Time travels

Sorry for the light posting. I'm working on some stuff related to my recent trip to the real America. I did make it to the Creation Museum and plan to tell you all about it, just not now. And I have some interesting photos, many of which I will show you, but again, not now. Soon though. Soon. For now, this picture, which I'd say is worth about 2000 words (conservative estimate), sums up a large chunk of it.

No left turn on red

I noticed a headline at the New York Times saying that more Americans view "socialism" favorably. The subhed questions if they even know what it means. Two observations: 1. Of course they don't know what it means. I'm sure it's just a reaction to the Republican idiots repeatedly calling Obama a socialist. Even ordinary people who don't closely follow politics realize that conservative retards have been wrong about everything. If they don't like socialism, then hey, must be a good thing. 2. Notice how the media question whether regular people know what socialism means but they never question the meaning of the word when Obama is accused of being a socialist.

More news from nowhere

As you probably know, I'm on a trip that's taking me through large swathes of bumfuck. It's refreshing to be away from the big city media, to see what the small town papers have to say. Things are pretty bad out here, folks, and getting badder every day.

Each morning's news brings stories of child abusers, child molesters and meth labs. The big state news revolves around a serious budget shortfall due to significantly decreased tax revenue. The state's plan is to spend the stimulus money almost entirely on funding the state budget. There will be a little spending for new projects, but the Republican governor and the Republican congresspeople are still hashing out the details. They all agree on building more prisons. They differ in that the governor wants to slash education spending a whole helluva lot and the legislature wants to increase it just a little. Hmmmmm, slash education, build prisons. They've been doing that for years. How's that working out? See multiple stories about meth labs on pages A-3 through A-6. Meanwhile, they're sitting on a giant pile of cash they saved from when times were good. Yep, if this is any indication, not a lot is gonna get built with all that stimulus money.

Back to national news, I inadvertantly read a Mallard Fillmore editorial cartoon. Apparently, conservatives are attacking Obama as a gaffe-prone, lousy communicator. Yea, as Obama moves effortlessly on from one incredible communication triumph after another and people see him speaking well on tv every day, that hardly seems like a smart strategy. But what really strikes normal people as funny is the apparent fact that these idiots appear to have no memory whatsoever. Normal people easily recall a certain gaffe-prone president that couldn't communicate for shucks. What was that guy's name? Wait, it'll come to me. I know, I know. George W. Bush. Ha ha. Obama doesn't really need him to look good, but sheee-it, Bush ain't totally forgotten. Not yet.

Speaking of saps

I was in a liquor store in the midwest today. Beer distributor is talking to the cashier, they're bitching about the economy, complaining about their sales. Beer guy asks the cashier if there's a lot Mexicans in the area. Yea, she says in a nasty tone of voice, they're fucking everywhere. You can always tell, says the beer guy as he sadly shakes his head. God damn Corona's flying off the shelves. Motherfuckers are like cockroaches, or some similar sentiment, hangs in the air, unsaid.

There are important lessons in that exchange, somewhere.

Same old story (to be)

PITTSBURGH (AP) — Pittsburgh police say a man wearing a bulletproof vest opened fire on officers during a domestic disturbance call, killing three of them.

Police chief Nate Harper says the motive for Saturday's shooting isn't clear. Friends say the gunman recently had been upset about losing his job and that he feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns.

So where did the gunman get the idea that Obama was going to take his guns and why isn't anyone organizing protests and boycotts against those who spread or sponsor that kind of hateful nonsense? Cause all indications are that it's gonna get a lot worse. How many more massacres by heavily armed, recently laid-off Republicans who have been propagandized into insanity by the Limbaughs, Palins, Becks, and assorted other hucksters making their millions off the poor saps before someone calls them on their crap?

Out of office

I'll be away for the next 10 days or so. My goal is to not use the internet, so I probably won't be posting anything, although it's always possible in this horrible age of mobile computing and wireless networking. I'll be working on a major photo project and also going to the Creationism Museum in Kentucky. Just about everyone I know has asked me to get them a post card from the gift shop. I'm really looking forward to it.

Social democracy rules, oligarchy drools

Robert Kagan, one of the most egregious intellectual failures of the 21st centuries, explains why the European social democracies are so superior to the United States oligarchy:

The Germans and French prefer welfare payments to government stimulus spending, for they are part of the passive system of social safety nets on which their citizens have grown so comfortably dependent. The creative destruction of the business-oriented political economies of the Anglo-Americans is too violent and unstable, too brutal and unpredictable. Better to regulate more tightly the international capitalists who can cause havoc through their inventiveness. Better to be less rich than less secure.

Of course he sees comfort and security as bad things. Better to have a large pool of poor uneducated suckers on the edge of economic disaster to manipulate into wars of conquest and global domination. Duh.

But the glaringly obvious problem with Kagan's analysis is the last sentence in the quoted graph. Better to be less rich than less secure? Thing is, the great majority of people in European social democracies are more rich, not less rich, than average Americans and being a whole helluva lot more secure is largely responsible for that fact. In European social democracies, it's only the super rich that are less rich than their American counterparts. That's a good thing.

Picture of the day

Another from the East New York project.

Dem leader to moderates: piss off you commie wackos

According to Politico, "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday that liberal groups targeting moderate Democrats with ads should back off..."

Two things wrong with that.

The big honking one, obviously, is the Senate Grand Poobah telling the little people to keep their opinions to themselves, to not worry their little heads about government business and just leave it all to the strong, wise men who will handle the situation and do what's best. Yea, well, fuck him and then slash the tires on the limo he road in on. Goddammed plutocrats and oligarchs. More people need to stand up to them, not fewer.

The second, less obvious, problem with Politico's lede is referring to the anti-Obama Democrats as "moderate." They are not moderate. They are right wing. If they were moderate, their number would be more like 30. The word "moderate" comes from the mathematical concept of mode. The mode in a list of numbers refers to the list of numbers that occur most frequently. Since the majority of people support Obama, and the great majority of Democrats, then Obama supporters are by definition "moderate." The Democrats who oppose him, from right or left, are by that same definition "not moderate."

Of course I'm aware that in our right wing propaganda culture the term "moderate" is defined as "Republican." Time to push back on that crap as well.

Picture of the day

Pass it on

I got a wingnut email today. You might enjoy:

THE JOB - URINE TEST (Whoever wrote this one deserves a HUGE pat on the back!)

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

So here is my Question. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their rump--doing drugs, while I work.

Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? I guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'.

Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though. Something has to change in this country --and soon!!!!!!!

Interesting propaganda. Nicely aimed at people who take piss tests, blue collar folk, cops, firemen, the less educated among us, though I don't believe it was written by anyone who actually takes a piss test. The politics of resentment. To work, it's necessary that the suckers have no idea what welfare is these days. If lazy guys could get paid to sit around and do drugs, I'd be there. But the reality is that welfare, such as it is, tends to go to women with kids. Reality, of course, never got in the way of a wingnut mailing.

Still, I can relate to the basic message. It's difficult not to resent having your work support a bunch of worthless freeloaders. Add sociopathic scam artists to the resented and I can feel the pain of the piss tested. The difference between better educated workers like myself and those who take piss tests is that I realize that my work supports a class of wealthy leeches. When it comes to the worthless fucks we should resent, the odd crack whore on food stamps accounts for pennies on the dollar, if that. No, it's the executive that does half of his "work" on the golf course, can barely recognize the difference between his ass and a hole in the ground, and makes more than 200 times my salary for that kind of "work" that our piss test folk should be more worried about. Those people and the trust fund rejects. Talk about worthless shits who sit on their asses and live off our labor. If the piss testers only knew.

It's past time for some lefty organization with gumption to glom onto these email lists and redirect the resentment into more realistic directions.

chuckling on geithner

I've noticed that Timothy Geithner, the United States Secretary of the Treasury, has suffered a lot of attacks from across the political spectrum. He is possibly the only man in the history of the internet age about whom lefty bloggers, wingnuts, Fox News, CNBC, hate radio and the mainstream media have ever been so unanimously in agreement. Dude sucks, they say. Dude sucks big time. Timmeh!

Unlike normal people, poor chuckling does not thoroughly understand the current economic situation, particularly the gritty details of the financial industry meltdown. It's embarrassing to admit that such easily understandable financial instruments such as derivatives or bundles of toxic debt are outside my area of expertise. How to re-ignite the credit markets? Beats me. I have to lean on the analysis of experts on these kinds of complex issues.

Who are the experts in this case? Conservatives? Puh-leeeze. Get back to your golf courses and find the goddammed WMD's losers. And no offense friends, but in this case I'm not going to look to the mainstream media or lefty bloggers to help me form an opinion. Nope. Looks to me like it's Obama vs. Krugman.

I consider past performance. Krugman is recognized by his peers as one of the top economists, he has a history of being right about most everything and he is one of the true heroes of the Bush years. Obama is an awesome strategist and has made an incredible series of bold, innovative decisions that proved to be the right ones. He doesn't have Krugman's expertise in economics, but he is not without high level advice. The lefty blogs seem to think that Geithner is somehow tricking Obama, taking advantage of his naivete. I'm skeptical of that theory. Again and again Obama has proven to be the least naive person in the room.

So Krugman or Obama? Well, since I don't have to choose, and frankly don't know squat about the financial industry, I guess I won't. But I'll tell you this. Although I don't think we should be brain dead Obama cheerleaders, pathetic lefty versions of wingnuts that spout the party line no matter what, I do find it disturbing that so many lefty blogs have found harmonic convergence with wingnut demogogues on the Geithner issue. I'm not saying that should make anyone change their mind, but it would sure as hell make me take a hard look at the thought processes that made my words and beliefs nearly indistinguishable from the wingnuts.

Update: I just learned that Timmeh's middle name is Franz. Sounds like a Nazi to me. Or a silly body builder. Or a gay fashionista. Or a pumped gay Nazi fashionista! Maybe we should start calling him "Franz," just like the wingnuts call Obama "Hussein." Wouldn't that be cul?

Yep.

Photo of the day

I can't really claim this one. My daughter Jane Bob was doing a shoot. She set up all the lighting and directed the model. I just stood behind her and glommed.

Another episode of wingnut wonderland

Charles Murray and the Washington Post ask if America should be more like Europe and not surprisingly answer with a resounding no. But what's fun about the article is its total lack of intelligent reasoning. Trying to follow it is one loop-de-loop after another. But follow it we will.

How do you compare the U.S. to Europe. Well, first you have to define what Europe is like.

In Europe, government subsidizes religion, which Mr. Murray blames (without evidence) for the fact that so many churches are empty. Well maybe. He doesn't mention that most European countries have, unlike most of the United States, excellent education systems which probably better explains why their churches are empty. Education is the bane of religion. Always has been. Always will be.

Also, unlike bootstrap America, the wussy European governments help women with child rearing which results in fewer children. Generous child allowances, free day-care centers and long maternity leaves are responsible, he argues (without evidence), for declining fertility rates. But even if that is true, are low fertility rates such a bad thing. Does this planet really need an ever increasing population? If so, why? Murray doesn't get into this, but since we know that he is a notorious racist and he even admits it in this article, I think it's fair to question his concern over fertility rates for the melanin disadvantaged of Europe. As we'll see later on in the article, he thinks Americans, at least certain a certain type of them, should have fewer children.

Jobs? “They are countries where jobs are most carefully protected by government regulation and mandated benefits are most lavish.” Wow, normal people have well-paying jobs with great benefits. Just like our elected officials here and our corporate elite. That's not fair, obviously, but what's the problem? “A lot of people see work as a necessary evil and many of them say they don't love their jobs? Egads.

"Call it the Europe Syndrome. Last April I had occasion to speak in Zurich, where I made some of these same points. Afterward, a few of the 20-something members of the audience came up and said plainly that the phrase "a life well-lived" did not have meaning for them. They were having a great time with their current sex partner and new BMW and the vacation home in Majorca, and they saw no voids in their lives that needed filling.
It was fascinating to hear it said to my face, but not surprising. It conformed to both journalistic and scholarly accounts of a spreading European mentality that goes something like this: Human beings are a collection of chemicals that activate and, after a period of time, deactivate. The purpose of life is to while away the intervening time as pleasantly as possible.”

Sounds good to me. And “whiling away the time as pleasantly as possible doesn't necessarily exclude work and children. It excludes doing crappy jobs that make idiot sociopaths inordinately wealthy and unwanted children. Most people want to work, to take part in the creation of something they find valuable, and will do so if they have the time and good health. And I think most people enjoy having children. It's certainly added immeasurable value to my life and I simply don't see how the practice will just fade away if we make it less of a burden and more of a personal choice. And I'm talking about normal people. Work and children have always been less of a burden and more of a choice for the wealthy.

After that, Murry goes on to argue that science will soon prove that it is impossible for European-type society to exist at all and that anybody who thinks European-like society could exist is either a stupid liberal or possibly a member of one of the less intelligent races.

His first premise is that people are not equal, therefore they shouldn't be treated as such. His second principle is that humans can't change. Not within our own lifetime. Not as a species through the sweep of history. Therefore government should quit trying to do anything to help anyone improve their lives. “Jails not Schools” could be his motto.

Then Murray provides the obligatory attack on single mothers and comes to the startling, ultra-controversial politically incorrect conclusion that people who grow up in stable families and communities are more likely to have rewarding jobs and stay out of prisons than those who don't. Of course these brilliant insights absolutely slay the dreaded liberal, anti-family straw monster; but he makes no policy proposals to do anything about it. In fact, all of his previous arguments seem to say that nothing can be done. People are not equal and they can never change. Presumably, government only wastes taxpayer money by trying.

Funny, it seems to me there is a model of human society that adequately deals with Murray's concern for keeping people employed and out of prison. That would be, ummm, the European model.

Yep, Charles Murray and the Washington Post. Another episode of Wingnut Wonderland.

Real journalists don't twitter

Just that (okay, and this and this and this).

Children (and) of (watch) men revisited

I recently considered taking my 10-year-old son to see Watchmen. It was my idea, John Bob hadn't asked. It sounded like the type of movie I might like – intricate plot, deconstruction of a popular genre, dark and violent, visually interesting. Of course John Bob would want to see any superhero movie. I warned him that it might be boring or too violent for a ten-year-old, but he was more than willing to risk it.

I, however, had second thoughts. My tendency is to let the kids do whatever they want, even if I know they won't like it. Often best to learn for oneself, I think. But in practice I'm not so confident that's the best attitude. Once I took my daughter Jane Bob to a haunted golf course at Halloween. There were ample warnings against taking young children and the ticket taker begged me not to do it, but she wanted to and I respected her wishes. It was horrible. She screamed frantically the entire time. Not fun screaming. Absolute terror. It doesn't seem to have caused any long term damage,other than an irrational fear of golf, but nevertheless, I now sometimes think twice before exposing the kids to things everybody says they are too young to see.

So I asked a couple of comic book freaks at work what they thought about taking a 10-year-old to Watchmen. I'd have to be fucking out of my mind, they said. Watchmen is way too violent, has explicit sex and there's a blue guy walking around with his penis swinging for all to see.

A penis. Egads. Actually, I don't care a whit if the kids see nude people. We're not full frontal nudists at home or anything like that, but I don't see anything wrong with the human body. They certainly see enough of it in museums and I think that's great. I admit that I am, however, uncomfortable with watching R-rated sex scenes in popular movies with the kids. I don't think that it does them any harm, unless ten-year-olds are harmed by too much snickering. But still, it's uncomfortable for us all. I'd rather they get their jollies when the parents aren't around and I know they feel the same way. That's my general policy, but given the nature of popular movies, it sometimes happens. No big deal.

But what about the violence? The comic book guys from work said Watchmen is ultra-violent. That can't be good for children. But is it really bad for them? Especially if it scares them? I don't know.

So I asked my imaginary internet friend and superhero connoisseur Chrisv82, who had written an excellent review of Watchmen for advice. He basically said, “it's your kid, whatever.” Just what I needed to hear, so I decided it would be okay to take John Bob. He probably wouldn't like it, but it would be his choice to go and he'd have to live with any resulting nightmares. PTSD, or other forms of acute psychosis. It wouldn't be my fault.

But then a funny thing happened. I realized that I didn't want to see a violent movie. And further still, I didn't want to see another super hero movie.

I've apparently changed a lot. I used to really love ultra-violent films, at least well-written ones. A Clockwork Orange and Natural Born Killers are two of my all-time favorites. I'm not the world's biggest superhero fan, but I read and re-read Marvel comics as a kid and up until now had no problem with the various big budget superhero movies like the X-Men franchise or Ironman.

But I've had enough. No offense to my superhero-loving friends. I don't think anyone is crazy or lowbrow or anything negative for liking them. That story just no longer does anything for me. Yes, I know, the premise is interesting. We all dream about saving the world, or at least saving somebody we love, and the superhero stories give us that vicarious thrill. Watching the genre grow from the morally pure D.C. Comics beginnings through the tortured Marvel mutants, to the post-modern Watchmen psychopaths is interesting as well. I get the iconic-metaphorical aspects of the thing.

But now I find that I prefer the more old fashioned story in which ordinary people become heroes in extraordinary circumstances. Not only is it a better story, but it can be told in so many more creative ways.

I was reminded of that as a result of my tortured decision-making process about taking John Bob to see Watchmen. In order to gauge how he would react to violence , I decided to get Children of Men and watch it with him. That was a film I took Jane Bob to see (I thought it was better on second viewing) when everyone would have said she was too young. I don't think it did her any harm other than an irrational fear of England. Unfortunately though, John Bob had a play date and we watched it without him.

Children of Men is an incredible piece of film making. The cinematography is first rate. It is a nice telling of the realistic superhero formula in which the main character reacts to an extraordinary situation. And it has one of the greatest ultra-violence sequences in film history. From the entrance into the concentration camp to the ending in the boat, it documents an exquisite decent through the seven circles of hell. The ultra-violence is an integral part of an important story. It is beautiful.

Although I understand that Watchmen may attempt to pull off that trick, I find myself skeptical. Will I take John Bob to see it? On that, I'm still pondering.

Ridiculous measures for ridiculous times

You've all probably noticed the news that AIG, possibly the biggest money losing company of all time, which has received $170 billion in taxpayer money, is paying humongous bonuses to its executives who lost such prodigious amounts of cash. It's easy to see that this latest outrage will result in increased calls for government legislation to limit executive compensation.

I don't think that's a good idea. Government has no business dictating pay scales to private companies. No, what we need to do is return to the days of the ridiculously high tax bracket. Bonuses for already wealthy people should be taxed somewhere around 95 percent. And I propose a special tax rate of 110 percent for executive bonuses at taxpayer-funded loser companies. That would end this particular form of looting toot sweet. No doubt they'd find another way to swindle us, but we can at least make it a helluva a lot more difficult.

He was a nice, quiet kid

Mark Ames has an article up on Alternet about the recent killing spree my a nice youn man with an assault rifle in Alabama which left 11 dead. Ames points out that the authorities promised to reveal the killer's motive then stopped talking about it altogether, claiming there was no motive. Ames then speculates that the killings were attributable to Reaganomics and the economic devastation it unleashed on America's middle class. Perhaps, but Ames wrote a book on the subject so it's not surprising he would find it as the root motive for anyone gone postal.

And perhaps that's true, I have little doubt that it's a contributing factor, but I'm not sure that the sorry plight of the working man in bumfuck is something the authorities would bother to cover up. I'm guessing the self-described survivalist who was obviously a gun nut was a big fan of conservative hate radio and Fox News. If I had to bet on why the authorities don't want to talk about the motive, I'd bet it's something to do with names like Limbaugh, Hannity or O'Reilly, the Republican party, right wing religious nuts, right wing bloggers, or some combination of the four whipping up irrational hatred among poor violent idiots across the land.

Just my guess, but since they ain't saying, guesses are all we got.

Notes on photography

This picture is another example of a practice exercise in lieu of any kind of creative idea. This is just a typical stand of trees. If I were to take this photo with a point and shoot, or even a high end color camera, it wouldn't be the least bit interesting. The composition is too busy, the colors uninteresting. Even the eye is likely to see nothing special here. Yet this is a scene of beautiful complexity. My assignment is to capture something of that. Then take that skill and use it for something more important than a picture of trees. In case you haven't figured it out yet, you can click on the photos and see a larger copy. Though the final product will be a 24 x36 on art rag.



In other photo news, I bought a car. People who have never lived in a great walking city like Paris or New York have a lot of trouble understanding how someone can live without a car. Actually, it's quite nice, especially for an artistic type. Apartments are nice in that respect as well. Never having to go to the dmv, to fuck with a fucking mechanic, no traffic jams, no mowing the lawn, no unclogging the drain. All that time just for art. Or drinking. Whatever. Anything beats drudge work.

Anyway, regular readers may have noted that I'm so fucking sick of New York City. Not having a car compounds the misery. Now at least I can get out for a day. Though I like cities, at heart I am a nature boy and suffer exponentially the longer I am cut off. And as a photographer, although it's healthy to be forced to photograph the same places endlessly, to have to struggle to see the beauty in the familiar, it's also nice to be able to see something different.

Of course what you usually end up with are tourist photos like these. Oh well. Tourists go to these places for good reason. And I do actually have a creative idea, but it requires some planning. Maybe I'll show you something in early April.