10/25/10: Vote 'yes' to keep Iowa justice uncorrupted

Thinking about this week's election topic, I could not help but remember a touching, personal story. When I was 6, my grandmother pulled one of my teeth out. The tooth she removed, with surprisingly little effort on her part, was right next to the loose one she had intended to pull. There was much wailing and not so much with the gnashing of teeth. Within the hour, the loose tooth I had been "fiddling" with fell out on its own. This resulted in two very important lessons being learned, in a very visceral way, by me. The first lesson is to never underestimate an old woman with a powerful grip, a clean, dry handkerchief and no patience. The second is never trust an interloper.

Of course, my grandmother felt terrible about what would constitute torture under the Geneva Convention. I know her regret was earnest because back in those days you could just about smack a kid with a log chain at a grocery store in front of a cop and not get so much as a ticket for noise pollution. She never said as much and I may be reading into things, but I believe if she could remember the incident, she would say she acted rashly out of personal irritation as opposed to a legitimate interest in what was best for everyone.

So it goes. Every generation has growing pains, obstacles and noisome interference to deal with. In this upcoming election, Iowans are being bombarded by outside interests to remove three Iowa Supreme Court justices for ruling unanimously a year and a half ago that the state has no vested interest in prohibiting same sex couples from entering into wedded bliss, such as it is. Having read the ruling and being a fan of well-written jurisprudence, I can find nothing particularly biased about the decision. In fact, it's a model of pure legal reasoning so airtight you could can tomatoes in it. It's probably the best written legal opinion since Brown v. Board of Education. It makes me emotional just thinking about it and the best part? It's pure Iowa values written by Iowans for Iowans with no interference from outsiders (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM104_090403_iowacourt.html).     

Agree or disagree, but in an impartial system you win some and you lose some. That's how you know it's impartial. If you get your way all the time, then something IS wrong.  

Do Iowans need help deciding Iowa issues from groups based, according to The Iowa Independent, in Mississippi (American Family Association), Washington, D.C. (Family Research Council), Arizona (Alliance Defense Fund), Georgia (Faith & Freedom Coalition) and New Jersey (National Organization for Marriage)? I don't think so, but then I have faith in Iowans to decide their own fate unlikepIpes Rep. Steve King who is happy to collaborate with interloping outsiders.

The most offensive piece of doublespeak being pushed this season is the "Vote NO to Activist Judges" campaign which would have us destroy our great tradition of a non-political judiciary in the name of keeping our courts "activist free" through political scheming which would virtually guarantee that any future judges would have to be political, partisan campaigners. The kindest thing anyone can say about this campaign is it's like pulling perfectly good teeth.

So let's set aside agendas for one moment and operate from a place of pure, unadulturated, utilitarian pragmatism. Let's use the kind of "enlightened self-interest" that would have made Ayn Rand smile quietly to herself.

According to Jennifer Merriman, communications/new media organizer for OneIowa, there are very good reasons of self-interest why no one should consider politicizing Iowa justices. They are: "Voting out the justices will not reverse the marriage decision. It will not change how justices are chosen. Voting out the justices will make them more likely to take popular opinion into account when making decisions. If one is opposed to gay marriage, one should know that popular opinion is weighing more and more toward gay marriage every day. Voting out the justices WILL make it more likely that a defendant will face a prosecution that's donated to the justice's campaign."

Connie Ryan Terrell of Interfaith Alliance Iowa offered good questions voters should ask themselves when deciding how to vote.

"Do voters really want to have this battle every two years? Do they really want to have to spend millions every two years? Do they really want judges who blow with the wind on whatever 'popular' opinion is every two years? Do they really want judges who are beholden to the other side’s special interest (whatever that happens to be) every two years?"

Greg Jerrett is a freelance writer and marketing consultant. He can be contacted at gjerrett@gmail.com.

Ignore the narrative, process is the point of elections

Possible column topics whirled around my head while re-organizing my library this week. There is something humbling about being the caretaker of many great volumes of philosophy, science, politics and literature. It's not just the dusting involved -- though I confess it can be tedious -- rather it is the sheer magnificent weight of great historical thinkers that makes one feel as significant as a dirty penny in a jar of new nickels. Especially when one lives in an age of spare change.

With a Templeton  Rye in one hand and a homeless copy of "Moby Dick" in the other, I was struck by the notion that no one knows ahead of time just how important their work will be when viewed in hindsight. Nor should we focus so hard on outcomes that we short change the process. Had someone told Melville he'd die broke, he might have chosen another line of work. Had he known his work's future worth, he might have written a sequel ("Moby Dick 2: They Still Call Me Ishmael") gutting our love for the original. 

We live inside the big picture we help to create. We spring from cultural traditions we maintain as much as change. For better or for worse, we build the future from the bricks of the past and the mortar of right now. The quality of our work will be judged by generations yet unborn to parents and grandparents yet to be. We have an obligation to do our best because the only condemnation the future can ever teally saddle the the pastwith is that "the people of that time didn't try hard enough to be better."        

So as we approach Nov. 2, I feel ethically, if not morally, obligated to discuss the election. First up, broad strokes. In bombastic times, I feel the need to make my positions as entertaining as possible without yielding too much dignity to populism. But then I remember that popularity, populism and politics are all rooted in the same notion of people-pleasing. It is no coincidence that people love to watch and vote for the next "American Idol" pop singer more often and more consistently than they pay attention and vote in boring local, state and mid-term national elections. These merely effect our lives. 

It's about perception, investment and return. Even if one pays each time to vote for the next "idol" and their choice doesn't win, most viewer-voters don't feel they've wasted their time -- ironic as this might seem to Ruben Studdard fans. This is because no one perceives that they've been robbed. They were going to watch anyway. No one lives or dies by the outcome and if their contestant wins, they feel a part of that success. A week later, they can forget all about it and move on to the next reality/talent show. 

Politics and talent shows can both be entertaining, but political contests rarely result in victory for the most talented participant. The only commonality between talent shows and politics is they both make good use of narrative to change the outcome.

"A narrative" is just a fancy way of saying "a story" without it sounding like a complete fiction. We all have a story, but how we tell it changes how we are perceived. Sometimes, people fudge the details, highlight their best points or just lie with varying levels of success. Sometimes, storytellers are so good at telling their story it doesn't matter so much what the truth is. Anyone who's read Hunter S. Thompson knows this.

An entertaining story overshadows dry issues and confuses voters. Political action groups depend on it to get their way. They're convinced of their righteousness so it doesn't matter if you are too so long as you vote the way they want you to.   

Political victories can be hollow ones. Even the best are about as hair-raising as paying your bills on time but the long-term goal of a stable democracy is worth our diligence. 

This election, please familiarize yourself with the issues. Vote your conscience, ignore the noise of outside influence and remember that process is the point with history our only judge.   

Greg Jerrett is a freelance writer, marketing consultant and not a paid spokesman for Templeton. He can be contacted at gjerrett@gmail.com. 

No one said it would be funny

I hate it when celebrities make me feel like less of a lefty
than they are. Their money and ample free time makes it
easy to have an expansive social conscience the rest of us
cannot easily afford. Hey, maybe I'm not buying tissues
made of recycled paper, but then maybe I'm not buying
tissues at all. Maybe I'm using leftover fast food napkins
because I'm not only tight but truly willing to sacrifice
a bit of comffort for my planet.

The average person can't buy things like recycled tissues
and super expensive green products. And I really do think
celebs don't get it that mowt Americans can't just opt to
spend twice as much on their basics and still expect to feed
their kids and pay their rent. Fine. Maybe they are a bit out
of touch, but it doesnt excuse it when they make bad jokes
and embarrass the environmental movement with their
silliness.

Recently singer Sheryl Crowe jokingly advocated limiting
toilet paper usage to one square per visit. It wasn't taken
entirely as a joke because this is exactly the kind of "quirky"
BS people expect to hear from celebrities. It's like listening
to Britney Spears make fun of people who think she's
stupid and trashy by "ironically" pretending to be stupid
and trashy. Nobody's gonna get that. It's like making a
joke by pretending to be upset about something that you
are actually kind of upset about. If the the joke is too close
to the truth as other people might see it, then it is a really
bad joke that undermines your point.

Celebrities have a lot of access and therefore a disproportionate
voice to be used however they see fit. Rich people, politicians
and TV pundits do as well. So there are no rules suggesting
anyone is entitled to a greater voice or obligated to no take
advantage of greater access. But use your damn head. If you
jokingly suggest that people should only use one sheet
of toilet paper in the context of making suggestion about
what people should do to protect the earth in a country where
many people still think environmentalists are crying
"the sky is falling" then the misunderstanding is your fault,
not theirs.

All you're doing is giving the crazy hateful right-wingers a
grand opening to attack you, belittle the environmental cause,
and alienate sensible left-wingers who don't want to be associated
with crazy.

Addendum: As I was writing this, an SUV commercial came on
featuring Crowe's song "Every Day is a Winding Road." The main
bragging point in this commercial? The SUV gets 26 mpg. Oh that's
rich. Hypocrisy on top of facetiousness.

A Few Tips on Getting Around Net Cesorship

Long live freedom of information, expression
and getting whatever the hell you want on the
Internet even if you live in China.

A Screed Apart

I love this screed from Bob Cesca on HuffPost. Here's a sample:

"Every day we're bombarded from all sides by marketing that
tells us that our bodies aren't ripped enough. Our credit score
is too low, but a Visa card is priceless. We need a bigger car. We
need more chemically polluted foods, then the diet pills to interdict
with the chemicals, then mAore medications to interdict with the
diet pills, then additional meds to give us boners and free-flowing
piss when our organs stop functioning from all of the above. We
need plastic surgery to feel accepted. We need acceptance in order
to be popular on MySpace. We have to redecorate our homes, buy
a souped up chopper, eat brick oven pizza with five varieties of cheese
and we need to display bumper magnets that prove to the dickhead
behind us in traffic that we unequivocally support the troops."

Get educated, then get out and vote

Check out this site. It encourages people
to vote, but ONLY after they've gotten
educated.

I got a B on their little test. A couple of my
correct answers were just good guesses, too. I think
I need to watch the news a little more often.

Vermont Votes to Impeach Bush/Cheney ... CAN YOU DIG IT?!

From The Nation: [click here]

The Middlebury, VT resolution to impeach President Bush says:

We the people have the power -- and the responsibility -- to remove executives who transgress not just the law, but the rule of law.

The oaths that the President and Vice President take binds them to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." The failure to do so forms a sound basis for articles of impeachment.

The President and Vice President have failed to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" in the following ways:

1. They have manipulated intelligence and misled the country to justify an immoral, unjust, and unnecessary preemptive war in Iraq.

2. They have directed the government to engage in domestic spying without warrants, in direct contravention of U.S. law.

3. They have conspired to commit the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Federal Torture Act and the Geneva Convention.

4. They have ordered the indefinite detention without legal counsel, without charges and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention -- all in violation of U.S. law and the Bill of Rights.

When strong evidence exists of the most serious crimes, we must use impeachment -- or lose the ability of the legislative branch to compel the executive branch to obey the law.

Stop the War ... BEFORE it starts this time

I sent some comments to the White House today
as part of a larger effort on the part of General
Wesley Clark to encourage our Commander in Chimp
to give up on his seemingly inevitable march toward
war with Iran. You can add your comments as well
at Stopiranwar.com

Just in case you are too chickenshit to send a comment
yourself, but you still want to see what a response from the
White House looks like. Here it is:

On behalf of President Bush, thank you for your
correspondence. We appreciate hearing your views
and welcome your suggestions.

The President is committed to continuing our
economic progress, defending our freedom, and
upholding our Nation's deepest values.

Due to the large volume of e-mail received, the
White House cannot respond to every message. 
Please visit the White House website for the
most up-to-date information on Presidential
initiatives, current events, and topics of
interest to you.

In order to better receive comments from the
public, a new system has been implemented. 
In the future please send your comments to
comments@whitehouse.gov.

Thank you again for taking the time to write.

'Go to hell, gringos!' says Chavez

Hugo Chavez, commie nutjob or democratically elected leader of Venezueala

It's the bad ass who makes the girls' hearts beat faster.

I know ... I'm supposed to hate Hugo Chavez because he's
a socialist, which in America means he's basically a communist.
But in America we also toss liberals, democrats, hippies, anarchists
and real Christians into that pile as well. So forgive me if the
popular dilution of the term Communist has desensitized me
to the fearful power the word is supposed to conjure.

But these days, I sort of have to respect anyone who will
tell the United States to fuck off. Hugo Chavez may be a
nut, but he's a duly elected nut. And I'm not so sure that he's
entirely a nut, he's just portrayed that way in the media because
he's anti-American. But then again, I don't even think he's
anti-American per se, he's anti-Bush. Well so am I.

It says a lot about America that even people who "hate us"
hate our government more than they hate ALL of us. When
people hate on the French, it's the French people that they hate
not just Jaques Chirac

American Concentration Camps

Sad Sunday

This is an excerpt from an article by
Brent Budowsky called "Sad Sunday:
Iraq War Longer Than World War Two"
on Huffington Post. It's pithy!

It was not democracy to seek to install Mr. Chalabi as leader of Iraq after an American invasion. Mr. Chalabi's relationship to freedom and democracy in Iraq was zero. He would have been a leader in Iraq with no support within Iraq, installed by Americans, with the result that would only help the Iranian mullahs.

It was not democracy to raise false fears to drive America to war and spy on Americans who opposed those policies.

It was not democracy to establish an Iraq Reconstruction Authority that was run by an American with the attitude of a Roman Proconsul.

It was not democracy to install political hacks in key reconstruction positions, then allow some of the greatest greed, corruption and incompetence in the history of capitalism.

It was not democracy to steal and waste money that was meant to build hospitals and schools, so some made fortunes, while troops gave their lives and Iraqis suffered unendurable misery.

It was not democracy to peddle lies to promote fear to push for war that corrupted even the front page of the New York Times. It was not democracy to promote propaganda to peddle war that corrupted the intolerant editorial pages of the Washington Post. Nor was it democracy to accuse newspapers of treason when they belatedly printed truth.

It was not democracy to have a Vice President almost universally seen as the free world's leading advocate for torture. It was not democracy to try to keep this torture secret.

It was not democracy force out the Chief of Staff of the Army for daring to speak the truth and it was not democracy to force out the Navy lawyer who won a historic case for justice before the United States Supreme Court.

It was not democracy to hold secret White House meetings with oil company lobbyists where insiders passed around maps of Iraqi oil fields. It was not democracy to seek to install Mr. Chalabi as leader of Iraq after an American invasion. Mr. Chalabi's relationship to freedom and democracy in Iraq was zero. He would have been a leader in Iraq with no support within Iraq, installed by Americans, with the result that would only help the Iranian mullahs.

It was not democracy to raise false fears to drive America to war and spy on Americans who opposed those policies.

It was not democracy to establish an Iraq Reconstruction Authority that was run by an American with the attitude of a Roman Proconsul.

It was not democracy to install political hacks in key reconstruction positions, then allow some of the greatest greed, corruption and incompetence in the history of capitalism.

It was not democracy to steal and waste money that was meant to build hospitals and schools, so some made fortunes, while troops gave their lives and Iraqis suffered unendurable misery.

It was not democracy to peddle lies to promote fear to push for war that corrupted even the front page of the New York Times. It was not democracy to promote propaganda to peddle war that corrupted the intolerant editorial pages of the Washington Post. Nor was it democracy to accuse newspapers of treason when they belatedly printed truth.

It was not democracy to have a Vice President almost universally seen as the free world's leading advocate for torture. It was not democracy to try to keep this torture secret.

It was not democracy force out the Chief of Staff of the Army for daring to speak the truth and it was not democracy to force out the Navy lawyer who won a historic case for justice before the United States Supreme Court.

It was not democracy to hold secret White House meetings with oil company lobbyists where insiders passed around maps of Iraqi oil fields. It was not democracy to seek to install Mr. Chalabi as leader of Iraq after an American invasion. Mr. Chalabi's relationship to freedom and democracy in Iraq was zero. He would have been a leader in Iraq with no support within Iraq, installed by Americans, with the result that would only help the Iranian mullahs.

It was not democracy to raise false fears to drive America to war and spy on Americans who opposed those policies.

It was not democracy to establish an Iraq Reconstruction Authority that was run by an American with the attitude of a Roman Proconsul.

It was not democracy to install political hacks in key reconstruction positions, then allow some of the greatest greed, corruption and incompetence in the history of capitalism.

It was not democracy to steal and waste money that was meant to build hospitals and schools, so some made fortunes, while troops gave their lives and Iraqis suffered unendurable misery.

It was not democracy to peddle lies to promote fear to push for war that corrupted even the front page of the New York Times. It was not democracy to promote propaganda to peddle war that corrupted the intolerant editorial pages of the Washington Post. Nor was it democracy to accuse newspapers of treason when they belatedly printed truth.

It was not democracy to have a Vice President almost universally seen as the free world's leading advocate for torture. It was not democracy to try to keep this torture secret.

It was not democracy force out the Chief of Staff of the Army for daring to speak the truth and it was not democracy to force out the Navy lawyer who won a historic case for justice before the United States Supreme Court.

It was not democracy to hold secret White House meetings with oil company lobbyists where insiders passed around maps of Iraqi oil fields. It was not democracy to seek to install Mr. Chalabi as leader of Iraq after an American invasion. Mr. Chalabi's relationship to freedom and democracy in Iraq was zero. He would have been a leader in Iraq with no support within Iraq, installed by Americans, with the result that would only help the Iranian mullahs.

It was not democracy to raise false fears to drive America to war and spy on Americans who opposed those policies.

It was not democracy to establish an Iraq Reconstruction Authority that was run by an American with the attitude of a Roman Proconsul.

It was not democracy to install political hacks in key reconstruction positions, then allow some of the greatest greed, corruption and incompetence in the history of capitalism.

It was not democracy to steal and waste money that was meant to build hospitals and schools, so some made fortunes, while troops gave their lives and Iraqis suffered unendurable misery.

It was not democracy to peddle lies to promote fear to push for war that corrupted even the front page of the New York Times. It was not democracy to promote propaganda to peddle war that corrupted the intolerant editorial pages of the Washington Post. Nor was it democracy to accuse newspapers of treason when they belatedly printed truth.

It was not democracy to have a Vice President almost universally seen as the free world's leading advocate for torture. It was not democracy to try to keep this torture secret.

It was not democracy force out the Chief of Staff of the Army for daring to speak the truth and it was not democracy to force out the Navy lawyer who won a historic case for justice before the United States Supreme Court.

It was not democracy to hold secret White House meetings with oil company lobbyists where insiders passed around maps of Iraqi oil fields. It was not democracy to seek to install Mr. Chalabi as leader of Iraq after an American invasion. Mr. Chalabi's relationship to freedom and democracy in Iraq was zero. He would have been a leader in Iraq with no support within Iraq, installed by Americans, with the result that would only help the Iranian mullahs.

It was not democracy to raise false fears to drive America to war and spy on Americans who opposed those policies.

It was not democracy to establish an Iraq Reconstruction Authority that was run by an American with the attitude of a Roman Proconsul.

It was not democracy to install political hacks in key reconstruction positions, then allow some of the greatest greed, corruption and incompetence in the history of capitalism.

It was not democracy to steal and waste money that was meant to build hospitals and schools, so some made fortunes, while troops gave their lives and Iraqis suffered unendurable misery.

It was not democracy to peddle lies to promote fear to push for war that corrupted even the front page of the New York Times. It was not democracy to promote propaganda to peddle war that corrupted the intolerant editorial pages of the Washington Post. Nor was it democracy to accuse newspapers of treason when they belatedly printed truth.

It was not democracy to have a Vice President almost universally seen as the free world's leading advocate for torture. It was not democracy to try to keep this torture secret.

It was not democracy force out the Chief of Staff of the Army for daring to speak the truth and it was not democracy to force out the Navy lawyer who won a historic case for justice before the United States Supreme Court.

It was not democracy to hold secret White House meetings with oil company lobbyists where insiders passed around maps of Iraqi oil fields.

Law & Order

Dixie Shanahan at her trial (left), a photo from the trial showing Dixie Shanahan's abuse (center) and Scott Shanahan (right).

A couple of years ago, I covered a murder trial. That sounds
pretty exciting, but truth be told, even the best murder
trials are incredibly boring procedures that lend themselves
more to dry moralization than high drama. The murder trial
I covered was that of Dixie Shanahan and it was like a "Law & Order"
episode written by William Faulkner.

The basic facts of the Shanahan murder case are that
Dixie was married to a reprobate named Scott Shanahan who
beat her seriously and regularly. One day, Scott disappeared
and was never heard from again. At first, no one was concerned.
Over a year later, it started to look really suspicious. It turns
out that Dixie had shot her husband while he was asleep in their
bed, covered him over, blocked off the room and never went back
inside. Scott Shanahan's corpse weighed under 50 pounds when
it was found by the Shelby County Sheriff's department.

Now, I was at the trial and there was not one person who came
forward to say that Scott Shanahan didn't get exactly what he
deserved. In fact, there were a couple of people who made it fairly
clear that he was a piece of shit and if ANYBODY deserved to get
put out of his and our collective misery, it was wife beater and all-
around asshole, Scott Shanahan.

But this is where things get complicated.

Laws don't exist jut to make things easy for us. Laws exist to give
us some incentive to do what's right when doing what's wrong seems
preferable or easier. Laws exist primarily for cases just like this one.
The law is meant to prevent us from acting on our feelings. It exists
so we DON'T think it's OK to kill someone just because they are bad.
Was Scott a prick? Yes. Was he asking for it? Certainly. Would I have
like to have beat his balls off with a baseball bat my damn self? Hell
yeah. But the question isn't did Dixie feel the same way, the question
is did Dixie have a choice? You better believe it.

If you've got an abusive sleeping asshole in one room and a door to
freedom on the other side, you better take the door every single time.
And know this: had there been one single excuse I could have used to
give Dixie a moral walk, I'd've done it. If she had killed him during
any of his actual attacks on her, I would have said, let's throw her
a parade and dump this asshole in the creek. Dixie waited until her
husband was asleep, shot him, hid his body for over a year, continued
to live in the same house as the corpse and, perhaps most suspiciously,
continued to spend the rest of the dead guys $150,000 inheritance.

No one said life or the law would be easy to put up with.

Saddam Hussein will die for our sins

Saddam Hussein, Judas goat and future dead man.

Curfews and threats aside, Iraq is about to explode ... some more.
Sunday, mere moments after Saddam Hussein is sentenced to
hang for the crimes he committed (with our sanction) for decades
against the people of Iraq, a massive shitstorm is going to devour
that country. Our boys and girls are going to get caught in it, too.

In the future, movies will be made about this upcoming period
and big stars will gain indie cred for their rolls as soldiers caught
in the middle of a complicated maelstrom of political/corporate
greed. Why do the innocent have to die to fill the pockets of
Dick Cheney, the Bush's and all their cronies? Why do we keep
letting them get away with it.

I think the selection of the verdict date is politically motivated
to give the Republicans a boost in next Tuesday's election, but I
think it is going to backfire like a Howitzer with a grenade shoved
down its barrel. Sectarian violence will erupt, civilians and soldiers
will die and Americans will be reminded that our Republican
leaders let this happen.

Vote like your life depended on it

Here's my thing: Back in 2000, I remember a number of well-meaning lefties voting for Nader because they wanted real change. Though I agreed with them in spirit, I had a real bad feeling about another Bush getting into the White House. One of my Naderite friends said, "Even if Bush DOES win, things can't get much worse." Yeah, I'm sure he's choked on those words a few times since then. If not, he should ... hard core.

I don't think the Democrats are significantly better than the Republicans, but I do think what we've got now isn't so much a Republican administration as it is a corporatist hijacking of our government. Essentially, this creates a paradox because it at once proves that Nader was right and that we still shouldn't have voted for him when it was this close.

Say what you will, but we wouldn't be in Iraq right now if Gore had been elected. I don't believe 9/11 would have happened either, but if it had, we'd have come up with a plan that would have actually done something to curb terrorism instead of make the problem worse. In any case, Americans wouldn't be dying in Iraq right now.

So next Tuesday, I hope you plan to get out and vote because it should be plainly obvious by now that voting does indeed make a difference.

Working class? You're soaking in it

You can't soak a chicken drumstick in teriyaki sauce
then cook it up and call it duck a l'orange, can you?
Neither can you grow up working class, go to college,
get a white collar job and call yourself middle class.

The problem with most Americans is that in spite of
living in a country that is supposed to appreciate people
of all classes, no one self identifies their own class correctly.
Everyone wants to be middle class. "My father was cop,
my mother was a teacher, there were 10 kids in my family
\and I had to move out as soon as I was 18 because
there wasn't enough room and my mother was expecting
another kid." Hmmmmm, yeah, that sound middle class
to me, too. Rubes. That's a quote by the way from some
chick I met at a party. We got to talking about class in
America and how no one self-identifies as working class.
She said she was middle class -- MAYBE lower middle
class. All I needed to hear was "my father was a cop."

She thought she was middle class because they lived in
a nice house. Doesn't matter. By what twisted logic does
working class equate with living in a shitty house? Working
class isn't lower class or shit. It means you work for a living.
Answer phones, flip burgers, put out fires, tote bails, haul
buckets of water, recycle scrap metal, type, data entry,
etc. and I hate to tell you this but you are working class --
even if your mom is a teacher. Because, and here's the rub,
most teachers are working class, too. Teachers as a rule have
my respect, but it is the one job a working class kid can easily
aspire to and succeed at. Teachers are in pretty short supply.
I could be a teacher in less than a year if I wanted. And you know
why? No one wants to do the job. Especially if they are of a higher
class. It doesn't pay that well. But to a working class kid, it ain't
too shabby. It looks white collar, but it's work.

My stepfather once told me something quite important one day
by accident. We were going to lunch after a busy morning
pouring a basement (that's pouring the concrete floor of a basement
under a house that's already been built which is suspended above
your head). We were heading to lunch at the 30 Club and I must've
appeared slightly embarrassed to be covered with dirt and drying
concrete. As I attempted to dust myself off -- an act of futility in
and of itself -- he said to me, "Never be ashamed of honest work dirt."
And I walked into that working man's club proud to know that everyone
who looked at me knew I'd been busting my balls all day. A tenderloin
sandwich never tasted so good before or since.

So no matter what I've done or where I've been, I have always
identified myself as working class, God damn it. Though, occasionally,
I tell people I'm leisure class just to throw them off the scent.

Here are some working class traits you might exhibit ... no matter
how much money you make:

Drinking shitty beer in a can.
Touching your junk.
Swearing without extreme cause.
Tire art.
Yard ornaments.
Eating the evening meal before 8 p.m.
Worrying that people might think you are working class.
Thinking Larry the Cable Guy is funny.
Bowling.
Bowling ironically.
Drinking wine because you think it makes you sophisticated.
Owning a big TV and referring to it as "The Big Screen."
Talking about gas mileage.
Knowing your gas mileage.
Camping.

Heads up: The End of the Republican Revolution

From this week's Time Magazine article, "The end of a revolution":

"But after controlling both houses of Congress for most of President
Bush's six years in office, the GOP has a governing record that has dismayed
those who fantasized about what Newt Gingrich and his band of rebels might
accomplish. To win votes back home, lawmakers in session have been spending
like sailors on leave, producing the biggest budget deficits in history.
The party's approach to national security has taken the country into a war
that most Americans now believe was a mistake and that the government's own
intelligence experts say has shaped 'a new generation of terrorist leaders
and operatives.'"

This country is nuts

Five years ago in Columbia, S.C., a 12-year-old boy was
sentenced as an adult to 30 years in prison for setting
fire to his grandparents house. Here is the CNN story.

The boy's lawyer is now trying to get him off claiming
that the Zoloft the court made the kid take intoxicated
him rendering him unable to confess legitimately. Now,
I don't know what makes me more sick: that a lawyer
has to reduce himself to arguing a technicality to get a
17-year-old boy off on a sentence that was obviously too
harsh or that most Americans would take this as another
example of a scheister lawyer trying to work the system
thus missing the big picture.

Only a backwards country like ours would try a 12-year-old
as an adult with a straight face and act like that's justice. I'm
sure the grandparents are up in Heaven thankful that their
rotten little grandson is doing hard time to pay for his crime
against them.

My favorite part of this story is how the prosecution used the
fact that the kid initially lied about setting the house on fire
as proof that he knew what he did was wrong and THAT is
why they tried him as an adult. What a tool.

Keeping candy out of the school and other great acts of former presidents

In the tradition of many great former presidents, Bill Clinton is
using his influence to help our nation's children make smarter
choices at the vending machine by making sure that smart
choices are all there are at the vending machine.

You see, when Republicans retire, it's to play golf or take
their place on the boards of all the corporations they did
the bidding for while in office. Then you get former presidents
like Jimmy Carter and Clinton who use their connections to
build houses, make peace and otherwise help their nation
and world become a better place.

Sometimes, all it takes is for someone with the rocks to get
something done to get off their laurels and ask for a little help
from citizens and corporations.

The Roman "War on Terror"

This is an illustration of the ancient port of Ostia ... before it burned.


I didn't write this, but as a Roman history enthusiast -- OK, I like
gladiator movies -- I found this article by Robert Harris of The New
York Times interesting. Sample it below and read the rest here.
Props out to my man Rod the Spammer for the article.

"In the autumn of 68 B.C. the world's only military superpower
was dealt a profound psychological blow by a daring terrorist
attack on its very heart. Rome's port at Ostia was set on fire,
the consular war fleet destroyed, and two prominent senators,
together with their bodyguards and staff, kidnapped.

"The incident, dramatic though it was, has not attracted much
attention from modern historians. But an event that was merely
a footnote five years ago has now, in our post-9/11 world, assumed
a fresh and ominous significance. For in the panicky aftermath of
the attack, the Roman people made decisions that set them on the
path to the destruction of their Constitution, their democracy and their
liberty. One cannot help wondering if history is repeating itself."

Pick it, pack it, fire it up ... to prevent Alzheimer's

In medical news, researchers now believe that among other
benefits, marijuana may prevent the onset of Alzheimer's
disease. Is there anything that wonder drug CAN'T do?