Wherein chuckling analyzes the geopolitical implications of technical innovation and diplomatic dialogue

Thomas Friedman writes another jaw-dropingly stupid and destructive article in today’s New York Times, apparently to shore up support for some kind of bombing or invasion of Iran, or at least shore up support for McCain and his party's ridiculous stance against diplomacy.

He reports that Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made another prediction that Israel is destined to be a failed state. In response, Friedman argues that Israel will endure no matter how badly it is governed because of the industriousness of its people and their dedication to technological innovation. All fine and good. Hopefully, the people of Israel can find a way to good government and economic well-being at the same time. One hopes they are not mutually exclusive.

But Friedman goes on to diss technical innovation in Iran, arguing that they have bet the farm on oil and have no interest in developing their own technology.

Boaz Golany, who heads engineering at the Technion, Israel’s M.I.T., told me: “In the last eight months, we have had delegations from I.B.M., General Motors, Procter & Gamble and Wal-Mart visiting our campus. They are all looking to develop R & D centers in Israel.”

Ahmadinejad professes not to care about such things. He was — to put it in American baseball terms — born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. Because oil prices have gone up to nearly $140 a barrel, he feels relaxed predicting that Israel will disappear, while Iran maintains a welfare state — with more than 10 percent unemployment.

Iran has invented nothing of importance since the Islamic Revolution, which is a shame. Historically, Iranians have been a dynamic and inventive people — one only need look at the richness of Persian civilization to see that. But the Islamic regime there today does not trust its people and will not empower them as individuals.

That’s strange, I thought. I could have sworn I had recently read something about Iran’s determination to be technological self-sufficient and the successes they were reaping in that area . Sure enough, just three days ago the Washington Post ran a big article on that very subject.

Iran's determination to develop what it says is a nuclear energy program is part of a broader effort to promote technological self-sufficiency and to see Iran recognized as one of the world's most advanced nations. The country's leaders, who three decades ago wrested the government away from a ruler they saw as overly dependent on the West, invest heavily in scientific and industrial achievement, but critics say government backing is sometimes erratic, leaving Iran's technological promise unfulfilled.

Still, Iranian scientists claim breakthroughs in nanotechnology, biological researchers are pushing the boundaries of stem cell research and the country's car industry produces more cars than anywhere else in the region.

"Iran wants to join the group of countries that want to know about the biggest things, like space," Richter said to the students during his speech at Sharif University, which draws many of the country's best students. Every year, 1.5 million young Iranians take a national university entrance exam, or "concours." Of the 500,000 who pass and are entitled to free higher education, only the top 800 can attend Sharif, considered Iran's MIT.

At Sharif, students work in fields including aerospace and nanotechnology. While some end up advancing Iran's nuclear program or finding work in other technological fields in Iran, many, especially PhD candidates, are lured by employers or universities in Australia, Canada and the United States.

"Our visitors are flabbergasted when they come to our modern laboratories and see women PhD students. Often they had a completely different image of Iran, not as an academic country," said Abdolhassan Vafai, a professor at Sharif. "Here, we educate our students to solve problems that affect all humanity, like hunger, global warming and water shortages."

Maybe Friedman doesn’t read his hometown paper? More likely, he is just doing his part as an establishment propagandist.

I think we should view Friedman's propaganda (or stupidity, whatever) in the context of Senator Obama’s challenge to the establishment regarding the improvement of diplomatic relations with Iran, if not cover for Bush to have one last fling with mass murder before he scurries off the national stage.

In order to get a people to oppose diplomacy and support unprovoked mass murder, it’s necessary to dehumanize the enemy. Talks, diplomatic relations, those kinds of things have the opposite effect. Those who want war are right to oppose them.

The question we need to ask ourselves, and then our leaders, is "Why is Iran our Enemy?" It's a question I've never seen asked in the mainstream press, much less answered.

Are they really a threat? We spend 40 times more on the military than they do. As has been mentioned, we can obliterate them any time we want.

Are we a threat to them? In the past 60 years or so we have overthrown their democracy, set up a brutal dictator and supported Sadaam Hussein's invasion of their country which resulted in the deaths of between 500,000 and 1 million, including more than 100,000 by poison gas. And now we openly discuss the liklihood of bombing, even obliterating them. You wonder why they're building rockets?

Do we just want to control their oil? That's always a part of the equation, but it's no doubt a more complicated equation. Could it be that the real threat we see is that, as Friedman notes, Iranians have historically been a dynamic and inventive people and that they are capable of being technologically self-sufficient, even leading edge? Do we just want to keep them down technologically and economically? Just another oil state with a corrupt monarchy ruling a motley population of camel herders? Is that really in our best interests?

History shows again and again that stupid brutal regimes eventually collapse under the weight of their corruption and incompetence. Time tells us that unless these are expansionist regimes wantonly invading their neighbors, it's more effective to maintain a dialogue and wait them out than it is to give them an enemy to rally against.

These history lessons are not secret. We need to question why our establishment ignores them. It's all too easy predicting that if we bomb those 500,000 students and their shiny new universities bombed to smithereens, the survivors will turn their attention from discovering medical advances to discovering means of effective retaliation.

Update: I see David Ignatius at the Post parrots the anti-Obama and/or pro war talking points this morning as well.

Do the right thing

Regular readers know that I have not, as yet, bought into the narrative that Senator Clinton was badly damaged (politically) by a veritable shitstorm of misogyny and sexism, or even that any kind of "storm" actually occurred. But I may be wrong. I am perfectly happy to challenge my beliefs and assumptions on this (or any other) issue, or have them challenged.

Judith Warner has an article up in today’s New York Times which does just that. She details quite a few incidents of sexism that were directed at Senator Hillary Clinton during her campaign and argues that it was a genuine tsunami.

Again, while writing about these issues, I will use standard dictionary definitions. Misogyny is the hatred of women. Sexism is prejudice, discrimination and/or stereotyping of a person or group based on gender.

The biggest obstacle I've had to accepting the tidal wave of misogyny and sexism narrative has been my personal experience, which of course I recognize as somewhat anecdotal. Due to the fact that I rarely watched television news during that period, I never actually saw any of the sexist incidents Warner details. I have received no viral emails. I haven't noticed in the print media or political blogs I read any argument that she should not be president because she is a woman. And no one I have interacted with personally has said anything that could be remotely viewed as sexist or misogynistic.

On the other hand, I personally witnessed an authentic shitload of racialist, and I would argue racist, argument directed at Obama. Much of it came directly from the Clinton campaign. And the mainstream media is unapologetically up to their eyeballs in it.

Again, to the definitions: Racialism is an emphasis on race or racial considerations. It entails a belief in the existence and significance of racial categories. Racism mens race-based prejudice, violence, discrimination, or oppression.

Beginning in South Carolina (seems like so many bad things begin there, eh?), Senator Clinton and her allies went to great length to paint Senator Obama black. That clearly falls within the definition of racialism. Why did she do that? For racist reasons, obviously. She wanted to tap into the racism that is still prevalent in so many parts of the country. Then she began specifically making the argument that people should not vote for him because he is black. That, my friends, is the very definition of racism.

And that was a tipping point for me. Before Ms. Clinton initiated her Klan state strategy, I though she was a good person who would make a good president. But once she revved up the “don’t vote for Obama because he is black” campaign, I realized that she is a deeply damaged megalomaniac who would stop at nothing to achieve her ambition.

Nevertheless, none of that excuses any misogyny or sexism on the part of the mainstream media, or even a single isolated case.

Please excuse the long quotation, but Ms. Warner's argument needs to be heard:

It’s a cultural moment that Andrew Stephen, writing with an outsider’s eye for the British magazine the New Statesman last month, characterized as a time of “gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind.” A moment in which things like the formation of a Hillary-bashing political action group, “Citizens United Not Timid,” a “South Park” episode featuring a nuclear weapon hidden in Clinton’s vagina, and Internet sales of a Hillary Clinton nutcracker with shark-like teeth between her legs, passed largely without mainstream media notice, largely, perhaps, because some of the key gatekeepers of mainstream opinion were so busy coming up with various iterations of the nutcracker theme themselves. (Tucker Carlson on Hillary: “When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs.” For a good cry, watch this incredible montage from the Women’s Media Center.)

. . . . . . . . . . .

But 16 months of sustained misogyny? Hey — she asked for it. With that voice, (“When Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, ‘Take out the garbage’ ” Fox News regular Marc Rudov, author of “Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables,” said in January). With that ambition, and that dogged determination (“like everyone’s first wife standing outside a probate court,” according to MSNBC commentator Mike Barnicle) and, of course, that husband (Chris Matthews: “The reason she’s a U.S. Senator, the reason she’s a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around.”). Clearly, in an age when the dangers and indignities of Driving While Black are well-acknowledged, and properly condemned, Striving While Female – if it goes too far and looks too real — is still held to be a crime.

I don’t think any of that had anything to do with Senator Clinton’s failure to have locked up the nomination at this late stage. I see those as isolated sexist incidents, not remotely comparable to the way we've been thoroughly inundated with racialist tripe by the media and Clinton campaign.

But I agree 100 percent with anyone who recognizes how horrific it is that these sexist creeps are still on television and writing op-eds for big time publications.

The answer, however, is not to do as Senator Clinton urges and blame Senator Obama. The only way to do something about this terrible situation is to boycott and embarrass the companies that sponsor these morons. It’s not enough simply to stop watching. These sexist scumbags are on the air because of their propaganda value, not for their actual ratings.

Wanna put a stop to it? Make it cost their sponsors. Then they won't have any. Then they'll be gone, or at least significantly marginalized.

chuckling 147 - big media pundits 0

Every week, for many weeks, the big media pundits have predicted that Hillary Clinton would quit the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. From the beginning, chuckling on-line magazine has predicted that she would stay in the race. The current scoreboard says chuckling 147 - big media pundits 0.

You may think that I would quit doubling down after so long a win streak, that I would just gather in my chips and go out for cocktails, but no, the dealer is scared and I smell blood. She is not going away. She is not quitting. The only reporting I've seen says she is going to suspend her campaign. The word "suspend" implies resumption. Is she releasing her delegates? No, I don't think so.

That's why I continue to support Hillary and do not back off an inch from my belief that she will be the nominee. She is truly a megalomaniacal loon. If by some miracle the Supreme Court does not appoint her Democratic standard bearer, she will begin the 2012 campaign the minute after they refuse to hear her case.

Queens

More photos here.

Regular readers know that I don't normally talk about the photos. I would prefer that you put on your favorite music, click on the first picture, watch the slide show, think about it, watch it a few more times, think about it some more, etc.

I know that rarely happens, but still, I'm not going to tell you what it's about. I'm only writing this now because I need to put some space between the photo that illustrates this slide show and the photo that illustrates the article below. It doesn't look good when two photos are too close together, not when they illustrate different stories. And to be perfectly honest, that's pretty much the purpose of all the text here at chuckling on-line magazine. Filler, alas, poor filler.

So is the spacing correct yet? Yes, I think it is. Move along now. Scroll a little lower. What's up with that skeleton in the window? I don't know. Click on it, see a bigger picture.

Chuckling's voter guide for catholics

E.J. Dionne reports that the Catholic church denied communion to an Obama supporter due to the candidate's pro-abortion stance. Communion is a cannibalistic ritual in which Catholics metaphorically eat the flesh of Jesus Christ and drink his blood. Catholics believe Jesus Christ is the son of the creator of the universe. By eating him, they believe they gain some of his power and righteousness.

Dionne argues that it is dangerous for the Catholic church to use communion as a political weapon. Personally, I don't see a problem with it. According to the Catholic church, abortion is one of the fourteen deadly sins. Of course Catholics shouldn't vote for any politician that rejects the laws of their supreme being. That would be nuts. They'd go straight to hell. Wouldn't even get a glimpse of St. Peter and the pearly gates.

In fact, Catholics would be nuts to vote for any politician who supports any of the other thirteen deadly sins.

Not the oldies but goodies: lust, gluttony, avarice, sloth, anger, envy and pride. Catholics can't vote for horndogs, the obese or anyone who supports policies that cause obesity. They can't vote for greedy or lazy motherfuckers, hotheads, pathetic wannabes or the proud. Cannot do it or they go straight to hell.

And now they can't vote for those who favor the new and improved deadly sins: polluting, genetic engineering, being obscenely rich, drug dealing, abortion, pedophilia and causing social injustice.

Right Catholics. You are not allowed to vote for anyone who is obscenely rich or who supports policies that allow people to become obscenely rich. You cannot vote for anyone who supports social injustice or doesn't believe in global warming.

So essentially, they can't vote for any Democrats, Republicans or third party candidates. And with the injunction against voting for anyone who empowers pedophiles, they can't even vote for Catholics. Essentially, they are forbidden to vote for humans.

Nothing, however, is stopping Catholics from voting for inanimate objects. Is it legal for religious icons to run for office? Christ crucified could run for president. The Ten Commandments could be nominated for the Supreme Court. Various plastic saints could run for Congress.

Hey, you think I'm joking but we might actually be better off with plastic saints in Congress than we are now with all those plastic posers. What do I have to do to become a Catholic?

Ken v. Barbie

Cathy Tinsley, a professor at Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business and executive director of the Georgetown Women's Leadership Initiative has an interesting article in today's Washington Post about the role, if any, that sexism has played in Hillary Clinton's troubles in the current election.

...many in the media and in political circles are debating the role sexism played in her defeat.

How did the once-inevitable candidate, who was destined to be America's first female president, lose this nomination battle? Was it her past? Was it her husband? Or is America just not ready for a female president?

First, I was happy to see that she used the word "sexism" rather than the far more ubiquitous and misused term "misogyny." Again, I will use standard dictionary definitions. Misogyny is the hatred of women. Sexism is prejudice, discrimination and/or stereotyping of a person or group based on gender.

Ms. Tinsley and colleagues have worked on a series of studies involving how the words and actions of men and women are perceived in the corporate world and found that men and women are viewed differently when using the same words to perform the same actions.

In one study, for example, people judged the behavior of a hypothetical human resources manager (alternately male or female) negotiating for a refund on unused hotel space. Female managers were judged as significantly more offensive, and less likely to receive any refund, than male managers, even though all managers engaged in exactly the same behavior.

...The bottom line, again, is that the same male and female behaviors evoke different judgments, with women all too often being forced to choose between being viewed as likable or competent.

Interestingly, the studies also found that people were not generally conscious of their sexism -- yes, that behavior clearly falls under the definition of sexism -- and that men and women were equally sexist in the context of the study questions.

Two other lessons stood out. First, the backlash against women appears to be unconscious. When confronted with the results of these studies, participants were very surprised by their reactions. They appeared to have no idea that they subscribed to these gender stereotypes about appropriate behavior or that they judged women more harshly.

Second, women were as willing to criticize the female executives as men were. This is not a gender war; women are not fighting men. They are fighting our culture, our prescribed set of norms that constrain their behavior into a rigid set of "appropriate" categories.

Then, surprisingly, Ms. Tinsley argues that women are, as a group, sexists who discriminate against themselves, and by implication, misogynists.

Although we may be able to recall vivid examples of minorities who judge their own group harshly, women are perhaps the only "low status" group whose members systematically and every bit as harshly show prejudice toward fellow members.

Isn't that interesting?

Yes, it is, but I'm not so sure it has a lot to do with Hillary Clinton's campaign performance. I don't think it's particularly shocking to see evidence that the words and actions of men and women are viewed differently, or even that they are viewed differently in the same way by both men and women. Although the given examples show negativity towards women, I don't think we can extrapolate from that data and say that women are always, or even usually viewed more negatively than men when acting in the same way. Perhaps they are, but no evidence is given.

Thankfully, I am not a total news junkie. I read a lot but almost never watch television news, though I do seem to read a lot about it. Anyway, I am more than a casual observer and I simply have not seen that much overt sexism in this campaign and no misogyny whatsoever in the mainstream. Again, I am using the dictionary definitions. No one is arguing that Hillary Clinton should not be president because she is a woman.

Granted, as Ms. Tinsley's studies demonstrate, we all have lingering remnants of sexism lodged deeply in our psyches. We apparently have some ingrained expectations that men and women should sometimes react differently in the same situation.

But still, I just don't see that as a major factor in this campaign. Unlike Ms. Tinsley's study, Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama have said and done different things in the same situation. For example, Hillary voted for The War. Obama against it. Hillary took big money from the health care lobby. Obama didn't. Hillary embraced the right wing hate machine. Obama did not. And so on. Examples abound of the ways in which they have conducted their campaign's differently.

Had they spoke and acted identically, if it were simply an election pitting Ken against Barbie, it would be interesting in the context of Ms. Tinsley's studies. But they did not.

I do not support Hillary Clinton because she is a sister. I support her because she is twisted.

And I wonder what kind of studies exist that track people's reactions to a half black guy and a white woman saying the same things? No, on second thought, let's not go there.

Bright city

Wherein chuckling considers questions of misogyny, sexism and the wisdom of putting words in the mouth of a bitter cow

Following a link at Pandagon, I came across this piece at Shakesville. I wouldn't say that the writer argues that the words of Obama's evil preacher #2 (and counting) are misogynist. She makes no argument at all. She simply states it as fact:

This is just getting fucking ridiculous: Chicago Priest, Father Michael Pfleger, guest ministering at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, gives a sermon on white privilege and entitlement (cool) and uses the occasion to tear into Hillary Clinton with wanton misogyny...

This is what the crackpot said:

Transcript from 1:58: I don't really want to make this political, 'cause you know I'm very unpolitical [laughter], but when Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don't believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought: "This is mine." [applause] "I'm Bill's wife; I'm white; and this is mine! I just gotta get up and step into [sic] the plate." And then outta nowhere came: "Hey, I'm Barack Obama." And she said, "Aww, damn! Where did you come from?! I'm white! I'm entitled! There's a black man stealing my show!" [cheers and applause] Waaaaaaaah! [pretends to weep and cry; wipes face with hankie] Waaaaaaaah! She wasn't the only one crying; there was a whole lotta white people crying!"

Personally, I don't see how anything in that speech can be labeled misogynist. If you can explain it to me, please do so. I have an open mind.

I don't even think it's fair to label it as sexist either, though on that score I can see how one could argue otherwise.

Personally, I'd label it as satire. Not very good or effective satire, mind you, but satire nevertheless.

Just so we're clear, I'm using standard dictionary definitions. Misogyny is the hatred of women. Sexism is prejudice, discrimination and/or stereotyping of a person or group based on gender. Satire is a composition holding vice or folly up to ridicule.

I understand one could rationally argue that bringing up and grossly exaggerating Clinton's emotional hiccup in New Hampshire is sexist in that it plays to a stereotype. Or that the implication that she feels entitled based on the accomplishments of her husband may well be coming from a sexist world view. I don't see either of those arguments as definitive, but one could reasonably make them. That they show hatred of women for being women, no. I don't see that.

It seems that the Hillaryists are pretty much saying that any criticism whatsoever of the deserved one is misogynist per se.

As a Hillary supporter myself, I find this a bit disturbing. When crazy cultists regularly denounce all people who disagree with her about anything as misogynist monsters, there is bound to be an electoral backlash. And I so want her to get what she deserves (the presidency). But on the positive side, it is entertaining to watch the cultists cry their bitter tears and ridicule them for all their ridiclousness.

But be that as it may, this is not about them, it is about me. As regular readers know, chuckling is more than happy to revisit his arguments and examine any prejudices that may turn up.

Although I am clearly not a misogynist -- I do not hate women, I don't even hate Hillary -- I'm sure I must have a few unexamined stereotypes kicking around my psyche that could accurately be labeled sexist. I'm sure everyone does.

To find out more I took the Ambivalent Sexism Test at the Understanding Prejudice site and scored comfortably low. According to whatever questionable methods they use, my hostile sexism score is 0.45 out of 5. I don't know why I score at all, but so be it. My benevelent sexism score was somewhat higher, but still quite low, at 1.09. And it's true. I don't think chivalry is altogether a bad thing.

But hey, I really am open to criticism. If you can demonstrate that anything I've written or produced is misogynistic or sexist, please explain it to me. Convince me with a rational argument and I'll change my evil ways.

I'll even give you a pointer. When I do my own little self-criticisms I find the biggest thing I have to explain away is the talking cow. I admit that's a tough one, but I can tell you honestly that I did not mean to imply that Hillary supporters are bitter cows. I didn't even consider the possibility that it could be offensive in that way until I thought about using the term "bitter cow" in the headline for that article. You may say that it must be my subconscious speaking, and it may be that you are right, but I don't think so. I didn't go out looking for the cow. I came across it serendipitously.

But understand, poor chuckling is a satirist and satire is not safe, nor should it be. Sometimes ya takes yur chances.

Notes from another ground

First, let me emphasize that I am not a supporter of Barak Obama in the presidential campaign. I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican nor a Libertarian nor a Green. I am an independent. So please my fellow Hillaryists, I do not want to see my name in the papers as yet another Obama supporter who said bad things about our lady of the perpetually aggrieved. Like you, I pull my hair and weep real tears every time she is disrespected, which is every minute of every day -- every single minute -- by those horrible Obama people.

I have to admit that I was not always a big Hillary fan. Originally, I was for Rudolph Giuliani. After he dropped out, I stayed on the sideline. My reasons were simple. I prefer deeply flawed and outrageously ridiculous candidates and at that time Hillary seemed decent, boring and relatively sane. How times have changed, eh?

To earn my support, a politician must meet two very important criteria. First, he or she must be a really sick sociopath, a person who will say or do anything, not only to get elected but to stay elected.

Hillary has shown that she is as sick a sociopath as Giuliani or anyone in the Bush administration. But socio-pathology alone is not enough. To earn the coveted chuckling endorsement, a candidate must also be truly ridiculous. I can't exactly put my finger on when Hillary trampled that line -- was it the white power argument? The embrace of the right wing hate machine? The exploitation of Jeremiah Wright? Some small, mostly unnoticed thing? -- I don't know, but she has definitely become ridiculous. Outlandishly so.

But in what may serve as proof that there is a God (and that he is an idiot) we got an unsuspected bonus with Hillary. Not content to be ridiculously crazy by herself, she has developed a cult of personality and bamboozled a significant number of poor souls into worshipping her. These Hillary cultists are so ridiculous that they are almost beyond ridicule. Almost perhaps, but not quite.

John McCain, on the other hand, is nowhere near as interesting. He's more of a psychopath than a sociopath and although he is ridiculous, it is a pedestrian kind of ridiculousness common to all sleazebag politicians. And he doesn't even have any followers. He is an employee. He is owned by grey men in blue suits. Where's the fun in that?

Well, it pops up now and then, but with McCain and his employers it's more of an Orwellian form of ridiculousness and we've had eight long years of that. This article about his transparent corruption in today's Washington Post is precious in its antiquated way. Get this:

"Northrop Grumman fully agrees with the position taken by Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) that encourages members of Congress to protect the integrity of the defense system acquisition process," Belote said in a statement.

Yes, we must protect the integrity of the defense system acquisition process. When it comes to arms sales, nothing is more important than integrity. Although I trust McCain to protect it, I know Hillary will do so as well, probably better.

So since the integrity of the defense system acquisition process is safe no matter who becomes president, I vote based on the potential entertainment factor. My greatest hope is that my fellow Hillary cultists wear uniforms. Or maybe we should get teardrop tatoos to show our agony from the deep wounds inflicted by those horrible Obama people.

A short detour through the past

I don't know if I've ever mentioned it here at chuckling on-line magazine, but chuckling used to know quite a bit about NAFTA. I've toured some border towns and seen many things that are invisible to the untrained eye. The drinking water barrels that originally contained dangerous chemicals, the place where they dump mercury into the ground above a water well that serves thousands, the shit flowing directly into the river, the hospital where those who drink that water go to die. I've seen a lot.

I once wrote a story about an idyllic valley about 60k south into Sonora. I spent an afternoon on a farm speaking with one of those silver haired patrician types you see in the movies. He had inherited the family farm when he was a young man. After NAFTA, his farm was not able to compete with American imports and he ended up working a hot dog cart in the nearest city to make ends meet. Where he once spent his days working productively in an exquisitely beautiful valley, he now spent them slapping American-made hot dogs into buns made with American wheat. My time there may have been brief but it was not superficial. I got a very personal view of the tragedy that is NAFTA. And I know it is much, much worse in the south. Much more than a symbolic old man. Millions of people displaced. Millions of livelihoods destroyed.

So when I read about presidential candidates and cable tv blowhards railing against free trade, I have a different level of understanding. Although NAFTA no doubt harms working class Americans in some ways, it totally devastates the working class Mexicans, particularly the farmers. For the most part, the only people who benefit, particularly south of the border, are the wealthy. You know the types. The people who matter in our respective "democracies."

In other news, I did one of my periodic google searches for Charles Bowden, one of my favorite contemporary authors, and found that he has been writing for National Geographic.

This article brought back memories of the old border days:

The flow of illegal immigrants exploded after the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement in the early 1990s, a pact that was supposed to end illegal immigration but wound up dislocating millions of Mexican peasant farmers and many small-industrial workers.

Exactly. Yet we never hear this point of view in the mainstream media. Not in the debates about immigration. Not in the debates about Free Trade. It is one of those things of which we simply cannot speak. Any just solution would reverse the current flow of money from the poor to the rich. That, as we know, is politically unthinkable on both sides of the border. Let them sell hot dogs. Or tacos. And/or drink poison water and die. Whatever.

On a not so completely different subject, Chuck's also got an article about the social collapse in North Dakota. Nice photos too.

The last person in the world refusing to admit it ended in a tie

You may recall that chuckling recently bought a picture book. It arrived in the mail today!

Just Another War is a book of photographs by Kenneth Jarecke, with text by Exene Cervanka and a forward by John Hockenberry.

The photo above is recognized as perhaps the most famous photograph of the first gulf war, whatever that was about. I'm not exactly sure what that buys you, having the most famous photograph of a forgotten war, but it's a great photograph in any context.

To tell you the truth, I was afraid to open the book. I had heard of Jarecke's work and expected to be brutalized with photo after photo of charred, crumbling Iraqi soldiers. But I was surprised to find that the vast majority of the pictures were classic black and whites that perfectly captured the play of light and shadow across the faces of soldiers, detritus of war and the vastness of desert space alike. It's some technically marvelous work and beautifully profound as well.

My major quibble, and it is major indeed, is that each photograph has been cropped into a square. A photograph has a ratio of 3 x 2, which closely approximates the divine proportion. Frankly, that sucks. I want to see the real photos, un-cropped, or at least cropped to the proper ratio. If they look that great with such horrible cropping, how great would they look in their natural ratio?

As for the text, I'm sorry, but I don't care about the text (though I should note that the title of this post came from Exene's work). This is a book of photos. And I recommend it. Expecially for $10 plus shipping. It's a steal. Jarecke, far and away the most, but also Exene, Hockenberry, Mortensen; they all have earned the recognition. Consider tossing ten bucks their way. It may be chump change, but still, it feels good to be paid.

Memorial day parade

More images here.

Our lady of the perpetually aggrieved

In a shocking development, Paul Krugman has joined Hillary Clinton's cult of the perpetually aggrieved and begun to use his New York Times column to shed his bitter tears far and wide. All I can say is, welcome brother. We're glad to have you. What's your poison? Scary black cherry or scary blackberry? No rainbow punch for Our Lady's acolytes.

It's always been clear that Krugman favored Clinton, using a rational argument that on policy matters candidates generally do what they say they will and he thought Hillary's policies were better.

But the clock is running out. It is time to stop thinking and start taking dictation. Krugman typed the Clinton talking points about her being the better candidate in key states quite well, even finishing with the well-worn classic, "polls don't matter much five months before the election, but they do, they do, they really really do!!!!

And it is also time to fuck and chuck all that rationality and policy bullshit. We've got to rage to the four winds. Hillary has been wronged! By those horrible Obama people! The very least the monster can do is re-write the rules, give her $20 million, make her vice-president, then die. Hillary deserves to be president! Deserves it! She really deserves it (I break down in tears at this point). She really really really deeeeseeerrrrves it!

Fortunately, Krugman now gets that basic fact and offers some mild prescriptions:

One thing to do would be to make a gesture of respect for Democrats who voted in good faith by recognizing Florida’s primary votes...

The only reason I can see for Obama supporters to oppose seating Florida is that it might let Mrs. Clinton claim that she received a majority of the popular vote. But which is more important — denying Mrs. Clinton bragging rights, or possibly forfeiting the general election?

What about offering Mrs. Clinton the vice presidency? If I were Mr. Obama, I’d do it.

Yes, yes, my brother. Sing it from the pulpit! Get them to give an inch and we'll take the White House. And if those horrible Obama people don't come around, we'll destroy the Democratic party! Fucking ingrates. God damned apostates. We are the aggrieved and she is our lady!

Amen.

It was a bright, very bright, sunshiny day

More here.

Wii not so fit

Shigeru Miyamoto, long-time Nintendo employee and creative force behind Mario, Donkey Kong, the Wii, and now Wii Fit is profiled in today's Times. In short, he is the man most responsible for the success of the company.

It is an interesting article in that it explores somewhat the nature of creativity, but I couldn't help but notice this nugget:

Nintendo has become one of the most valuable companies in Japan. With a net worth of around $8 billion, Nintendo’s former chairman, Hiroshi Yamauchi, is now the richest man in Japan, according to Forbes magazine. (Nintendo does not disclose Mr. Miyamoto’s compensation, but it appears that he has not joined the ranks of the superrich.)

I've been around a few CEO's and although they may very well be nice, extremely competent people, my experience suggests that a company's success is much more dependent on those who actually create the products the company sells than on any kind of management genius. Sure, bad management can wreck a company, but good management mostly listens to the best people and otherwise stays out of the way. Sounds like Mr. Miyamoto's erstwhile boss at Nintendo had that kind of sense.

Yet, these days, those who are most responsible for a company's success are lucky to get a 3 percent cost of living raise while the The chief executive and other top management are obscenely over-compensated.

The contradictions inherent in this system will eventually bring it down, but why wait for that? We need tax policies that encourage spreading the wealth much better among those who create the wealth rather than concentrating it in the brokerage accounts of those who have attained enough power to simply take it for themselves.

Nothing wrong with incentive, but the difference between being super-rich and being doubly or triply supper-rich is merely one of ego. Its pursuit is a pathology. The result is a sick society. The solution is to make it very, very difficult.

One last little edit

In today's NYT, Thomas Friedman bemoans the state of education for inner city children. He reports on a public school in Baltimore designed primarily for disadvantaged minority kids that will be run as an elite boarding school. To get into this school, children must participate in a lottery. Friedman argues that it's very sad that the fate of a child is decided by little more than chance.

All well and good. Chuckling is the first to agree that all schools should be good schools and that a child's fate should be something which he or she, or the parents, can reasonably influence. But in the final paragraph, Friedman actually up and pulls Iraq out of his ass. Get this:

There are so many good reasons to finish our nation-building in Iraq and resume our nation-building in America, but none more than this: There’s something wrong when so much of an American child’s future is riding on the bounce of a ping-pong ball.

That man is mentally ill. Were he sane, it would read more like this:

"There are so many good reasons not to finish our insane murder spree, umm nation-building, in Iraq and to begin nation-building here in America, but none more than this: There’s something wrong when so much of our fucking money is irresponsibly borrowed and spent to pay for a stupid war that does no good for anyone except a small circle of war profiteers who don't give a shit about you or me, much less some inner city kid who wants an education. Our political culture is totally fucked and fucktards like me, Thomas Friedman, bear a lot of the blame."

You thought I was kidding?

No, really. There is simply no way one can be too cynical about our politics. While I have long envisioned scenarios in which Hillary would become the nominee, it truly did not occur to me that she would call for Barak Obama's assassination.

This follows on the heels of Mike Huckabee musing wistfully about the skinny black guy getting his what for. In s'allah, eh Mike?

I now predict that if John McCain snags Lieberman as his vice-presidential candidate before Hillary, then Hillary will choose Huckabee as her running mate. They make quite a pair. Together, I think they could really transform American politics. No more tawdry attack ads and petty character assassinations for those two. They would just shoot any motherfuckers that get in their way.

Interesting chain of events, or, a slice of life in the age of the internets

I just read an interview with Exene Cervanka in the Village Voice. Apparently X has reunited and is playing a show in Manhattan tonight. I saw them in the early 80's and count that show as one of my favorite concerts.

Anyway, I was surprised to learn that Exene was married to the actor Viggo Mortensen. I originally had a bad impression of Mortensen because he was in those horrid Lord of the Rings movies. But then I came to respect and appreciate his work when I saw him in David Cronenberg's A History of Violence and Eastern Promises. Now I learn that he is much deeper than that. In addition to being married to Exene, He is a poet, writer, painter, photogorapher and musician. He has collaborated with guitarist Buckethead on 7 albums.On top of all that he runs a publishing house, Percival Press. Interesting as this little journey may or may not have been, it proved costly. I bought a picture book.

Threesome

Children are the future, don't mind the broken toys

"Walk across any of the trading floors - they are full of 29-year-old kids," says Kenneth Griffin, billionaire hedge fund manager in the International Herald.

"The capital markets of America are controlled by a bunch of right-out-of-business-school young guys who haven't really seen that much. You have a real lack of wisdom."

On top of that, many chief executives of big universal banks, the ones that combine all sorts of financial services under one roof, "only understand a small part of the business," Griffin said, suggesting too many of them come from sales backgrounds. Put those two things together, the traders and the chiefs, and you have the making of an outright debacle.

So basically, the world is being run by sales guys and recent business school graduates. That should work out well. It already is, for a few at least:

Average compensation for the top 25 fund managers was $892 million in 2007, up 68 percent from the previous year. The minimum compensation included in the ranking was $210 million.

But what, if anything, should we do about it? Hey, I know, give them a tax break!

A simple calculation shows that this preferential tax treatment for the top 25 individuals alone costs the Treasury almost $2 billion.4 It serves to suggest that our estimates of tax losses are indeed conservative, as the losses from these 25 managers alone amounts to almost a third of our total.

...If the amount of tax revenue lost to private equity firm managers is equivalent to that lost with hedge funds, then the combined amount would be $12.6 billion. This forgone revenue stream could, for example, fully fund the five-year, $35 billion expansion of SCHIP, the public health insurance program for low-income children.

Health insurance for low-income children? Forfend! That would harm working families and low-income children alike. Fortunately public-minded lobbyists are on the case.

Defending this tax break are highly paid lobbyists such as Douglas Lowenstein and Grover Norquist who loudly and repeatedly make the claim that taxing hedge fund managers like everyone else will harm the average working family.

You see, we have to give the 29 year old recent business school grads and a few assorted sales guys billions or the working families and children of the poor gets it right in the choppers. Don't you care about the children?

And it's not all about filthy lucre or its cousin health care. These hedge fund managers do so much more good in the world. In addition to amassing vast fortunes while producing nothing, our young billionaires demonstrate their concern for working families though charity and, increasingly, political action.

For example, Mr. Griffin spends millions on his art collection and sometimes displays choice pieces where the public can see them. Right now he has a painting by Cézanne and a bronze sculpture by Edgar Degas on display at the Art Institute of Chicago. Working families everywhere feel the love. Isn't love worth more than mere money?

And as you would expect, the young billionaires overwhelmingly favor the Democrats, who are also well known for their devotion to working families and the poor.

Oh, I know, skeptics might conclude they are buying the Democrats (Republicans can be counted on to stay bought) to, as we say, "hedge" their bets. I don't know. I guess it's possible.

A clear and present danger

Jay Ackroyd at Eschaton comments on the right wing emails that permeate our small town culture and marvels that nobody in the mainstream press (and I'd add Democratic party) casts any kind of light on these pervasive hate memes or who creates and disseminates them. I've marveled at that myself, but realize that the Moose is not the Country Club and nobody with a college degree gives a fuck what they think. Well, no liberal anyway. The conservatives not only care what they think, they actively shape what they think.

I recently got two of those virulent emails that complimented each other. The first was about how all Muslims are scum. The second was about how Obama hates whitey. You can put two and two together. Just kidding. No math skills required. The authors are happy to do all the adding and subtracting, and thinking, for you.

The first is from one "Lieutenant General Chuck Pitman." The good "Lieutenant General" is sorry about a lot of things. But primarily he is sorry that Muslims are so evil and that we don't kill a whole lot more of them:

I am sorry that the U. S. A. has to step in and be the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame the USA for all their problems.

I am sorry that our troops die to free more Arabs from the gang rape rooms and the filling of mass graves of dissidents of their own making.

I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen Daisy cutters on Fallujah.

It goes on:

I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized village in Africa .

I am sorry the Barack Hussein Obama may be elected president of the United States when he doesn't have a clue on how to be a strong Commander-in-chief in a world filled with Muslim extremists who will do whatever it needs to do to destroy the lives of civilized people while killing innocent men, women and children in order to bring a change that is beneficial to all Islamic terrorists worldwide.

You get the picture. No? The second email elucidates:

From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.'
'
From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

We can laugh at this crap, but it has a ridiculous amount of influence on a significant number of people in this country.

And yes, the media should tell the story. And more importantly, the Democratic party, or some organization, should set up their own viral email network to counter it. It's not necessary to make up ridiculous shit about the conservatives. They really are a danger to both our national security and livelihoods. It's not a matter of conjecture. You can see it on the fucking scoreboard. Plain as day.

From hell's heart

Astute readers will note that I haven't said anything about Hillary Clinton's campaign lately. That's because nothing has changed. I am still confident that she will be the nominee. I believe her argument that people should vote for her because the other guy is a nigger, if not a sand nigger, is one that resonates among Democrats and the American people as a whole. I believe that argument will eventually carry the day. And I'm still confident that even if her Klan state strategy fails at the Democratic convention, she will take it to the Supreme Court and the final tally that gives her the nomination will be 5 to 4. And I still predict that Joe Lieberman will be her running mate, and John McCain's as well.

You may think I'm way too cynical, and you may be right, but based on the last 10 years, I think it's difficult to argue that chuckling's humble predictions are beyond the realm of possibility. You would do well to convincingly argue that they do not simply represent the logical progression.

In a serious moment, chuckling ponders the intellecutal changes that come with old age

Intelligent people become ever more cynical as they age. Those who lose their faculties or never had any to begin with turn conservative.

Of course the truly intelligent become saints, but their numbers are too few to merit more than a mention.

Wherein chuckling contemplates the nature of art and considers the possibility that it's some body part

More analysis here.

Update: Village Voice coverage of the same event here.

The week in photos

Slideshow here.

I didn't get out much.

Give an inch

Today at Costco the guy who marks the receipt on the way out informed me that new store policy required him to see inside my backpack. Everything has a security tag. I don't know what they think we're stealing. Loose grapes?

Anyway, I said no. He said I had no choice. I said I'm outta here. Call the coppers if you don't like it, bub. He yelled over at the manager to call the police. She just nodded sadly and waved me on.

But you know, next time I'll just open the backpack. We all will.

Every minute of every day and for the rest of our lives.

These architect's eyes

In a comment below, Roy rightly points out that poor chuckling is an asshole for publicly dissing TBogg when his ship came in. Be that as it may, Roy's comment forced me to revisit my thinking on site design. Chuckling does not have a right wing intellect. I am always happy to revisit my assumptions, attack my premises, question my "logic," wail on my prejudices, etc. Maybe you are right and I am wrong? It's not that unusual.

TBogg is one of my favorite writers. Not just on the internets. He should be in magazines. So why have I stopped reading TBogg? Is the new site design really that onerous? Does the fact that I can't get past it make me even more shallow than I readily admit? Those are legitimate questions.

These are the answers.

You know that I make my living on the periphery of graphic design. I have taken classes, done a little design work myself and spent a lot of time -- way too much time if you ask me -- around designers. I am able to critique a site's design from a position of knowledge, if not expertise. That doesn't make anything I say right. I know that. You can take it for what it's worth.

And honestly, all that's just work. When I read people on the internets, I am not thinking about design. It's very, very rare that a design keeps me from reading a writer I like. This has nothing to do with education. It is visceral. I don't think it. I feel it.

All that also got me thinking about Jane Hamsher's site, FireDogLake, of which TBogg is now, unforunately, a part.

The fact that I'm not a regular reader of FireDogLake is surprising since, intellectually, I have every reason to like it. In addition to agreeing with the political gist and respecting the quality of the writing, Jane Hamsher is something of a hero of mine. Natural Born Killers is one of my favorite movies and I think one of the greatest films of all time. I use it to teach the kids about the nature of narrative and audio/visual creativity. Jane was the producer and responsible for the great majority of the soundtrack. And her book about the making of NBK, Killer Instinct, is very good in its own right. See the movie. Many times. Read the book. I beg you.

So you see? I have every possible fucking incentive to like FireDogLake, but I don't. I can't stand to look at it, much less read it. Why, oh why, is that?

It's the design, that's why.

I sincerely hope that fans of TBogg and/or FireDogLake don't take this as an attack. I'm painfully aware that the left too often eats itself and I don't want to be a part of that ugliness. So please, find it in your hearts to consider this as well-intentioned professional advice, albeit unsolicited; or constructive criticism from a dear, dear friend.

And ask yourselves, if your design is alienating natural allies such as poor chuckling, you can be assured that it is alienating quite a few others. How many lurkers are there for every commenter? A hell of a lot. That's how many.

So what's wrong with it?

The problem is that it's difficult to read. The reader has to think to figure out where to put his or her eyes and which way to go once he or she has settled on something. Why is that? Too busy, way too busy. The eye has trouble finding something to focus on.

Details. Hell, I'll skip all of the details. We all know that advertising is a sucky necessity. Hopefully, we try to work with the advertisers to avoid sucky ads. And if the kids aren't starving and the rent's paid up, sometimes we just say no to the worst kind of blinking monstrosity. Whatever. Poor chuckling, like everyone else in this cruel, cruel world has become accustomed to advertising. Ugly, irritating ads will not stand between me and good writing.

No, the serious problems are these: It's difficult to figure out what's being offered on the site and once you figure it out, you have to click to get to it, usually way, way too soon.

The reason it's difficult to figure out is because too many page elements are roughly the same size and the colors are limited to different shades of blue.

The Headline, the Read More buttons, the links are all very similar shades of blue. The mind does not naturally distinguish among them. One has to think. Readers don't want to think about the design. They want to think about the content.

To draw attention to the content, the headline needs contrast from the body. If a designer must use the same color, he or she needs to use relative size to achieve that contrast.

But you are not worried about the price of ink. You are on the internet. You pay nothing for additional colors. Use a different fucking color.

Burnt orange, perhaps!

That, and the geometric shapes on the page need contrast from one another. Note that newspapers don't have a front page full of single paragraphs with jumps to the inside sections. There's a reason for that. It just doesn't work. Few would read a newspaper or magazine that looked like that. Why would they read a web page?

Look at this:



See, the elements are all blue. They're all roughly the same size. What the fuck are you 'sposed to look at? Where the fuck is your eye 'sposed to go? Who the fuck knows?

And then if you figure it out, you've got to click! Who the fuck wants to click? Don't we all have carpal tunnel by this late stage in our history? The click has got to be worth it. We need to see more text, a lot more text, before we click to Read More. Just like a goddammed newspaper or magazine.

And finally, the page elements should be arranged in such a way as to draw attention to the content. The site logo, the headline, the advertising, the footnotes, the colors -- everything -- should draw the reader's attention to the story. That is the one, the only, the singular, the sacred purpose of the design. To get people to read the fucking story. That's it. That's all. It's really quite simple.

Print newspapers and magazines figured all that out hundreds of years ago. Human cognition as not changed all that much.

Pandora's ghosts

Regular visitors are aware that chuckling on-line magazine is more than just another appendage of the Hillary campaign. In addition to our internally generated content, we sometimes sponsor other artists and give them a world premiere here on the site.

Today, we are proud to present Pandora's Ghosts, a short video by a good friend of the magazine. We hope you enjoy.

Crazy like a victim

Maybe it's just one of those days, but I've spent the early morning reading report after report from fellow Clinton supporters that we are noble victims of a cruel, misogynist world that wants nothing more than to punish us because we are women (and men, or at least man) who support Hillary Clinton. We are poor things. Poor, poor, pitiful things. It is all very sad.

This, from the Washington Post:

"The more I'm involved, the angrier I get. Every call for her to get out of the race just incenses me. It makes me crazy. Who are you? Who in the world are you to tell this woman who's done so much that it's time for her to be quiet and sit down?"

Say it sister. She has done so much. So much. It's not fair.

Others wallow in their victimization differently. We see quite a bit of that in the comments at Opinionator column on the NY Times website:

...wake up…I forgot how angry I am about this culture’s treatment of women until I re witnessed it in this election…talk about reopening a chasm…clinton is just the tip of the iceberg…obama’s minions and the media treated my candidate and the millions who support her with contempt and derision…and that’s where the divide originated, not from her.

Hillary would have been lambasted by the media if she fed the hungry, healed the sick and brought peace to the middle east because she’s a woman.

Hillary Clinton deserves to be President of the United States. She is a woman and has many accomplishments. The White Men have had their turn, and the African Americans will have to wait for their turn. Since half of the African Americans are women and women have been oppressed longer than the African Americans, a woman elected as President would be the most fair thing to do for everyone. Men should get over this fact. (ed. note: hopefully this one's a joke, but you never know,)

History will judge the political fall of Hillary Clinton as indisputable evidence that the politics of gender is powerful and divisive and that misogyny in this nation, which gave women the right to vote 88 short years ago, pervades our culture. We have many miles to go before the nation accepts the reality that all people are created equal.

All of the nasty and vile words that have come from the Obama camp, supporters and pro Obama media, about Hillary and her supporters, is exactly the reason Obama will lose in the fall to McCain. The Hillary supporters have been wounded beyond healing. The Clintons good name has been dragged through the mud over and over again by the rude, nasty, and hateful Obama people.

Aaaaaahhhhh, Obama is a cursed brat! Look what he's done! She's melting, melting. Oh, what a world, what a world. Who would have thought a dark skinny guy like him could destroy her beautiful wickedness?

That last one was me. It's what I say to myself.

As you may recall, I support Hillary's presidential aspirations because she is a tragi-comic figure, a bitter and defeated sociopath, crazy like a loon. Not because she is a woman.

And I have the same kind of respect for my fellow victims. Don't you just love the aroma of tragi-comedy in the morning.

And thanks Roy, for the cow tip.

And it's one, two, three, what are we fightin for?

For a bunch of primitive morons like Abdel-Qader Ali, so they can kill their daughters, that's what.

For Abdel-Qader Ali there is only one regret: that he did not kill his daughter at birth. 'If I had realised then what she would become, I would have killed her the instant her mother delivered her,' he said with no trace of remorse.

Two weeks after The Observer revealed the shocking story of Rand Abdel-Qader, 17, murdered because of her infatuation with a British solider in Basra, southern Iraq, her father is defiant. Sitting in the front garden of his well-kept home in the city's Al-Fursi district, he remains a free man, despite having stamped on, suffocated and then stabbed his student daughter to death.

Abdel-Qader, 46, a government employee, was initially arrested but released after two hours. Astonishingly, he said, police congratulated him on what he had done. 'They are men and know what honour is,' he said.

And you ask me why I don't give a damn, about the war in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Cause it's five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates, ain't no time to wonder why, fucking hell they're all gonna die.

Wasn't there some other reason for these stupid wars? I forget. WMD's, freedom, democracy, national security? Ha ha.

Cheap oil? No, although a lot of people believed it, we're not fighting for that. When you follow the money, expensive oil is a more rational explanation. Mass murder? Just an unfortunate side effect of our government's quest for expensive oil.

But hey, pay no attention to that pile of corpses in the corner. Mr. Ali is just exercising his democratic right to kill his children. It's a good thing. And anyway, your government check should arrive any day now. If you truly love freedom, go out and buy some gas.

We've established what you are...

At least it looks like Obama thinks he has:

Senator Barack Obama said today that he would not rule out the possibility of helping Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton retire her campaign debt to bring her into the fold and unify Democrats.

Personally, I think he's wrong. She's a loon, not a whore. But I have to admit that Obama has a much better batting average than poor chuckling when it comes to predicting how things will work in this political world. When it comes to prognosticating, poor chuckling spends too much of his daze gazing enviously up at the Mendoza line.

Nevertheless, the proposition is amusing. Either way.

Klantucky goldmine

As you know, chuckling on-line magazine has important sources deep within the bowels of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign; the inner sanctum, such as it is, where she and her advisers develop strategy and write speeches.

Hillary has been taking a lot of flack lately from the know-nothings on cable tv and in the "mainstream" press because they think she has no strategy for winning the presidency against such overwhelming odds.

We have learned that Hillary will soon unveil a new strategy designed to quell those criticisms and win what is rightfully hers.

She's going to kick it off with a speech in which she lays out her basic principles. She has been working on this speech since South Carolina. It means a lot to her and her political ambition (sorry to be redundant). In addition to laying out a set of strong American principles that will appeal to the hard working people of this great land who support her, and only her, she has a strategy for implementing this new ethical framework. Here is a close-to-final draft:

WE BELIEVE: in the fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of Jesus Christ, and the eternal tenets of the Christian religion as practiced by enlightened churches.

WE BELIEVE: that church and state should continue separate in administration and organization, although united in their mission and purpose to serve mankind unselfishly.

WE BELIEVE: in the American home as the foundation upon which rest secure the American's Republic, the future of its institutions, and the liberties of its citizens.

WE BELIEVE: in the mission of emancipated womanhood, freed from the shackles of old-world traditions, and standing unafraid in the full effulgence of equality and enlightenment.

WE BELIEVE: in the equality of men and women in political, religious, fraternal, civic and social affairs wherein there should be no distinction of sex.

WE BELIEVE: in the free public schools where our children are trained in the principals and ideals that make America the greatest of all nations.

WE BELIEVE: the Stars and Stripes the most beautiful flag on earth, symbolizing the purity of race, the blood of martyrs and the fidelity of patriots.

WE BELIEVE: in the supremacy of the Constitution of the United States and the several states. and consecrate ourselves to its preservation against all enemies at home and abroad.

WE BELIEVE: that the freedom of speech, of press and of worship is an inalienable right of all citizens whose allegiance and loyalty to our country are unquestioned.

WE BELIEVE: that principal comes before party, that justice should be firm but impartial, and that partisanship must yield to intelligent cooperation.

WE BELIEVE: that the current of pure American blood must be kept uncontaminated by mongrel strains and protected from racial pollution.

WE BELIEVE: that the government of the United States must be kept inviolate from the control or domination of alien races and the baleful influence of inferior peoples.

WE BELIEVE: that the people are greater than any foreign power or potentate, prince or prelate, and that no other allegiance in America should be tolerated.

WE BELIEVE: that the perpetuity of our nation rests upon the solidarity and purity of our native-born, white, Gentile men and women.

We believe, she's got a winner!

Clinton insiders refer to this new campaign as the "Klan State Strategy." They have done the math and believe that if they can carry all of the states with the largest racist populations, then she will have the election in the bag. No more of this red/blue nonsense that's been harming our country for so many years. From now on it will be about black and white.

The campaign is aware that certain segments of the population (which will be dealt with after she's president, heh heh) may shrilly denounce her new strategy. One of her top advisers would only speak off the record, but he said they have a plan for that as well:

"We will hire three or four hundred colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. So far, we've only purchased Al Sharpton, but soon many more will follow. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members. Jeremiah Wright gets a klantucky goldmine if he keeps speaking up for Obama. We trust he will oblige. They all will. Nine out of 10 ayway, which would give us about 80 percent of the Negro vote in the general election. With 80 percent of the Negros and all of the good, decent, pure and hardworking people, we will beat the heretic McCain.

Our sources tell us that she will probably introduce the new "Klan State strategy at a speech in Kentucky, sometime in the next few weeks. Her speech will be simulcast on Rush Limbaugh's radio show and Fox News Network. The newspapers of Richard Mellon Scaife will provide in-depth, exclusive coverage.

But these sources caution that if Hillary thinks things are progressing to her satisfaction, she may hold back the speech for the Demoratic convention. Or if things don't go well there, until after hard working Americans storm the gates of the capital with her on their shoulders and install her in the office that is rightfully hers in what she feels is the true Demcocratic way.

More news from the megaplex

In important movie news, chuckling on-line magazine has learned that the awesome new Adam Sandler movie, You Don't Mess with the Zohan, was written by an awesome new screenwriter robot, the Awesomo 4000. We have also obtained a certified original copy of the Awesomo's script:

You see, Adam Sandler, he's like this super Jewish secret agent with, like, super powers, but he doesn't want to be, like, a super secret agent, he wants to be, like, a hair stylist in, like, New York so he, like, quits and moves to New York, but, like, the terrorists, like, they follow him and then he, like, does their hair and then, like, really kicks ass!!!!

It's a can't miss blockbuster, obviously. And the most perceptive critics agree:

When I initially read Andrew's tip, I expected it to be yet another film by a leftist Jewish Hollywood type, who is not exactly pro-Israel (plus I find Judd Apatow and his movies to be completely tasteless and stupid). But Andrew points out that Adam Sandler is not only very pro-Israel, but, last year (during the Israel-Hezbollah war), he donated 400 Sony Playstations to children in Israel, whose homes had been damaged by Hezbollah rockets.

So, yes, Muslims. You can now add Adam Sandler to your "Evil Zionist" boycott list.

That's good news for the Muslims... ummm, like, Not!

And one of her commenters brings up an interesting question and point:

Is Sandler Jewish? Even if he's not--I think he will be terrific as a Mossad man.

Hmmm, I don't know if Adam Sandler's background and can't even imagine how one could possibly find out if Sandler or any other celebrity is Jewish. But I saw the trailer at the multiplex and can assure you he does make an awesome (o) Mossad man/Hair stylist.

An uzi on her side

I think you know that chuckling on-line magazine has no political affiliations. I am neither Republican or Democrat, Green nor Red. If I must scrunched up and jammed forcibly into a label, I prefer "sensible independent," or maybe "ultra-sensible independent," or now that I think about it, "ultra-sensible independent" with a vaguely German accent so it comes out "ultra-zensisble independent, or "Uzi," for short. Yes, that's the ticket. Poor chuckling is poor no more. I am an Uzi, baby.

Anyway, the big news is that chuckling on-line magazine endorses Hillary Clinton for president. You may remember that I had previously endorsed Rudolf Guiliani because he was the sickest sociopath in the race. It's not that I actually like sick sociopaths, but what I like isn't going to be running country so I might as well hope for the greatest entertainment value.
javascript:void(0)
Well, it's been a long time since rotten Rudy dropped out, but even after watching Hillary's sickeningly tactless victory speech last night and hearing her representatives this morning talk about how she will do whatever it takes to destroy Barak Obama, I was still unconvinced that she was sick and twisted enough to be truly entertaining.

But this morning I received an advanced draft of the speech she is planning to give at the Democratic convention (after she loses, before she goes to the Supreme court and get's appointed Democratic nominee). Here is the how it ends:

And as for you Barak Hussein Osama, I say these words: To the last I grapple with thee. From hell's heart, I stab at thee. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee. You have not heard. the last of me.

Good stuff, eh? How can you not root for such a total psycho?

And maybe she'll pick Rudy for vice-president if Lieberman, for some unforeseeable reason, turns her down. Of course I know in my heart of hearts that will never happen, but one can dream.

Good times will be had by all

I just saw Fareed Zakaria on teevee talking about how surprisingly good the American economy is doing. He used Citibank as an example, citing the fact that after having lost so many billions, money from Singapore and the Gulf states flooded in and rescued (i.e. bought) the company.

I hadn't thought about it like that before, but then I was reminded of my sister and brother-in-law back in the midwest. They recently lost their jobs and the very same miracle occurred for them. Instead of going immediately broke, as the naysayers might predict, significant sums of money flowed in from selling the boat, the motorcycle, the power tools, the furniture, and dipping into the kids' college savings.

So you see, both them and Citibank are actually winning by losing. They are reaping the benefits of a windfall. It is a victory for our businesses, our families, and for America.

Cinco de mayo (pues)

More images here.

Please understand, I'm not putting these photographs out here as examples of great photography or anything so grand. It should be clear that I'm fucking around with some experimental shit. Glowing white shit is all I care about.

But no matter how hard I try to be nouveau, old habits stalk me like a serial killer in a bad horror movie, or if you prefer, a bad metaphor in a pointless essay . Still, I can't help but turn a series of photos into some kind of coherent photo essay. I try, I really do, but I just can't. I am. unfortunately, a hack.

Of course it would be triply wrong if I were to tell you what any particular essay were about, especially if I knew.

Even if I wanted to use words to explicate a narrative, no words would be adequate. A photo essay is quite plainly, and this is obvious when you think about it, a photo essay. Words are pretty much limited to the title, though a few may appear as content.

But since what I'm about to tell you is just an observation on a finished product, not an explication of purpose, I think it's okay.

One interesting way to look at this photographic essay is as evidence of pre-Columbian culture in New York.

My experience has been that most people in the U.S. have little idea of what Mexico is actually like. One of the many things they do not consider is the extent of the Indian population. Unlike we Americans, the Mexican government never officially discriminated against Indians. In all official correspondence, everyone in Mexico is a Mexican. Here, if you are small and dark and from Mexico, you are a Mexican. And if you are fat kinda dark in Tucson, Arizona, you are Tohono O'ohdam, or a Navajo, or an maybe an Apache. We simply have a different approach to apartheid. The castes, we do not name.

But once you're clued in, it's as plain as a nose on a face. It's as plain as the print in an history book. It's as plain as fucking day.

Yet somehow the south of the border American Indians are as invisible as the guy bringing the fruit up from a New York City cellar. They are as invisible as the guy who picks your toe-mate-oes and your toe-maa-toes.

Ya Pues. I know.

So anyway, the photos show a bit of that, I think and I find that aspect interesting.

That and the facts associated with the fact that no alcohol was allowed at the festivities.

I spent eight years traveling extensively around southern Arizona and northern Sonora and I can tell you this: It is simply unnatural for Mexicans to get together for a party in the park without there being a lot of beer. Bizarrely unnatural. Banning Mexicans from drinking beer at a family get together in the park is like shoving a fist up the ass of a culture and ripping out a vital organ. It's just not right.

And there's no question that the beer ban on Mexican festivals is purely culturist (if not racist). To get into the park we passed through a phalanx of police who searched our bags and baby carriages and patted us down if we looked suspicious. Then to get into the stage area required an even more rigorous inspection. They were doing body cavity searches and pulling out fillings. The line to get in snaked about a quarter mile.

Now you know that chuckling is not a cultural elitist. But sometimes I mingle with the cultural elite. I live in New York. What can I do? I have to get out. And I am not prejudiced. It would be just as wrong of me to snub the rich elitist crowd as it would be for me to stay away from Cinco de Mayo festivities.

So I go to the BMA and the BAM. I go to the Met and the Guggenheim. I know how to get to Carnegie Hall. F train to 57th street motherfucker.

And I note that I'm free to get smashed out of my mind at those places. They'll sell me all the beer wine and liquor I can drink as long as I don't puke on anybody's tuxedo. Children are welcome, as long as they are well-bred.

Ya motherfucker. Chinga tu madere,pues. Cerveza es para mi, ese. Ya no es para ti. How do you say that in Nahuatal?

Wayne gale on a downward spiral

I read the reviews of Iron Man because I had no intention whatsoever of seeing it. When I learned that Robert Downey Jr. played the main character and got rave reviews, I though, hmmmm, maybe I should take poor little John Bob to see it. Robert Downey Jr. is one of my favorite actors of all time. He should have won an Oscar for Natural Born Killers, Richard III, and just about everything else he's been in.

But then I remembered a quip I read about Ian McKellen and X-Men. Ian McKellen, you may recall, gave what was perhaps the greatest cinematic performance of all time in Richard III, and has had a quite distinguished career on stage and screen in addition to that masterpiece. Anyway, the quip was "Featuring Ian McKellen as Magneto." The sadmess of that statement nearly brings me to tears. And don't even ask me about "Featuring Sir Ian McKellen as Gandolf." Makes me want to puke. It does.

At least we can be thankful that so many great actors are dead and buried. Would you really want to see Sir Laurence Olivier as the Sub Mariner? Or Orson Welles as Thor? Or even John Wayne as Quicksilver? No, god no.

So putting the matter in the proper perspective, I realized that I did not want to see "Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man" and swore to myself that I would not sully his memory by seeing it.

Unfortunately, I was making myself this promise as I was on my way to pick up John Bob after school And what do you think was the first thing out of his mouth? "Dad, can we go see Iron Man?"

So all right, I'm not one of those parents that says yes to everything. I would never take him to see Transformers or 99 out of 100 other summer blockbusters, but what can I say? I'm a sucker for the work of Robert Downey Jr.

Plot spoiler ahead. Stop reading right now if you don't want to know how much the movie sucked, just like you'd think a super hero move would. And the really scary thing was at the end, after sitting through the credits. Samuel Jackson appeared and threatened a sequel. When the guy from Snakes on a Plane and Big Black Scary Mambo, or whatever, threatens to appear in a movie, it's time to be afraid. Very, very afraid.

Cuatro de mayo

This photo is from an historic re-enactment of how the French got distracted the day before the big battle on cinco de mayo.

After my experiences in Mexico I had come to believe that the holiday was entirely fabricated by Budweiser to sell beer, but apparently some Mexicans actually take it seriously. Not anyone in the north though. Not at least as far as I could tell and I did a lot of research on the subject.

My first Cinco de Mayo in Mexico was just one of those twists of fate. A friend and I happened to be driving by Mexicali and somehow through our stupor realized that it was Cinco de Mayo. Why not, we said and crossed the border to join the festivities. Unfortunately, there were no festivities. Everyone we asked claimed not to know anything about any "holiday" on Cinco de Mayo. Nonplussed, we celebrated nevertheless. We got a room, went out to a bar, drank a case of those little Dos Equis bottles on ice with some friendly ladies, then drank a liter of tequila, some shots of Dom Pedro, smoked some pretty good weed, chased some black tar, ate some Xanax, bought a couple prostitutes (apiece), and I think I remember something about a donkey, but can't be sure. Anyway, the short of it is that we celebrated like French soldiers in Amsterdam, for research purposes you know. And our extensive research demonstrated how the French lost that particular battle. The following morning, a bunch of Mexican school kids picked on us and there was nothing we could do to stop it. The authorities just laughed.

For many years thereafter my friend and I traveled to northern Mexico on the fifth of May, or thereabouts. Eventually the Mexican beer companies picked up on the idea and tried to lure tourists to the border towns, but beyond the 20 kilometer limit, no one had ever heard of it. Still, I feel that more research is needed.

Chuckling makes another bold prediction

Just about everybody in the news media has noted that the math does not support Hillary Clinton's chance of winning the Democratic nomination. Broder does the honors this morning:

How then does Hillary Clinton hope to win? Her fate rests entirely on the last uncommitted superdelegates, the roughly 75 members of Congress and 150 party officials who have not picked sides.

I'm not saying those people have problems with their computational skills. It's just that counting primary votes or delegates will not necessarily be the math that matters.

I'm predicting that "5" will be the number that wins it for Hillary. That's what you get when you add up Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy. She should have it wrapped up sometime around mid-October at the latest.

Wapo editors asleep at the gate

The Washington Post actually ran an article in today's Outlook section that reports somewhat effectively on political reality.

At the moment, Americans are fixated on the political campaign. In the meantime, many are missing a reality of the global era that may matter much more than their presidential choice: On an ever-growing list of issues, the big decisions are being made or profoundly influenced by a little-understood international network of business, financial, government, cultural and military leaders who are beyond the reach of American voters.

I suspect someone at the Washington Post is either about to quit or get fired.

Well, maybe not. David Rothkopf has written for them before, most prominently in a surprisingly intelligent article in which he predicted that the U.S. would be invading Arab countries for at least the next one hundred years. The Wapo bigwigs must have spurted all the way up to the ceiling when they read that happy news. I guess while they were in the throes of wargasm, they neglected to contemplate all the actual useful information in the article.

At the of today's piece, Rothkopf softens the news that there's no such thing as functional democracy in this country or anywhere else in the world. He reassures us that our vote still counts. I'm sure that his willingness to tack on that pleasing fairy tale is a point in his, and whoever was asleep at the gate's favor, but in the context of the entire piece, it was not the least bit believable.

Wouldn't hurt a fly

Juan Cole alerts us to an upcoming debate on the BBC that contends:

'...the Sunni-Shia conflict is damaging Islam's reputation as a religion of peace.'

Islam has a reputation as a religion of peace? That's news to me. Muslims conquered roughly the same empire as Alexander the Great and have been fighting amongst themselves ever since.

Of course that's not to say that they are any worse than other prominent Bible-based religion. They have nowhere near the Christian's earned reputation for pathological violence and military conquest. And although they've been much more successful than the Jews at military conquest, the Jews are hardly less violent as a people when given a fighting chance.

You pretty much have to study the Mesoamerican religions (Aztecs, Mayans, Toltecs, et.al) or the Andeans to make the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions look peaceful. Even then, "peaceful" is hardly the word that describes them. "Somewhat less insane" would be more accurate.

Only a few of the Asian religions have any serious claim to being peaceful, but no matter what the texts may say, history is still littered with Buddhist tyrants.

But I don't mean to speak ill of all religions. I've never heard of an evil Jainist government, although their primary religious symbol (see above) has been subject to misappropriation.