What to do, what to do...

Despite the horseshit coming out of Washington, new evidence continues to arrive that shows the United States is beginning to spiral up to Latin American levels of hyperinflation. Today, the lesson comes in the form of our electric bills:

Utilities across the USA are raising power prices up to 29%, mostly to pay for soaring fuel costs, but also to build new plants and refurbish an aging power grid.

Even more dramatic rate increases are ahead. The mounting electric bills will further squeeze households struggling with spiraling gasoline prices.

"Consumers now face a tough reality on electricity," says Mark Cooper of Consumer Federation of America.

Rocco Sacramone, the owner and executive chef at Trattoria L'incontro, a well-regarded Italian restaurant in Queens asks:

"What are we going to do? We're going to pass it on to customers. What else can we do?" he said, adding that that hikes come at a particularly bad time. "My meat prices went up. My fish prices went up. Everything went up."

And that's everyone's answer, starting with the electric companies. Raise prices. Pass the costs along to the customer. And if you are a giant oil or utility company, tack on a whopping windfall profit to make you feel better.

Is it true that there is no other solution? Perhaps not for the struggling restaurateur in Queens, but for large companies making billions in profits?

Would it not be possible for them to take less profit?

Well, no and yes.

In today's political economy, it is not even possible for a company to decrease the rate of profit growth without dire consequences. This is because we have bought into the ideology of Shareholder Value, which posits that the purpose of a company is to enrich its shareholders. It's not like the old days when a family run business could ride out the hard times and emerge stronger. Today, a business must sell out everything for current share price, which is largely dependent on the rate of profit growth. This is what used to be known as a pyramid scheme.

Perhaps that's all fine and good for companies selling widgets, but it makes no good sense whatsoever for a company selling basic public services.

The alternative is government control or strict oversight of essential service providers. That's how it works in the most successful countries. That's how it worked in the United States when we were a successful country. And that's how it will work in the future after this pyramid scheme reaches its inevitable conclusion. The only realistic question is how much damage will be done before the economy is totally wrecked and we have to buy Euros from hustlers on street corners as soon as we get paid in or else we wake up the next day with another pile of worthless paper.

We've established what she is... (continued)

Senator Barack Obama continues to urge us to pay off Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign debts. Keep in mind that Senator Clinton is a multimillionaire who can easily pay her own debts and still be a multimillionaire. But no, she'd rather you and I ration our beer money and feed the kids macaroni and cheese so that she can regain a smidgen of her pride. Keep in mind, also, that she ran up those debts after she had effectively lost the nomination. She wants you and I to sacrifice for her folly. Or if not you and I, then the wealthy people who might otherwise help other Democratic Party candidates.

Personally, I find it morally monstrous that anyone would give her a dime when the election is in doubt. Or if people are not going to support the black guy no matter what, they should at least help the homeless or some worthy cause if they are in the mood to give.

The fact that Senator Clinton keeps playing these games provides a wonderful demonstration of what a twisted sociopath she has become. That's what I like about her. And that's why I have still not counted her out for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. Even if she loses, I suspect she will not go down without making an ugly scene or three. What price must Obama pay to get her to turn over her delegates? If there is a price, I'm sure we'll find out. And it will be high.

And I pity Senator Obama if he becomes President Obama. Dealing with the Republican dead-enders will be bad enough, but he'll have Senator Clinton in the senate working late nights to thwart his every move.

Then there's the cult she created, Our Women of the Perpetually Aggrieved. It looks like they'll be wailing until the end of days, or at least until Senator Clinton claims her rightful crown.

You have to wonder about how Senator Obama is handling this. I think it's one of those situations where all of the answers have ugly consequences. Nothing he can do will make her go away. Giving her everything she demands would not make her happy and she would never stop increasing her demands. Worse than that, it would make him appear weak. No, it would show that he is weak. If he's that much of a doormat, imagine how he'd handle Iran. He wouldn't just talk to them without preconditions, he'd right them a check without preconditions in the hope that they would talk.

I trust he's better than that. My guess is he'll do whatever he has to to get through the convention and then try to lose the psycho. Of course he can never lose the psycho entirely, but he will try getting as far away as possible so that she can only bite his ankles rather than his jugular.

Who woulda thunk it?

Reuters reports that the government of Panama has declined to host a U.S. military base on their soil.

PANAMA CITY (Reuters) - Panama has ruled out hosting a U.S. military base to replace one in Ecuador which is being reclaimed by the Quito government, a senior Panamanian official said on Friday....

Panama's Justice Minister Daniel Delgado said his country's often turbulent history with the United States made the establishment of new bases impossible.

Funny how the article fails to mention that we invaded Panama, killed, wounded and displaced a lot of people, and have a rich history of fucking over Latin American countries, particularly those stupid enough to let us build military bases.

Those reading the article with no knowledge of history would be mystified. We are so good, so righteous. Why do these poor, deluded people always distrust our good intentions? Why o why?

Picture of today

Chuckling does his part

I just got a call from a representative of Senator Obama asking me to help out with a campaign donation. I want to help Senator Obama, I genuinely do, but I figure at this stage in the campaign he needs my advice more than he needs my money.

So I said that I would not give anything to Senator Obama for two reasons. First, because I did not want to waste any of my money to retire the mutli-millionaire Hillary Clinton's campaign debt. Second, that Senator Obama is quickly becoming a Republican and that I am not giving a dime to support the Republican agenda.

Apparently they have been hearing a lot of negative feedback over paying back Senator Clinton's campaign debts because the caller had a scripted answer to that criticism, which was reasonable.

But he just sounded exasperated about the charge that the Senator has dropped any pretense of being a Democrat. I pointed out that Senator Obama supports what should be illegal wiretapping, that he wants to funnel tax dollars to so-called religious organizations, and that he is backing off his pledge to get us out of Iraq -- Republican positions all. No scripted answer to those points, yet.

I was polite and asked that the caller please pass my concerns up the chain of command. I'm sure the Obama campaign will get the message if enough people refuse to contribute based on those principles. Of course the message they get may be to rely on corporate donors and their lobbyists instead, but that would speak to their morality not mine. I did the best I could to help.

Picture of today

Party like it's 1999

I'll try not to harp on this continually as the elections season rolls on. I know it doesn't win me any friends or influence. But periodically I just have to point out the overwhelming evidence that we live in a one party state. And now seems to be a good time for a little reminder, seeing how Senator Obama just dropped any pretense of being a Democrat. His embrace of Bush's Iraq policy so soon after his embrace of Bush's domestic spying policies should give you a couple pretty solid clues as to how things actually work. Senator Obama, just like everyone else in any kind of leadership position, is a member of the inner party. Whether he wins or loses, there will be no roll back of the national security state, no sensible universal health care and no change in the direction in the flow of money from the middle class to the wealthy.

But if elected, I wonder what he will accomplish. He's very eloquent and persuasive you know. The sky is not even the limit. President Clinton only managed to fulfill the liberal dream of doing away with Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Maybe President Obama will achieve the holy grail and destroy social security and medicare. For the good of this great nation, you know. For the good of Americans like you, me, and our sainted grandmothers. With a bi-partisan consensus of Republicans and centrist Democrats, he'll be able to accomplish just about anything.

Can't have that

This is sad.

An Indiana teacher who used a much lauded bestseller, The Freedom Writers Diary, to try to inspire under-performing high-school students has been suspended from her job without pay for 18 months.

The forces of ignorance rule most of this country.

The mighty, they fall

In economic news, the NY Times reports that the U.S. is on its knees begging for money in Moscow.

...the American treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., appealed in Moscow for Russian investment in the United States.

Speaking from the grave, Vladimir Lenin counseled the current Russian president to buy any rope we offer for sale.

Photo of the day

Election year observation

It just occurred to me that no one is running against the Beltway establishment this time around. How strange that both candidates would choose not to use such a proven strategy.

Never mind that Senator McCain is the Beltway establishment personified. That kind of grand hypocrisy and hucksterism has never stopped Republicans before.

And what's up with Senator Obama? He's not only running against the Beltway establishment personified but doing it at a time when that establishment is coming off the biggest failures in the history of the country.

What could possibly explain his failure to take advantage of such a winning strategy?

Update: I just saw Senator Obama's top advisor, David Axelrod, on tv saying that the Senator was not really serious about withdrawing troops from Iraq. Hmmmm. What could possibly explain that sudden alignment with the Beltway establishment?

It's a stumper.

Photo of the day

How it plays in peoria

A friend sent me this first hand report of some family friendly fare in the heart of this great country:

Well at least I got to see some family entertainment in Peoria at the Cubs farm team's new family entertainment stadium. Between inning entertainment as a "balloon race" where a girl had to burst a water balloon on her boyfriends chest with her chest. Then run a lap and then bust a water balloon on his crotch and then jump his bones on the ground till they could break a balloon between the two of them on the ground. That was followed by a grind dance contest on top of the visiting teams clubhouse about 10 feet from us. $8 well spent! Oh crap we were with our under 13 girls soccer team.....

Ummmm. Okay. Sounds like good midwestern fun, I've been there, done that. Seems a bit strange doing it at a professional baseball game, but whatever.

He also included this link to a short article that some might consider sexist. I got a chuckle from the denouement, but found it interesting in the context of our ongoing conversation about what is or is not sexist. The major issues surrounding Senator Clinton's campaign for President are relived in comments, but with a better sense of humor.

A desolate world with desolate people in it

I saw Pixar's new film Wall-E the other day and have been debating whether or not to say anything about it. I read a lot of reviews to see if I had anything particularly interesting to add and found that I didn't, so this will be brief.

I see all of Pixar's movies because I have kids, but I am not the studio's biggest fan. Cars is the only Pixar film I like uncritically. I have seen Cars numerous times simply because I enjoy it. Yes, I realize that I am probably the only person on the planet that sees it that way. Whatever. And I thought The Incredibles was pretty good as well.

So for what it's worth, I liked Wall-E and would say it is better than The Incredibles but not as good as Cars.

Interestingly, I again came across Debbie Schlussel's site when looking for reviews. Debbie is one of the more amusingly pathetic racist hate mongers on the internets. Making fun of her seems unfair, akin to teasing the mentally retarded. Nevertheless, she is probably not 'technically' mentally retarded and her nonsense does illustrate the depths of moral and intellectual depravity in which Republicans wallow, so she is fair game (if one defines fair as really ugly).

Her film criticism is generally high schoolish. Sentences like "Soon, a spaceship lands on earth and deposits small robot that looks like a cross between Caspar the Friendly Ghost and an egg" gives you all insight you need into her mainstream writing skills. The only possible reason to read her is for the insanely stupid asides.

I'm sure you can both enjoy this film with your family and explain to your kids that Ted Turner's scary vision of a scorched earth with no vegetation is fantasy and won't happen.

Yea, Ted Turner used his evil mind rays to inculcate his scary visions into the minds of Pixar employees. He's very scary that way.

But she goes way beyond stupidity into the serious ugly farther down when she discusses Bab'Aziz: The Prince Who Contemplated His Soul, a Tunisian film the Washington Post's Micahel O'Sullivan describes as "a lovely if meandering fantasia about the power of narrative."

Khemir has a great eye, even if his pacing is at times lazier than Western audiences may be used to. In the end, though, the loose threads of the various yarns are tied up in a deeply satisfying way, giving this fairy tale the heft of great literature.

Schlussel, it seems, is only capable of considering art through her personal kaleidoscope of hate. She describes the film as "not charming, just backward," and then goes off on a neo-Nazi style anti-semitic rant.

You can't blame the Arabs and Muslims for their lack of advancement in story development and video production, though. After all, they have more important industries in which to make their advancements and developments and focus their "ingenuity" and "creativity": the IED industry, the homicide belt bomb industry, and the Mein Kampf/Protocols of the Elders of Zion publishing industry, and the women's sackwear/full-Ninja fashion industry.

Yes, they have advanced video production but only for certain things: beheading videos, Al-Qaeda recruitment videos, and the transmission of anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic sermons.

Funny how so many neo-Nazi douchebags like Ms. Schlussel miss the fact that Arabs are semites too.

One drop rules

Washington Post reporter Jonathan Weisman gets smacked down for observing that Senator Barak Obama is as white as he is black, perhaps more so since he was raised by whitey.

Several readers were upset by a remark that National political reporter Jonathan Weisman made on a washingtonpost.com chat on Monday. Weisman was responding to this question about Sen. Barack Obama:

"Alexandria, Va.: Obama's new ad (which plays a lot in Alexandria) shows pictures of his mother and grandparents, playing up his white family. Until now he's been 'African American'; now suddenly he's a white Midwesterner? During the primary Hillary was criticized for changing her image too many times. Won't Obama be criticized for doing the same thing?"

Weisman's answer: "I haven't heard that criticism, but it is striking -- not a single picture of his father. Now, that really is consistent with his upbringing -- he really did not become immersed in black American culture until he left college and went to Chicago. The great irony is that he is much more white than black, beyond skin color."

A Mr. Kendall Ridley from Houston is outraged.

"I'm simply blown away by this display of ignorance. Please let Mr. Weisman know that black culture is the all-encompassing experience of being black; there is not just one kind of black culture, as black America is neither monolithic nor single-minded. If Obama is 'more white,' 'beyond skin color,' I entreat Mr. Weisman to delineate precisely what he means. . . . Is he suggesting there is 'white behavior' and 'black behavior' or 'white thought' and 'black thought'?"

Without ultimately judging Mr. Ridley, I'm afraid I must question parts of his logic, if not his outrage altogether. If he were making the argument that there is no such thing as race so that any kind of categorization of people by race is idiotic per se, I would be right there with him. But when he writes that black culture is the all-encompassing experience of being black, he shows himself to be just as racialist, if not racist, as any other race obsessed moron.

This little controversy is a great example of why we need to do away with the entire disproved and outdated concept of race. Mr. Ridley is right that there is no such thing as 'black behavior' or 'white thought' because there is no such thing as black or white, at least when it comes to classifying humans.

But ethnicity is a very real phenomenon. Although impossible to classify around the edges, at the core things such as an African-American experience, ghetto culture, an African American literary tradition, white middle class values, WASP-ish snobbism, and all too many other ethnic categories actually exist, at least to some extent. Mr. Ridley's idea that there is an all-encompassing black or any other culture based on skin color is simply idiotic.

When we decode Mr. Weisman's politically unwise comment that Senator Obama is more white than black beyond skin color in ethnic terms, what he says is essentially accurate. Senator Obama was raised in what is typically considered a white middle class environment. An esoteric white middle class environment, granted, but a white middle class environment nevertheless. That is simply the fact of the matter.

Of course we should do away with all of these color based terms. 'White middle class values' should be replaced with something like 'typical American middle values' since people of all hues can and do share typical American values, but within the context of today's reality, Mr. Weisman made perfect sense as opposed to Mr. Ridley, who appears to be horribly warped by racialism.

The fact that Senator Obama cannot run an ad that shows images of his grandmother without getting criticized for trying to be white demonstrates just what a fucked up racialist world we continue to inhabit.

Spills, drills and can openers

Louisiana's governor Bobby Jindal opens one of those proverbial can of worms that give us insight on several levels into how things actually work.

In an interview about the price of oil, Governor Jindal claimed that Hurricane Katrina had caused no major oil spills, when it fact it had caused many.

More than 500 specialists are working to clean up 44 oil spills ranging from several hundred gallons to nearly 4 million gallons, the U.S. Coast Guard said in an assessment that goes far beyond initial reports of just two significant spills....

The Coast Guard estimates more than 7 million gallons of oil were spilled from industrial plants, storage depots and other facilities around southeast Louisiana. That is about two-thirds as much oil as spilled from the Exxon Valdez tanker in 1989.

And it was even worse.

"This is a major event," said Lieutenant Colonel Glynn Smith of the coastguard in New Orleans. "Things are going well, but three-quarters of the oil from the spills has not yet been recovered."

The figure does not include petrol and oil spilt from up to 250,000 cars which have been submerged, or that spilt from hundreds of petrol stations. The coastguard says it has received almost 400 reports of spills, the vast majority of which have not been assessed.

So how was it that a prominent Louisiana congressperson who would soon become governor did not know about this environmental catastrophe and is still unaware? That's always the conundrum with the Republicans, eh. Are they stupid or are they lying? Or both?

Well, poor chuckling is not a mind reader so I can't answer that question. However, I do note that I was unaware of or had forgotten about any news of catastrophic oil spills until reading about it in the Think Progress article linked above. I'm not lying, and at least when it comes to mentally covering up Republican crimes, I am not stupid. And I waste an inordinate amount of time keeping up with politics. So why was I unaware of such a major event?

I can't say for sure, but looking back I suspect it's because it was not front page news. My Google search turned up the two articles I linked to above and nothing else from the national media. Doing a search for "Katrina oil spill" on the New York Times site turned up no major stories. And it turned up no major news stories on the Washington Post site.

The search did, however, turn up a few interesting tidbits from the Post's Op-ed section which explain Governor Jindal's mistake. This is, you see, all about offshore drilling and apparently there were no spills from off-shore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico caused by Katrina. Not surpringly the Post's columnists uncritically parrot oil industry lobbyists.

This, from Robert J. Samuelson:

There were 4,000 platforms operating in the Gulf of Mexico when hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit. Despite extensive damage, there were no major spills, says Robbie Diamond of Securing America's Future Energy, an advocacy group.

You see, this is what you get when you open a can of worms. Louisiana governors, Washington Post columnists, and a lot of other worms when you dig a little deeper. Note that Samuelson is quoting someone from an organization called "Securing American's Future Energy," or SAFE. They are, surprise surprise, a lobbying group that fronts for oil companies.

Muckety provides an excellent interactive map that puts names to all those otherwise anonymous worms in this particular can.

Byrne-ing Building

I finally got around to stopping by David Byrne's "Playing the Building" installation.

...a sound installation in which the infrastructure, the physical plant of the building, is converted into a giant musical instrument. Devices are attached to the building structure — to the metal beams and pillars, the heating pipes, the water pipes — and are used to make these things produce sound.

This is chuckling's contribution to music, if only for today:

His carefully phrased comments were seen as a sign of his shift towards the centre before November's election.

Need I say more? Ok, Obama's up what? 15 points? 18 points? What do you want to bet that the more he moves to the right, the more he widens the gap? Bet your farm, Bub. I'll take it.

The illusion of waterfall

As regular readers know, chuckling is a fan of waterfalls. But you, mythical regular reader, also know that chuckling is less than enamored with all that is fake.

So how will I react to “The New York City Waterfalls,” the new big time art installation in New York by the artist Olafur Eliasson. We'll see. I saw all four waterfalls today, but will withhold opinion until I've seen them at night and at least six or eight more times.

Regardless of what I ultimately think about them as art, I'm happy as hell to see them as public art. This is the kind of thing that puts cities like New York and Paris over the top. Sure, you can look at how much these things cost and say the money would be better spent going to battered or starving children, but realistically you can look at the budget and see so many things that should be cut to fund all the worthiest of goals before doing away with major public art projects. In the real world, these art projects are not costing other worthy programs anything. And hopefully a few battered children will marvel at the beautiful waterfalls, or gates, whatever, and dream a different dream.

On a completely different topic, New York's mayor Michael Bloomberg let out a particularly stinky fart at the opening ceremony:

I like Old Masters, I like big sculptures,” the mayor mused, adding, “To me great art is something that I couldn’t do myself. To me great art is something that tells a story.

Ummm, okay. Bloomy likes it old and big. It's your money, bub, you gets whats you pays for. Big art for big money. But remember the all important flip side my friends. Big art ain't necessarily great and small art necessarily can be and when you're feeling blue don't forget that big money can't stop great art. Not all the time.

Anyway, I'll post some photos eventually.

Out of sight, out of mind

I understand why we spend so much time on the idiocies in the mainstream and pseudo-mainstream media like the Washington post and all those rejects at the National Review site or the The Atlantic rather than plumbing the deeper depths of the cesspool known as conservatism such as Storm Front or Vanguard News Network where intrepid citizen journalists spare us the euphemisms when they explain all that is wrong with America because of the niggers and the jews.

Yes, I understand why we stay away from that shit. But still, I think it is helpful to catch up on it now and again. Just don't forget to shower when you're done. Maybe apply some alcohol to your guts to kill any germs you might have contracted from the inside.

Why the democrats always lose big summer leads

Every election cycle the Democratic candidate has a big lead in the polls going into summer. Dukakis is the most famous example. Why do they always end up losing those leads?

Simple. During the primaries they run as anti-war social democrats to appeal to their base. Then after they win the nomination, they say fuck all that liberal shit, we need a strong military, free trade, low wages, any you, loser, take responsibility for your own health and if you don't like it we'll raise your rates. Hell, we'll raise them anyway.

I fear that this is happening with Senator Obama right now. He ran against Bush's excesses, now he supports warrantless spying on Americans. He ran against Nafta, now he thinks it's the greatest thing since warrantless spying. He treats poor Muslim women who show up at his campaign events like dirt.

And I'm really afraid of what will happen when this sucking off the right causes his poll numbers to plummet. If now is like the past, the consensus will be that he is too liberal and in order to show that he is not a liberal, he will find that we need more troops in Iraq and that they will need bases built to last 1000 years. And if the consensus is still that he's too liberal, he may begin thinking that perhpas some tax cuts for the wealthy will get the economy moving again, or at least his poll numbers.

Of course it's too early to tell, but he's off to a bad start, seemingly following the move to right for the general election game plan that has fucked up so many other Democratic candidates.

We've established what you are... (cont.)

It seems Senator Barak Obama has cut a deal with Senator Hillary Clinton to help pay her debt in exchange for not continuing to run against him in a very obvious way. Word on the street has it that she is in hock for $22.5 million. That seems like a large sum, granted, but other reports put her net worth at something significantly (speaking for myself, $.9 million is significant) above $34 million. So theoretically, she could pay off her own fucking debt instead of taking badly needed funds from the presidential race. Her annual income is over $12 million, so she'd make it up in no time.

On the bright side, that news gives me all the excuse I need not to contribute to Senator Obama's campaign. If the fruit of my labor is going to be blown on a prostitute, I'll do it myself thank you very much.

Man bites dog, Doormatocrats lay down on the porch, the world, it turns

Every four years or so, otherwise intelligent people begin to believe that if only they could elect Democrats, then everything would change. It's sad to watch them go through the inevitable stages of hope, belief, certitude, denial and dejection.

To get the party started for this election cycle, the Doormatocrats this week pulled down their pants and laid down on the porch with their asses in the air and politely asked the Republicans to fuck them in the butt and to please wipe up resulting mess with any remaining shreds of the constitution on the issue of the warrantless wiretapping of anyone any time for any reason or no reason at all.

I know, I know. That's already old news. They'll stand up next time. Sure they will. You bet. And yes, I know, chuckling is guilty of gross exaggeration. In reality there are plenty more shreds of the constitution for the Democrats to wipe up with after taking it up the ass from Republicans. The constitution is a big document.

So you see. Wouldn't you think that poor chuckling is cynical enough? Not fucking possible. Get this.

During all of these years that Bush administration officials have refused to testify before congress, I've always wondered why they didn't just have them arrested, thrown in jail and dragged into the hearings in chains if need be. But honestly, I thought that was just a rhetorical question, that the Democrats didn't do it because they couldn't do it.

Well, not so. From a congressional hearing on the subject we learn:

For example, the judge [U.S. District Judge John D. Bates] said, the House could order Miers's arrest and detention in a cell in the Capitol until she agreed to testify. Such actions were fairly common in the 19th century.

Can a major politcal party really be that weak? The answer is probably not what you think.

Buy me some peanuts

Monumental douchebag Richard Cohen informs us that he pays no attention to issues when deciding whom to vote for, that for him; it's all about likability and character. And if you are a pettily powerful old guy like Cohen, it's only natural that you would like someone with whom you can talk openly about pussy. Oh man, I'd like to fuck her. That kind of thing. Those are the kinds of characters you can appreciate. Just look at the tits on that bitch. She can bring me my coffee, any day. You know, the kind of guy who likes calling his wife a cunt.

But the big dog bites man story of the day is that Republicans are praying to Allah for a terrorist attack on the United States. The more spectacular the better. Taking out a building helps their chances immensely. If terrorists take out a city, they've the election in the bag. Whoopppeeeee!!!!! Meanwhile Senator Clinton is still hoping that Senator Obama gets caught burning the flag at a mosque during a gay orgy. Or that he is somehow otherwise eliminated.

Meanwhile, a reputable scientist testifies that the world will come to a horrible end if we don't take a few sensible steps to stop the impending catastrophe. The congresspeople smile and applaud warmly.

Longtime global warming skeptic Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., citing a recent poll, said in a statement, ''Hansen, (former Vice President) Gore and the media have been trumpeting man-made climate doom since the 1980s. But Americans are not buying it.''

What more can you say? Americans ain't buying it. Better start selling something else, science boy. Tax cuts are the ticket. And war. We got'em. Get'cher tax cuts right'chere. War, we got'cher war, real cheap.

American excrementalism

Orlando -- Do you believe that every child should go to Disney’s Magic Kingdom while he or she is young enough to appreciate the magic? I do. I believe that. I believe that somewhat less than fervently. So I have made it a point to take each of my children before they become teens. Last week was my son John Bob’s turn to appreciate the happiest place on earth, to be the happiest kid on earth. Hopefully, it will not screw him up for life.

I am not confident, you see, in my belief that all children should experience the Disney brand of happiness. But I have to choose, so I do, and off we go, but I am sick with gut wrenching fear when I ponder what it all means. How can we know what is best? Any act of parenting can conceivably ruin a child's life. Disney is a huge gamble. And the horror that is Orlando is infinitely more dangerous. A gateway drug. A taste of the life of the rich and famous. A megachurch for the worship of consumer crap. A shrine to all that is false and shiny. A place where moral values trumpeting senseless acquisition über alles are instilled into impressionable minds. A soul-sickening place of surface happiness masking vileness and insecurity just below. An animatronic illusion that many will chase for the rest of their lives. Unknowingly or not.

That, you see, is the danger of shielding the children from all that is Orlando in this world. What if you don't take them? Will they feel cheated? Will they come to worship that which they were denied? Society would give them plenty of encouragement. Your parents never took you to Disney? What monsters. It’s the happiest place on earth. Didn’t they want you to be happy? What? You’re not 100 percent happy every moment of every day? If only your evil parents had taken you to Disney…

And what if I don't take my children to Disney? They might become like those adults you see there. Adults at Disney without children. They go at least once a year. They have sashes with hundreds of pins, one from each visit. They get married in the magic castle. Spend their honeymoons, their anniversaries, their birthdays, mothers day, fathers day -- all of their vacation days within the confines of the park. They don’t go to Europe, Asia, South America. They don’t go hiking, camping, exploring. They go to fake castles, fake rivers in fake jungles, fake frontier towns, fake tomorrow lands and they enjoy fake liberty in a fake 18th century New England town square. They live in a nightmare. They aspire to it. A nightmare, I tell you true.



Yet there I go. It all started very innocently. The phone rang. I answered. It was a telemarketer. She was polite, so I was polite. I didn’t hang up. How would I like to spend an inexpensive vacation in paradise? There are many paradises to choose from. I, and my family, could spend 4 days and nights at a luxurious resort. We could have it all. Swimming pools, fine dining, beaches, golf, whatever we could dare to dream. And it would only cost a pittance. All we had to do was sit through a 90 minute sales pitch for a time share. We didn’t have to buy. We were, she implied, too smart for that. Yes, that would be nice, but we have plans for this year. I understand, can I give you a call back next year? And so on. Every few months she would call and whisper lurid tales of luxury in poor chuckling’s ear. But chuckling is rarely tempted by luxury. We offer more than mere luxury. Do you have children? Have they been to Disney? John Bob is getting old. Time is running out. If we don’t take him to Disney soon, the results could be, as I detailed above, grim.

You must understand, my wife Lola and I had no idea how time share sales work. We had heard that they put you under a lot of pressure to buy before you leave, but that’s pretty much it. Are time shares a good deal, a bad deal, a rip-off or the chance of a lifetime? We had no idea. We entered the sales facility without prejudices. Like freshly fallen snow at Disney’s Blizzard water park, we offered ourselves to our salesperson. The first impression was all his.

Chris was a portly fellow who appeared to be a heavy drinker and seemed to be under a lot of stress. He began by emphasizing how important it was that we like him personally. If we liked him, you see, then we would like the company and would want to buy its product. I half expected him to have a moment of clarity and ask if he’d really said that out loud, but apparently he really didn’t know that he wasn’t supposed to share that strategy with the prospective suckers. Lola and I were amused and although we tried to hide it, I think it showed.

And it would only get worse for poor Chris. We were his first appointment and he already reeked of flop sweat. Looking around Orlando it wasn’t hard to imagine the kind of pressure he must be under. Selling a questionable product to people who have made a pact not to buy is difficult enough. But with the tanking economy, the gazillion other giant resorts all around, and an almost equal number under construction -- the competition had to be fierce. His job could be hanging on the next sale. How long had it been since his last?

And now he’s looking across the desk at me and Lola. Sizing us up. Wishing he could wake up from this nightmare and see some white bread. How many vacations did we take together a year? Not many. How many is not many? Well, we don’t usually take vacations together. What do you do? Typically, she visits her family and I visit mine. Or I go camping somewhere. You never take regular vacations. Well sometimes. What do you do? Usually camping.

Poor Chris, he showed his exasperation. But he soldiered on. He could see that we were at a point in our lives where we were ready to change our ways, to start tasting the luxury we so clearly deserved. And he did make a pretty good argument. For less than the price of a cheapo new car from Korea, we could buy two weeks of vacation a year pretty much wherever we wanted in the world for the rest of our lives, then we could deed it to our children, and they to theirs, forever till the end of time.

Were we ready to take that step? Chris could see that we were. And to make it even easier, he thought he might be able to talk his manager into giving us a special bonus if we were to sign right then and there. We could talk amongst ourselves as he went to fight for our prize.

Unfortunately for poor Chris, even if Lola and I were keen to buy a time share and even if we were the types to sign on the spot, there was no way in hell that we would buy a time share in Orlando.

Chris was mystified. Orlando is great. One of the best places on earth. Why wouldn’t you want to come back?

There’s nothing to do here, I said.

What about the theme parks?

Poor Lola shuddered.

Literally. Shuddered.

On that note, our sales meeting effectively ended.

But we’ll consider it, I said.

Sure you will, whimpered Chris, accusingly. Then he looked at his watch. It was only 9 am. Too early for a drink.

* * *

Our daughter Jane Bob’s trip to Disneyland was on the fourth of July. If you are like us and want your children to experience the Magic Kingdom without becoming entranced by it, I highly recommend going on the fourth of July. The park was so crowded that we only got to go on four rides the entire day. The Haunted House was the only good one. Then we did the teacups and Peter Pan. Lame rides with two and a half hour waits. Finally, we waited the 90 minutes it took to get onto the train and spent the rest of our time riding around the park in circles. Jane Bob claimed to have had a good time and remembers it fondly, but she never exhibited any desire to go back to Disney thereafter. I couldn’t have scripted the result any better. It was as close to the perfect day at Disney as you could possibly get.

We didn’t have quite so much luck this time. Sure, it was crowded but they now have a system where you make reservations for the good rides and can go to the front of the line. So the day was not a horror show of waiting in line. It was almost not unpleasant. And the kids had a great time.

So were my fears justified? Will John Bob become a Disney dork? Perhaps, but I think we’re good. The Disney evil just ain’t what it used to be in this age of American excrementalism supreme. As we were leaving the Magic Kingdom I asked the kids if they wanted to come back the next day. They were horrified. Truly horrified. No, dad, we want to go somewhere else!!!



Sometimes I get down on my knees and pray. Jesus, I beseech thee, this is chuckling. All I want is a cold waterfall on a hot summer day. And a cold waterfall on a hot day is something within my means. I can even afford a cold beer or two to make a perfect day. Yet here I am in Orlando, sitting literally in a cesspool at Sea World's Aquatica water park. I'm on a fake rock under a fake waterfall on a fake beach watching fake waves roll in and pondering the meaning of it all. The waterfall is the temperature and consistency of warm piss. Untold 55 gallon drums of chlorine mask the smell. A life guard tells me to get away from the wall. What did it all mean?

John Bob has had a good time. He will remember the trip fondly. As an adult he will not be able to keen that he never got to go to Disneyland. He knows the feel of a real waterfall and can recognize the superiority of the one over the other. I have done my job as best I can. At some point you have to let go.

Who knows which incidents will ultimately mold a child? It’s never the ones that parents plan for. Maybe this trip will increase John Bob’s love of the natural environment. Maybe it will make him want to become a real estate developer. Whatever. He got a few moments of happiness out of it. And so did I. That’s about all we poor mammals can hope for.

Going to disneyland

FYI, I'll be gone for about a week.

Quote of the day

Vigorous minds will not suffer compulsion. To exercise compulsion is typical of tyrants; to suffer it, typical of asses.

--Erasmus

Smears and tears

One of today's big news items is that Senator Obama's campaign has created a web site to rebut smears against the candidate and his wife. Ummm, this is the year 2000 and something. A web site to disseminate information? Well, duh. Who woulda thunk it?

As is not uncommon, the comments about an article give much better insight into what's going on than the article itself. Distilling the linked article above you can discern six essential comments that represent the all the interested parties' talking points of the day:

1. Obama is all words. Why won't he tell us what his policies are? Vote McCain! (Republicans)
2. If you wanna know his policies all you have to do is read his fucking web site, moron. Go ahead, vote for endless war and economic ruin. (Democrats)
3. That horrible Obama should put up a website to refute the smear job that Horrible Obama and those horrible Obama people did on our blessed Hillary Clinton. We're voting for McCain. Waaaaaah, waaaaaah, sniffle sniffle, waaaaaaaah, sniffle. (Clinton dead-enders)
4. She lost. Get over it. Go ahead, vote for McCain. Idiots. (Independents)
5. What smears? Them's all facts, Bub. Pass it on. (Hate Nutzis)
6. We welcome Obama as our Islamic overlord and can hardly wait for the restoration of the caliphate. (silly people)

If a person didn't know a thing about the issues and just judged these arguments by their logic, he or she would have to conclude that Senator Obama's opponents are small children raised by immoral parents as insane as they are stupid.

Is it December yet? Will it ever be?

I, me, mine

Via Pandagon, I came across this video of Senator Obama addressing his campaign staff.



One of the things I found most interesting about that performance was how many times he said "you" speaking to his staff compared to how few times he said "I."

Earlier, I noted that Frank Rich saw the same pattern in other speeches by Senator Obama. Regarding the speeches each candidate gave on the last day of the primary, Rich noted that Senator Clinton referred to herself by the first-person pronoun 64 times in her speech, Senator McCain 60 times in his, but Senator Obama only 30 times in his.

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."