to reducing his carbon footprint? (And just to be completely forthright here, it’s actually Paramount Pictures, the film’s distributor who pays those credits, not Gore himself.) And why oh why doesn’t Gore’s entourage at least acknowledge the inconsistencies between his doctrine and his daily life and demand that their leader hold himself to higher standard?

This blog has been a long time in coming. It’s been on the tip of my (fingertips?) for months now but without the time to actually sit down and hammer out my thoughts. Then I heard something, actually two things, that finally made me take the time to get this out there. The first thing I heard – which really was reason enough – was a speech made by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at the Live Earth concert on July 7 where he flat out accused people who don’t believe the warnings about global warming to be guilty of “treason.” Treason! As in being a traitor to the country, perhaps the utmost crime somebody can be convicted of. Sadly, Kennedy’s comment was merely the most visible example of a scary trend I see developing in this country, where any opinions on global warming other than the ones espoused by Al Gore and those like him are opinions that are, at best, not valid. And at worst, if Kennedy can be taken at his word, those opinions can apparently make a person subject to anything from censure to death. We’re not there yet. For the time being there are voices who are countering the “Al Gore’s Way or the Highway” mentality. People like Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck who, love ‘em or hate ‘em, do make valid defensible points on the opposing side. The danger could exist however, if and when someone like Al Gore, somebody with his single-minded committedness to global warming, gets into a position of real power and opens up a new round of neo-McCarthyism.

I know that last remark sounds like I’m just being sensationalistic for effect, but I am dead serious. I wouldn’t have believed it myself except for the fact that I was also listening to the audio book version of Bill Bryson’s The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid. The book is a memoir of sorts using Bryson’s childhood as a jumping off point for talking about America in the 1950’s. Bryson spends several minutes (pages?) in one chapter talking about America’s fear of Communism and how that fear was personified and ultimately manipulated by Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy instigated a nationwide witch-hunt for anyone and everyone who might be perceived as collaborating with communists in any way. As Bryson explains, well respected scientists, businessmen, humanitarians and, of course, Hollywood artists were accused of being communists and couldn’t find work simply because they had once had a conversation with somebody who had once written a paper expressing what was narrowly interpreted as sympathy toward the communist party. Lives, careers and reputations were ruined for anyone who was even remotely suspected of advocating philosophies that strayed from the accepted American capitalist ideal.

As I listened to this recording I felt an eerie sense of foreboding over the similarities between then and now. As I said, we are not to that point yet, but the fact that somebody like Robert Kennedy can so openly and so easily accuse others of treason – not a light choice of words by any stretch of the imagination – simply for disagreeing with the most popular views on global warming… The signs are all there. McCarthy played on the country’s fears and people went right along with him, even as he made claim after increasingly ridiculous claim. The fears surrounding global warming are also building and are already being played upon. For the time being it seems to be mostly corporations who are reaping the benefits of those fears, with the sales of hybrid cars, fluorescent light bulbs and whatnot. But as the government changes hands over the next few years, who knows who might come into power and what ridiculous things might they get the country to agree to in the name of global warming? Al Gore claims we have ten years to change “or else.” If the threat is truly that dire, what will believers do to ensure that change? Surely shutting up dissenters à la Joseph McCarthy will be the first step. And then what? America’s fear of communism almost put us into all out nuclear war. What could our fear of global warming push us into?

As I’ve said all along (and I feel compelled to keep restating), I am not denying the claims of the global warming camp outright. But neither will I simply be pushed along by the rising current without asking what I feel are pertinent questions. Blindly agreeing with popular opinion doesn’t help any of us. In fact it could end up causing us to focus our efforts in exactly the wrong areas as projects and programs get green-lighted unchallenged, only to realize the mistake several years too late. At best we could end up wasting money. At worst we could end up taking measures that would alter whole eco-systems, something that, as humans, we’ve never had much success with. Better that we all take the time and ask these questions now. So show your dissent. Challenge others. Don’t let offhand, “Look what global warming is causing” comments go unchallenged. That’s how it starts, but eventually it could become, “Do you now or have you ever owned or operated an SUV?”

I, for my part, am showing my own personal dissent through typically passive-aggressive techniques. Blogs like this for one. And deliberately sarcastic mockery and oh-my-god-is-he-really-serious apathy for another. To that end, I need help designing a few bumper stickers. The prototype slogans are:

BURN MORE COAL!
...because penguins are EVIL!

GLOBAL WARMING:
…because it’s too damn cold out there anyway.

STOP GLOBAL WARMING:
Shut your big fat mouth.

And my personal favorite:

GLACIERS ARE MELTING! …so?

Anybody with graphic design abilities, feel free to collaborate.

Virginia Te...(click)

I've mentioned in the past how I don't really keep up with the news, almost make a point NOT to watch the news and trust the fact that any news worth knowing about will still be news 2 weeks later when I eventually hear about it and take the time to find out what happened. The way I see it, all news is partial or complete speculation and/or spin until at least that long anyway.

But as with most of the nation, I too have felt compelled to watch at least a few reports about this whole Virginia Tech thing. I just finished watching the local 11 o'clock news report about the video tape the killer sent to the news networks. Except they're not calling it "the video tape the killer sent to the news networks." No, they are calling it, "Murderer's 1800-word Manifesto." Christ. That's seriously all it took and now once again I am off the news. Earlier in the night as I was flipping through the channels in the 15 minutes before LOST came on, I stopped briefly on each of the Big 3 news nets and each one was palpably foaming at the mouth over their "exclusive interview" with the killer's roommate, co-worker, classmate, etc. etc. etc. Basically pick a relationship anybody could have had and the reporters were on them like jackals, each trying to get their own unique perspective so as to show up the other news shows. Each station had built their own animated graphics specifically for the killings, incorporating the killer's face, or crying students, or V-tech sweatshirts, or a combination of them all. Each had accompanying sound effects designed to draw the viewer's attention which sounded like some kind of video game. And goddamn if each reporter didn't deliver their standup, punctuating those key words just absolutely perfectly so that every viewer knew what they were saying was deep, dark, poignant, timeless... poetic even. You couldn't help but wonder if they were seeing the tears in the students' eyes, or the glitter of their own Emmy's.

And now, the "Murderer's Manifesto." Does everybody remember Columbine? Does anybody remember that the two killers in that massacre recorded a similar video telling exactly what they were going to do? Anybody? No, because you know what? Out of respect, they never released that tape to the public. They gave transcripts I believe, but even that wasn't until MONTHS after the rampage. But when this guy actually mailed his video to NBC, what choice did NBC have but to run it? Of course we all watched it. We couldn't help it. We're curious as hell. We want to know why he did it. Did we get any answers? Of course not, other than confirming that yes, this dude was in fact insane. But did we get any answers? No. But NBC sure as hell got ratings. You almost feel bad for them that this didn't take place during sweeps.

I really haven't spent much time thinking about the massacre at Virginia Tech at all because honestly if I think too deeply on it, I know I'll break down crying. But that's not the reason I'm vowing to avoid all news reports about the story until at least 2 weeks have passed. I'm avoiding the news because honestly I would rather think of this tragedy with all the due horror and sadness that it warrants. I don't want to roll my eyes and think on it with disgust. And that's just what watching even a collective 20 minutes of the garbage that passes for "news" this evening did to me. I want nothing more than to reach through my TV screen and strangle every reporter I see covering the event. And that is what this is you know... an "event". That's all these things ever are in the eyes of the media. September 11 was the lone exception to that rule. Every single report, every single reportER I saw covering that day was real and genuine, simply because they were covering something unlike anything they had ever seen before in their lives. Their shock, their horror, their sadness was real, genuine, unscripted. But with VA Tech... they KNOW how to cover this kind of stuff. Hell they've been practicing for this day ever since April 20, 1999.

I only saw the tease for this story, didn't actually watch the full "report", but apparently Simon Cowell is in some hot water because he rolled his eyes at an American Idol contestant who dedicated one of his performances to the victims of Virginia Tech. To Simon, I say, "Right on man." If ALL the contestants had collaborated on a company number for the victims, okay, I'd give you that, but the way this contestant did it, all it did was USE the deaths of 32 people to draw sympathy and votes for his own performance. I know that sounds cynical as hell, and I know this particular contestant actually was from the state of Virginia, but damn man, this wasn't a tragedy for YOU to make your own. I'd have rolled my eyes at THE CONTESTANT as well. And I'm quite certain that's what Simon was doing. He wasn't rolling his eyes at the tragedy or the victims of it. He was rolling his eyes at the contestant for USING those victims for his own benefit. Shame.

Shame. Just like the news organizations. This is nothing new. Tragedy is the bread and butter of the news industry. I accept that, though I decided tonight that if I were running the universe, big domestic tragedies like this would be assigned by lottery. Only ONE news network would be granted permission to cover any given tragedy. NBC would get dibs on VA Tech because CBS drew the lot during Reagan's death, something CBS was actually bummed about because their tragedy didn't garner nearly as many ratings as ABC pulled in during Hurricane Katrina when their number came up, and CNN is crossing their fingers for a dirty bomb in Los Angeles because it's their turn next. As far as I'm concerned, that is the ONLY way for a tragic event to be covered fairly, honestly and tactfully - eliminate the competition. That way, nobody stoops to dispicable levels trying to "scoop" the other networks with THEIR "exclusive witness", or their exclusive "expert" on this that or the other. And certainly nobody tries to grab viewers with big exciting words like "Murderer's Manifesto". Without competition, without the need for sensationalism, the story can simply be told and the dead can know that they were not merely pawns in some grand scramble for ratings...

Mind you, this rule would only apply for the first two weeks following the tragedy. Because as I previously stated, any news really worth knowing will still be news two weeks later. After that time, the other networks would be free to start airing the stuff they shot, or decide that after 14 days, nobody cares anymore and it's time to discuss the paternity results of the latest celebrity death triangle.

To anybody who was affected by the VA Tech tragedy, my deepest and sincerest condolences. I can't even begin to know what to say. But for now, I am going to leave you to cope with your grief without another intrusive eye looking in on you. I'll catch up with you in about 11 days.

Global Warming? - Discuss

This is the discussion page for my essay "Is The Truth Really That Inconvenient?" If you have something to say, something to add, something to correct, tell me here.

Crosses, broken children and the French

In Week Four of the Road Trip I talk about (amongst other things) our drive across the Big Sky state of Montana. Ten years ago, Montana had no official speed limit. "Reasonable and Prudent" were the magic words on the open highways. With so much freedom of speed out there, bad judgment and a lack of prudence was inevitable, so in an effort to convince people to slow down, the American Legion has been erecting crosses on the side of the road, marking the sites of fatal accidents since 1954. In the travelogue I couldn't decide if this was a more subtle or less subtle way of controlling speed demons than say a bulky automated radar detector that flashes your speed next to the current speed limit. All I knew was that it was effective. When a sobering reminder of death whips by you every half-hour or so, you can't help but look down and say, "Oh crap how fast am I going?"



As it turns out, no matter how morose or non-subtle you think the Montana highway cross program is, it is actually a THOUSAND times more subtle than what they've been doing over in France since 2000. Apparently French drivers are among the most reckless in the world... certainly in all of Europe according to the Brits. In an effort to curb their own driver mortality, the French have elected to start putting up roadside death markers of their own. But rather than little white crosses, they went with big black human-shaped cutouts. These cutouts are about four feet tall and painted black with red lightning bolts through their heads and chests. They look like silhouettes of children whose bodies have cracked open upon impact.



At first I was thinking that this should be another addition to my several-years-old humor column that talks about how the French are the silliest people on earth. But now I'm thinking that this should actually earn them a checkmark in the positive column. What an awesomely non-PC way of getting an important job done. I'm sure people bitched and complained about it (they are French after all), but in the long run, I bet you these morbid silhouettes are working. I imagine they are impossible to miss, and with their gruesome implications I imagine they are impossible to ignore. So kudos to France for doing something crazy and way out there that pisses people off but actually has a positive outcome.

Wait, that wasn't a joke?

Okay, Lauren and I just realized this evening that we have GOT to start watching more TV. We just found out tonight that Saddam Hussein was hanged ON DECEMBER 30TH!!! Just so we're clear, that was over TWO WEEKS AGO! And what's worse, we found out when John Stewart made an offhand comment about it on The Daily Show. We were both like, "What? Wait was he serious? He didn't sound like he was kidding."

I know we've been busy because of a new baby and whatnot and we don't watch that much TV to begin with, but man, how did we not see at least a news blurb online about this in the last 19 days? I've listened to a few hours of talk radio and seen a few snippets of CNN in that time. How did I not hear about it on one of those? Or geez, how come none of our friends or family mentioned it in conversation, "Hey did you hear Saddam Hussein is dead?" How have we gone almost three weeks without hearing a single bit of info on this story?

I've kind of prided myself on not being at the forefront of current events lately. Personally I think any news worth remembering is news that will still be valid a couple weeks later. But man, I think even I have crossed a line on this one.

Oh liberals, why are you this naive?

I GOT THIS LETTER ON MY MYSPACE BULLETIN BOARD TODAY AND READ IT WITH A FAIR AMOUNT OF INCREDULITY, SHAKING MY HEAD AT HOW SOME WELL-MEANING LIBERAL COULD BE SO NAÏVE AND CONDESCENING… AND THEN I GOT TO THE BOTTOM AND REALIZED IT WAS A LETTER FROM MICHAEL MOORE AND IT ALL MADE SENSE. SO I FELT THE NEED TO PUT IN MY OWN TWO-CENTS. MY COMMENTS IN BOLD.

November 14th, 2006

To My Conservative Brothers and Sisters,

I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand.

Yes, but unlike YOU after the 2004 election, WE have not turned into whining little children stomping our feet and threatening to move to Canada just because things didn’t go our way.

Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what
we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you.

Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:

Dear Conservatives and Republicans,

I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:

1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.

Really? Because it seems like every time I actually get into a conversation with one of you people the look on your face ranges from disgust that anybody could possibly have such primitive ideas, to a look that I can only describe as pure childlike wonder or disbelief that there are even still such things as Red States and Red State voters.

2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be "different" or "immoral." Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift.

Fine, no problem here.

3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you.

If you say so, but then you might want to talk to such notable guys as Nancy Pelosi’s second-in-command John Murtha who has a rather pork filled history of his own. Or how about Harry Reid the Senate Minority leader who approved a bill for a bridge that allow the property value of his own house and neighborhood skyrocket. What about California Dem Diane Feinstein who threw 200 million dollars at Northrop Grauman for Katrina related efforts… just so happens that company is one of her biggest campaign supporters. Don’t tease us libs. I found these three easily after a mere five minutes on Google. I’m sure if I dug deeper I’d find more. You guys are just as guilty of wheeling and dealing for your friends as the Reps.

4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie.

Okay, first of all, have you actually talked to the men and women who are over there fighting. If you did you’d realize a good portion of them - depending on whose polls you read of course - AGREE with the war. And so your solution is to bring them home poste haste. Great, let’s just leave a power vacuum over there for the insane president of Iran to step in and fill. That will make all our problems go away.

And really, the “war based on a lie” thing? Are we really still beating that dead fictitious horse? Okay then:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

That’s a quote from October of 2002 and made not by a Republican, but by a DEMOCRAT. And not just any democrat… Hillary Rodham Clinton herself said it.

Or what about:

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

That one was made by Bill Clinton himself in 1998 while he was STILL PRESIDENT, so if there was a lie, it was more than just the right side of the room perpetuating it.

5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too.

That’s great. Government regulated health care. I’m sure that will run just as smoothly and efficiently as those other departments you run. Considering how long it takes and how many different forms I have to fill out and how many lines I have to stand in and how many rude and incompetent government employees I have to deal with just to get a DRIVERS LICENSE, I’m looking forward to the day when I need to go through you people to get chemo or a heart transplant.

6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water.

See now you all CLAIM to be pro-environment and I encourage that and I agree that the Bush administration has not been the environment’s best friend. But in multiple Google searches of appropriate keywords, I really don’t see you offering any actual SOLUTIONS to how you’re actually going to FIX things. The Kyoto Treaty and “alternative energy” are the only buzzwords I really hear you talking about, which strike me as rather vague “hooks” to lure voters and make it SEEM like you’re devoting your time to the problem without producing any actual results. But hey, I hope I’m misreading. Go to it.

7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.

Right, because all the terrorism in this world is being perpetuated by ONE GUY. And taking him out is going to solve all our problems. Fantastic. I look forward to seeing you apprehend the mass murderer and immediate extinction of radical Islam that is sure to follow.

8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.

But will you start counting the seconds of my age from the instant my head pops out of the birth canal until the second the doctor punctures my skull or severs the spinal cord in my neck? I know I was only “partially born” before I was killed but still, will you be counting then?

9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.

Machine guns, I’m right on board with you. But you know some of us actually use handguns to defend our homes from criminals who managed to find guns in spite of the laws you want to make.

10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.

That’s wonderful. What a great cure-all for the poor of this country. I’m sure once that single mom starts making a full SEVEN dollars an hour, all her financial woes will be over. Maybe she’ll even be able to buy her little girl that pony she’s always wanted. And she’ll have you to thank.

11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs ("Blessed are the poor," "Blessed are the
peacemakers," "Love your enemies," "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," and "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world.

Sure, you’ll respect our beliefs right up until the moment when one of use dares to intimate that there is bona fide evil in this world, or when we suggest that somebody’s decisions might be immoral, or when our child decides to say a personal prayer before lunch where others can hear in a public school. After that, respect stops and we become “intolerant” or “brain-washed” people who are “unable to think for themselves.”

12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.

Okay, seriously, ANY politician that gets as high as the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives has been bought and paid for by the rich at some point or other. Those campaign finances don’t pop out of thin air. And if you examine any politician, a good chunk of those donations are in large sums from rich people and corporations. But irrespective of money coming from outside, both the Republican AND the Democratic Parties are big money-making organizations FULL of corruption. Ever wonder why another party has yet to rise up and challenge the two standing parties? Because the Blues and the Reds have corrupted together and even though they are on opposite sides, they need each other to prop themselves up. So they force Green party candidates and independents off ballots. They make sure that no matter who wins or loses, at least one of THEM will still retain control.

You’re going to weed our your own corrupt politicians first? Seriously? Then why have you waited until now? If you were really serious about that, you would have done it already.

I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.

We’re every bit as American as you are? That’s funny, the day after John Kerry conceded the 2004 election we found a graphic on your site indicating that we weren’t part of America all, but a condescending little place known as “Jesusland”.

Signed,

Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
(Click here to sign the pledge:
http://www.petitiononline.com/mmflint/petition.html )
http://www.michaelmoore.com/

P.S. Please feel free to pass this on.

Hey believe me, I'm not shedding any tears over the Republicans losing both houses last week. Personally I voted Green down the line. But my god liberals, I know you’re pissed off at George Bush, but why do you keep looking to THIS GUY for guidance?

Tag, you're gone!

(deep SIGH)

First they took away Dodgeball, saying it was too violent. Then a couple of kids fell off the see-saw and monkey bars, so away they went. Soon after that, all the tall metal slides were replaced by short plastic corkscrew slides that don't allow you to pick up any speed at all. Before long somebody also said that even swings were too dangerous for playground play. Now just when you thought parents and schools couldn't get any more ridiculous and pussified than they already are, you know what some school board in Attleboro, Massachusetts decided this week? Apparently the game of Tag is no longer an appropriate game. Tag! I mean... TAG for Christ's sake! Claiming "Recess is a time when accidents happen," the Willlette Elementary School has now deemed one of the most basic, elemental and pure games of childhood to be too rough and dangerous for kids to play. What's more amazing is that there's nothing amazing about this particular decision. Apparently schools all over the country have been taking similar measures for years. In 2002 a Santa Monica school banned the game saying that it "creates self esteem issues among slower and weaker children."

I just don't even know what to say about this decision that isn't already self-evident to anybody who grew up in any previous generation, though I think George Carlin definitely said it best a few years ago when he said: "Grownups are taking all the fun out of being a kid just to save a few thousand lives. It's pathetic."

I'll skip all the remarks and comments of how stupid and moronic this decision and other decisions like it are (I'm sure all of you reading have a least a dozen comments of your own that you could insert here... and if you don't, well then you're a hopeless case anyway who should never have kids of your own) and instead skip right ahead to the big picture and its long term implications.

Every generation fears the generation that comes after it. Our grandparents were horrified by the rock-n-roll that our parents grew up listening to. Our parents were horrified by the brain-numbing MTV programming we watched like Beavis & Butthead and Singled Out. It's expected. You think your parents are prudes and you wish your kids would be into the wholesome things you used to be into. But now that my generation is stepping into the roles of parenthood a new and disturbing trend is happening. We're actually saying that all the things we loved about being a kid are no longer good and valid forms of entertainment. Instead, we claim they're damaging to the body and psyche of our frail little children. That's what we're saying, but the more I think about it, the more I think it goes deeper. Parents aren't really vilifying things that are dangerous. What they're really trying to forbid is any activity that kids can participate in without the direct supervision of a group of adults.

I never made that leap of logic until I read a short article that talked about how soccer is now the number one sport engaged in by the youth of America. And what immediately occurred to me was that the article or the study or whatever it was had left out one key word from that declaration. What it should have said was that soccer was the number one organized sport in America. Whenever you see American kids playing soccer, it's almost without exception a structured, organized event with official teams, coaches, referees, and soccer moms from the boosters club selling refreshments and car magnets in the shape of soccer balls. You almost never see a group of four or ten unsupervised kids trying to kick a soccer ball through a makeshift goal they set up using a couple backpacks. That's what kids in every other country in the world do, but not in America. No, in America I would stake my life on saying the most popular sport that kids engage in, irrespective of any kind of supervision, is basketball. Kids don't need an organized group of parents in order to play basketball. As long as they have a ball, a net and a hard surface they'll shoot hoops for hours just for the sheer joy of playing. But since there's no way to poll every pickup game on every cracked asphalt court in the country, soccer is the sport that wins the most popular title.

And that suits the parents of my generation just fine. For some reason, parents my age just can't stand the idea that their kids could be having any kind of fun in any activity that they didn't personally orchestrate and supervise. Give kids the opportunity and a rubber ball or three and they'll organize their own game of dodgeball. They'll monitor themselves, coach themselves and referee themselves. Give them the chance and they'll run around for an hour, chasing each other and tagging each other in the most unstructured game ever created. There's no need for parents. There's no need to keep score. There's no need to even determine a winner. You just play the game until you get sick of it, at which point you move on to something else. I'm not sure why, but games like that, games that we ourselves used to play, freak out the parents of my generation. It's inconceivable to them that their kids would do anything without their direct influence. And that's why things like playground equipment and unstructured games like tag and dodgeball are going away. "Safety" and "self-esteem" are just easy scapegoats for the real truth, which is today's parents are scared shitless that their kids... might not need them.

I don't know where all this insecurity originated and why it seems to be unique to the parents of my generation. Is it that we wish our own parents would have spent more time playing with us that we feel compelled to make sure our kids never spend a joyful minute outside our presence? Is it the reports of kids being stolen out of their own yards are making us too scared to let our kids leave our personal guardianship for any reason whatsoever? What is it that makes games like soccer, where literally dozens of kids can be supervised all at once, more preferable to games like tag where kids can supervise themselves? Why on earth is our generation unique in vilifying ourselves by vilifying the things we used to love? And where will it end? How much of our children's lives will we attempt to structuralize with no thought given to what we're depriving them of?

Reduce, Reuse, Re-detonate

I read a story in USA Today yesterday (actually "story" is too big a word, this was more of a blurb buried in the margins) about a series of explosions that occurred inside a bomb recycling plant in Louisiana this week. Okay, first of all, in this spectacle-fueled society, why was that one not all over the front page? People live for stories with explosions. Especially ones that involve multiple bombs, and especially ones that occur right in our own back yard.

Second of all, I didn't even know there was such a thing as bomb recycling plants in this county. Hell, I didn't know there was such a thing as bomb recycling. Exactly what kinds of bombs do these people recycle and what, pray tell, do they remake with the leftover components? Firecrackers? Presto logs? Cap guns? Apparently this plant recycles old military bombs. I assume we're not talking about nukes here, but are they the kind that look like old cannon balls with fuses on them? Are these like plastic explosives? ...and if so, which number is printed on the bottom? Like do they send it to the plant along with their milk cartons or their soda bottles?

But more to the point, who signs up for this particular job? What are the qualifications one needs to recycle bombs? And what does that kind job pay? What kind of salary would you have to pull down before you agreed to be the guy who pulls the toenails out of a Rotweiler hopped up on crack? Oh sure, they probably have safety procedures in place to keep you from getting mauled, but that doesn't change the fact that you're still pulling the toenails out of a Rotweiler hopped up on crack. I'm sure they had safety guidelines at this recycling plant, but damn, a place like that is (forgive the unfortunate cliche/pun) just a ticking timebomb... which they will apparently then refurbish into a watch or something before the timer goes down to zero.

But the thing that is really... REALLY funny about this - the explosions forced police to evacuate two schools in the area.

Seriously... no I mean seriously... WHO BUILDS A BOMB RECYLING PLANT NEAR A FREAKIN' SCHOOL?

Thoughts from an airport phone booth

It’s Sunday morning at exactly 8:42. I’m at the Philadelphia international airport waiting for a flight to take me to Chicago where I’m working the PGA Championships. (Incidentally, that means this blog won’t be posted for several days until I get a reliable internet drop at the TV compound, as my laptop has no wireless feature). I took the TSA warnings seriously and made sure to pack all liquids, gels and all other innocuous canisters into my checked bags and got to the airport at least three hours before my flight which is scheduled to take off at 10:35. I left my sister-in-law’s house in south Jersey at 6:30, experienced no traffic and arrived at long-term parking just after seven. In a rare showing of punctuality, the shuttle arrived less than thirty seconds after I schlepped my bags over to the little bus stop. In fact, it ended up being so prompt that I actually forgot to write down which section of the marathon parking lot I was parked in and had to ask another lady who’d gotten on with me. The bus let me off at Terminal A five minutes later where I walked right up and checked my bags in with the skycap (in addition to my usual big duffel bag, I also checked in a small pull-along suitcase just in case the rules change within the next week and I’m no longer allowed to bring my laptop on board with me for the flight home) and headed to the security gate.

The screeners, agents and miscellaneous employees who work the security gates at Philadelphia airport are notoriously curt and make very little effort at disguising how much they hate their jobs and the people they are forced to deal with on a daily basis. I braced myself for a good hour and a half of hearing the same orders barked at us over and over again about removing liquids from our bags, shoes from our feet and laptops from their cases. These orders traditionally become louder and more condescending with every ignorant, unprepared flier who arrives at the metal detector apparently unaware of the rules. But today, for some reason, the people who work here were surprisingly chipper. The lady checking my ID and boarding pass laughed and joked with me and I laughed and joked right back. Despite all the new regulations and despite the fact that this terminal only had one of their five security gates open, I was through the line and out the other side in less than a half-hour – including the extra five minutes it took for a secondary screening of my laptop and shoes.

Now let me just say this; I am usually the first person to complain and make sarcastic comments about airport security, which by and large is little more than an inconsistent designed to “make white people feel safe.” But honestly, today I was more than willing to cooperate, not even thinking twice before removing my shoes. For two reasons really. First of all, I know these TSA guys have had a rough couple of days worth of irate travelers (who apparently don’t watch, read or listen to the news) verbally assaulting them and pleading un-winnable cases with every tube of lotion and bottle of perfume confiscated. So I saw no reason to be just another thorn in the side of these people who are, after all, just doing their job. But second, these new security measures are ones I can actually see a point to. The people in charge saw a legitimate threat and they responded accordingly. Honestly, I’ll be more upset if they end up changing these rules back to the way they were before. I’ve said before, it’s consistency I want to see in airport security. If something is a threat today, then it should still be a threat tomorrow. Just because a month or a year or five years goes by without a similar plot being foiled doesn’t mean there aren’t people out there who won’t try it again someday when we least expect it. If a terrorist can smuggle an explosive onto a plane in a Gatorade bottle in 2006 (or in 1995 for that matter, as we learn more and more that this was not even a new idea), he’ll still be able to do it in 2011. So yes, please be steady and vigilant about real and serious threats. But please don’t waste your time confiscating my tiny pliers and nail clippers.

So when all was said and done, I was through security and into the “sterile area” by 7:30, a full three hours before my flight’s scheduled departure.

Now if only the waitress at the restaurant I went into to have breakfast had been as swift and efficient as the security team. I could be mad at how slow and obviously apathetic to her customers she was during the hour I sat there, but honestly I feel for waiters and waitresses who work the breakfast shift. It really is the crappiest shift to work as far as I’m concerned. I worked as a waiter for two years during college and thereafter but thankfully only had to work two or three breakfast shifts that entire time. The problem with breakfast isn’t just that it’s a very busy shift. It’s probably no busier than a heavy lunch rush. But for all your running around, there is very little payoff once 11AM rolls around. Everything on the menu is cheap. Generally even the most expensive item on a breakfast menu costs about as much as an average-priced appetizer on the dinner menu. So that drives your tip percentage down right off the bat. Also, breakfast crowds tend to be a bit more irate when their food doesn’t come right away. They’re often coming from church, or are on their way to work and haven’t had anything to eat since they woke up that morning. They’re hungry, half-asleep and they want their food right now. Beyond that, the bulk of a breakfast crowd tends to be old people (who else in their right mind would get up an hour earlier than necessary when you could just as easily roll out of bed and have a bowl of cereal?) who are notoriously impatient, bad tippers, and often end up splitting their three-dollar breakfast specials and asking for separate checks.

So I gave the slow and passive-aggressively rude waitress quite a bit of slack. I knew I had plenty of time to kill before my flight. Plus, I was reading a fairly awesome book. KILLING YOURSELF TO LIVE by Chuck Klosterman is a road trip book written by an author with an off-the-cuff style I can totally dig and relate to (and in a recent picture, this guy looks so much like me, minus the glasses, it’s scary).



The basic narrative is all about Klosterman, a writer for Spin magazine, traveling around the country to the places where rock stars died tragically and to places where other tragic deaths, somehow relating to rock-n-roll, occurred. One of Klosterman’s first stops is the former site of The Station in Warwick, Rhode Island, where one hundred people burned to death during a Great White concert. But this basic premise is really just a jumping off point for Klosterman to wax on about anything and everything that catches his fancy, from drugs, to pop culture to his own ex-girlfriends. The writing is at times self-indulgent and makes you wonder, “Is he actually going anywhere with this,” but for the most part it’s witty, intelligent and makes you laugh, ponder and say, “You know what, he’s exactly right about that.” This is exactly the kind of book I hope to one day write and publish – and was actually the catalyst that inspired me to pull out my laptop and start writing this blog today.

So I read my book contentedly for nearly an hour until I suddenly realized I had to leave right away. I won’t go into too many details, but the coffee they served here was so horrendous as to require four sugar packets before I switched over to Sweet & Low, and by the time I used it to wash down my heavy pancakes and the obscure meat patty they claimed to be sausage, I needed to go. No I really had to go. I didn’t bother waiting for the waitress to come back around. God knew what I would be capable of if I waited that long. I walked up to the bartender and begged him to make change for me, slapped my money and tip down on the table and ran to the nearest bathroom.

Some interesting graffiti I saw while sitting there doing my thing (in addition to the usual gang-related tag art) included:

SORRY ABOUT T.O. –DAL FAN

PHL IS SWELL

and the ever popular:

EAT CUNT

Exiting the bathroom, I saw a paper towel lying on the floor, upon which somebody had written: DO NOT USE.

So now I sit here in a phone booth with my laptop, taking advantage of the little shelf, the AC power socket and the fact that I can still bring this device through the security gate. It’s now just past nine-thirty. My flight starts boarding in a half-hour. Think I’ll go read a little more of my book and hope my experience at O’Hare in a week will be as pleasant (bowel movements notwithstanding) as today’s was.

Heroes for Ghosts

On a somewhat related followup to my previous post, Syd Barrett, the creator of the band Pink Floyd died last week. I became a big Pink Floyd fan the summer before I went to college. Then I became a rabid fan while in college. I listened to them all the time, I had their album posters on my wall, I had quotes from their songs plastered all over my dorm room door, I used their music as background in various video projects I produced, I even named a major character in one of my shows after the now-deceased founder, Syd.

Reading their incredibly informative and intimate biography, "A Saucerful of Secrets" by Nicholas Schaffner only served to fuel the obsession. It was in this book that I read all about Syd, the guy who brought the band together but then fried his brain so much on drugs that he couldn't continue with it. Unfortunately for Syd, yet very fortunately for every Pink Floyd fan out there, music history was much better served by his fall from rock stardom. Pink Floyd only became the super, mega, trippy, space age band it became because of Syd's demise. Roger Waters took over as head of the band, bringing his weird visions and lyrical mastery into the mix. David Gilmour was brought in to replace Syd as lead guitar and vocalist, which gave Pink Floyd their now classic and signature sound. Beyond that, everything great that Pink Floyd has done, every album and song that people know and love them for, was inspired (directly or indirectly) by Syd Barrett's collapse. Dark Side of the Moon chronicles, through poetry and incendiary guitar licks, Syd's descent into madness. The Wall is the story of a rock star who allows the pressure of fame and the horrors of the world to drive him deeper and deeper into insanity. Several songs and scenes from the movie depict actual moments of Syd Barrett's own life, including a night when he locked himself inside his hotel room then sat there catatonic until moments before a scheduled show, while managers, loved ones and the other band members hollered, "Time to go!" from outside.

The song "Wish You Were Here", from the album of the same name, is an obvious dedication to Syd. I've never been to a Pink Floyd concert (I got into them the summer after they stopped touring), but from what I've heard, they are visceral orgasms full of lasers and lights and psychedelic images beamed onto a signature circular projection screen above the stage. Yet whenever they sang, "Wish You Were Here", the lights dimmed, the lasers and the projector were turned off, and the band sang the simple song to their friend, with the audience singing along amidst a sea of lit cigarette lighters.

If only for this I felt a pang of mourning upon hearing of Syd's passing last week. Honestly I held no special place in my heart for him as a musician. I've tried listening to albums Pink Floyd did with Syd at the helm and it is entirely unlike anything they did in their later, more productive, years. During their Syd years, the band had a more Brit-pop sound to them. Basically picture the way the early Beatles sounded... you know, if the Beatles had dropped acid and tried to write songs for children. One of Syd's most famous lyrics comes from the song "Bike" on the Piper at the Gates of Dawn album and goes, "I've got a mouse and he doesn't have a house. I don't know why I call him Gerald." So from a musical standpoint, I don't like anything except post-Syd Floyd. Some pretentious music buffs will try and scoff and say the band was never the same after Syd left. I agree with that... it got better. Infinitely better. Anybody listening to Piper at the Gates of Dawn side-by-side with Dark Side of the Moon would swear that these were actually two completely different bands.

No, my regrets over Syd Barrett are felt more because I do know his story and it is tragic. Here was a guy who was ruling the musical world at the time and he wrecked it all with drugs. He spent the remainder of his life as a recluse, living in his mother's house off his Pink Floyd royalties - which the rest of the band made certain he always received. Yet he was the inspiration for the music that defined so much of my late teens and early 20's. And knowing that these songs originated out of the unravelling life of a real life person who I'd read all about only made the songs hit me at an even deeper level. These days I have to be in a very specific spaced out mood to turn on the Floyd, though their music remains, and will always remain a very fond relic of my college days. If only for that I raise my glass to the late Syd Barrett and say (along with every other cliched Pink Floyd fan), "Shine on you crazy diamond..."