Hogging the Road

Two U.S. congressmen were injured today when their vehicle overturned on the way to the Baghdad airport. The congressmen were in Baghdad to meet with U.S. troops during Thanksgiving. It is indeed admirable that these congressmen (one Republican and one Democrat) made this journey to Iraq, a risk that too many politicians are unwilling to take. As these U.S. legislators hurriedly exit war-torn Iraq, one can only hope that our troops follow close behind.

However, one aspect of this roadway accident really stands out in my mind.....specifically, the way that U.S. military and governmental personnel have taken to hogging the roads in Iraq. I'm not sure I've ever encountered a more perfect metaphor for our arrogant world-policing than the following:

The politicians were riding in a box-like vehicle in a convoy. The convoy was taking up the middle of the road, a common practice used by the military to deter oncoming motorists. Shortly after dark, an oncoming truck refused to yield.

This incident is a microcosm of our foreign policy, particularly as it relates to the Middle East. We are playing a global game of "chicken," and we are not about to yield. We own the road. Everyone else is just traveling on it. As we profess to be spreading the values of democracy, cooperation, and mutual respect to Iraqi citizens, we're arrogantly running them off the road. And then we have the audacity to feign amazement at their inevitable road rage.

In the last two weeks we've learned about the existence of secret U.S. prisons in Eastern Europe, the intentional burning of deceased Iraqis, the use of lions to torture detainees, and the shooting of Iraqi civilians by armed contractors. In light of these revelations, it's easy to lose sight of the more subtle forms of aggression and abuse....like the refusal to share the road.

Like soccer moms in suburbans, our government truly owns the road.

Mixed Signals

I absolutely despise the phrase "sending mixed signals," because those who routinely employ this phrase simply prefer black and white explanations to what are quite clearly gray situations. I, on the other hand, am all about mixed signals...I've mixed more signals than a third base coach.

Those who complain about receiving mixed signals generally fall into three camps: 1) people who are simply too immature or ignorant to realize the subtleties and/or complexities of a given situation; 2) people who have been emotionally hurt and are merely hoping to stall the inevitable and/or arouse guilt in those that have hurt them; and 3) people who, while quite aware of the complexity of the situation, feign ignorance of said complexity in order to effectuate some sort of an agenda.

The important thing to remember is that "mixed signals" should not be confused with "hypocrisy." Mixed signals are a natural occurence, a mere consequence of being inquisitive, ambitious, compassionate, complicated and opinionated...in other words, of being human. Hypocrisy, on the other hand, is not about being human at all...rather, it's about paying lip service to a certain ideal while contemporaneously failing to uphold that ideal.

Here are some fun examples of the three above categories:

Category One: The Immature and Ignorant

Actually, since this category is solely comprised of people who are too dense to grasp the significance or import of any complicated situation, I'll elect not to come up with a clever example. Why make fun of the ignorant? I have no beef with them.

Category Two: The Hurt and Helpless

Now, here we go. Failed relationships are fertile ground for "mixed signal" accusations. Breakups are never easy, especially where one party is likely to be blindsided. However, inevitably, when a person is dumped, they will respond with something like "I don't understand how last week you took me to the wine country, and told me you loved me, and drew me a handmade birthday card, and then this week you need space...how can you change so quickly? I don't understand you." Believe me, I've been on both sides of this equation.

When you've been hurt, you immediately begin searching for what you may characterize as inconsistencies in your partner's behavior....ie. "how could you say/do this, and then turn around and say/do this?...At least one of your words/actions MUST be a lie!!!" It's a type of passive emotional violence which routinely surfaces as a last ditch effort to either a) guilt your partner into changing their mind, or b) punish them for hurting you.........neither of which are very desireable in the end.

Let's be honest with ourselves...romantic relationships are rarely, if ever, straightforward and effortless. Stick two moody, complex, sexual creatures together in a committed relationship and you will have yourself a case study in contradiction. When a person simultaneously desires "connection" and "freedom" you will inevitably throw off a few "mixed signals."

We are conflicted creatures. As far as I'm concerned there is nothing inconsistent about telling your partner that you love them, and then one minute later lamenting the fact that you can't jump the bones of the sexy coed that passes you on the sidewalk. There is nothing inconsistent about cooking your girlfriend dinner and, while seasoning the chicken, silently doubting whether you'll ever marry her. Show me someone who is 100% positive about and confident in their romantic relationship, and I'll show you a damn liar.

In the context of relationships, mixed signals are a healthy phenomenon. Who wants to date a passionless automoton whose intentions are as transparent as her lip gloss? So, here is my pledge...the next time a girl breaks up with me, I promise not to accuse her of sending "mixed signals" and I promise not to attempt to make her feel guilty or ashamed by suggesting that she must have been deceitful regarding her true feelings. I'll just assume that everyone else is as messed up in the head as me, and give them the benefit of the doubt.

Also, for those I may have hurt, please don't try to point out my inconsistencies. I'm well aware of them. But, if you must, please keep it to a mimimum. As a matter of fact, I'll carry a stopwatch. I will give each girl I break up with exactly one hour to expose all of my contradictions. No more, no less. You're on the clock. Use your time wisely.

I will have patience with the immature and the hurt, but no patience whatsoever for the disingenuous. Speaking of which.....

Category Three: The Disingenuous and Deceptive

Just look at Public Enemy Number One, George W. Bush, and his recent pronouncement that Democratic lawmakers are sending "mixed signals" to both our troops in Iraq and our terrorist enemies. Mr. Bush is suggesting that if Democratic legislators who authorized the war against Iraq now take a position against the war, then they are necessarily sending "mixed signals" to our troops overseas, and are somehow inviting a terrorist attack.

What Mr. Bush does not understand or, perhaps more accurately, pretends not to understand, is that when the very factual premise underlying a decision or impulse is fundamentally altered, then it is natural, if not necessary, to change one's course.

This is how it works.

Factual Premise: Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and plans to use them.

Decision: Authorize war against Iraq.

Altered Factual Premise: Oops, maybe Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction.

Reflection upon earlier decision: Wow, I certainly regret authorizing war against a nation when, in fact, the very reason for doing so has been undermined by recent facts / disclosures.

This is what rational people do. They adapt when new information comes to light. But Mr. Bush does not want to adapt. He likes to think in absolutes. You're with me or against me. You love freedom or you hate freedom. It's the equivalent of a 4 year old playing tag and screaming "no take backs." "You said you support the war, so you're stuck with that, and if I hear anything else, I'll accuse you of jeopardizing the lives of the young men that I sent off to fight this sham war."

This is where "mixed signals" come in. Mr. Bush relies on this phrase because he does not accept adaptation. He chooses to ignore the evolution of ideas and events, and hopes to polarize America into two factions of his own creation: those who support the war, and those who hate our troops and don't mind if they are killed. Raise your hand if you don't like being in the latter group? Well, too bad, that's where you go if you speak out against any aspect of the Iraq war.

More importantly, do you honestly think that there are any soldiers in Iraq who, while in the heat of battle, are thinking to themselves..."man, I can't believe that Senator so-and-so changed his mind regarding the legitimacy of this war. Yesterday when I was walking through the desert and failing to find WMD's I was really excited about being here, and felt like I had a sense of purpose, but now that a congressperson has decided to lead an investigation into the manipulation of intelligence, I've lost all motivation, and think I will lay down my weapon and cry alligator tears."

Of course not. But this is exactly what the "mixed signals" rhetoric is supposed to make us believe.

And how about the terrorists who are allegedly being sent "mixed signals"?" Do you think that a member of Al Qaeda is sitting in his cave and thinking "you know, I was about to give up this whole Jihad nonsense because America just seemed totally united and strong, a virtual military Goliath, but now that their legislators have developed the backbone to challenge their despot regarding his misinformation campaign, I really think we have a chance now...in fact, now that Bush is plummeting in the polls, I might as well strap this dynamite to my chest and head west."

Again, not likely.


Let's stop playing dumb. Let's stop pretending that we don't understand the subtleties of a situation. Let's put our own pride and stubborness aside and realize that we live in a world full of mixed signals. In short, let's acknowledge that everyone else is just as fucked up as we are. That will take us a long way.

Supreme Court Overruled.....By the Senate

Despite a 2004 Supreme Court ruling that prisoners being held at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba could challenge their detentions by filing writs of habeus corpus in American courts, the Republican controlled Senate yesterday voted 49-42 to deny prisoners of this right.

Salon reports that:

...Under the provision, Guantanamo Bay detainees would be allowed to appeal their status as an "enemy combatant" one time, to the Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. But they would not be able to file petitions known as writs of habeas corpus, which are used to fight unlawful detentions, in that or any other U.S. court...

...In 2004, the Supreme Court said the 500 or so prisoners held there could file habeas corpus petitions in U.S. courts to fight their detentions. Many of the prisoners were captured in Afghanistan and have been held at Guantanamo for several years without being charged...

Commenting upon the Senate's de facto overruling of sound Supreme Court precedent, Elisa Massimino, the Washington director of Human Rights First, stated:

"Depriving an entire branch of government of its ability to exercise meaningful oversight is a decidedly wrong course to take."

This is an extremely significant Senate vote. Not only does the vote overrule the Supreme Court, and raise numerous isses related to Separation of Powers, but it deprives prisoners being held in U.S. controlled prisons of the essential, constitutionally guaranteed right of habeus corpus.

It is irrelevant whether these detainees are in fact guilty of a crime. It is irrelevant whether they once intended to harm America. No one is arguing that their very imprisonment is a threat to liberty. What I am arguing is that if you are going to put suspected terrorists in prison for two years without charging them, and refuse to allow any media or public oversight of their detention, you should at the very least give them proper recourse to challenge their detentions, just as any prisoner in any other U.S. prison would have.

I guess that when our Vice President is openly lobbying Congress to preserve the U.S. government's ability to torture detainees, no one should be surprised that the Senate treats Constitutional rights like leaves in the wind.

Their Skin is So Melty

Remember when our government rushed us to war because Saddam Hussein was allegedly stockpiling chemical weapons. Well, it turns out that in our effort to "liberate" the Iraqis in Fallujah, we've actually been bombarding them with a chemical known as white phosphorus. This chemical quite literally burns the skin off of people. The Italian media, and trusty progressive blog Daily Kos have broken the story.

In a documentary to be broadcast by RAI, the Italian state broadcaster, this morning, a former American soldier who fought at Fallujah says: "I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it's known as Willy Pete.

"Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for."

I don't know what I'm more upset about...the cruel deaths of Iraqi civilians, or the hypocricy of the U.S. government that killed them. While the former is tragic and sad, the latter is galling to the point of blind rage.

And, as reported at AmericaBlog, the U.S. government's explanation for this conduct is transparent at best:

Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.

Yeah right, and last time I went camping I used a stick of dynamite as a flashlight. PUUUUHHHLEEEAAASSEEE!!!

I understand that war is ugly. But when we learn that our government has authorized the use of secret prisons and chemical weapons, it is America which truly appears ugly to the world.

Wal-Mart Under Attack...And Deservedly So!

On Tuesday November 8, 2005, a small cargo plane crashed into a Wal-Mart store in Manchester, New Hampshire.

This got me thinking a bit. While one would reasonably assume that this was a complete accident, perhaps pilot error, or adverse weather conditions, there is a part of me that isn't so sure. In fact, I'm going to be the first to go out on a limb and suggest that the pilot intentionally flew the plane into the Wal-Mart store!

For me, the only real question is motive. Who would kamikaze a New Hampshire Wal-Mart?

So, I did some research. It appears that the question isn't so much "who has a grudge against Wal-Mart" as "which one of the various persons who have been harmed by Wal-Mart decided to finally crash a jet into the retail behemoth?"

Here is a list of potential kamikaze pilots, in no particular order.

1. A woman who was recently turned away from a Wal-Mart store because a self-righteous Wal-Mart pharmacist refused to fill her prescription for birth control.

2. A qualified disabled person who has been unfairly deemed unemployable by Wal-Mart executives on the basis that his disability may result in increased health care costs for the company.

3. An immigrant worker hired by the Wal-Mart cleaning department, who was housed in crowded conditions and sometimes forced to sleep in the back of Wal-Mart stores.

4. The director of an Anti Wal-Mart Film entitled "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price" which will debut on November 15, 2005.

5. A resident of Booneville, MO. who objects to the building of a Wal-Mart Supercenter in her small town.

I'm sure that the above list is not exhaustive as I have no doubt that the number of people negatively affected by Wal-Mart increases every minute. For example, my list does not even include the thousands of small business owners who have been put out of business by the one-stop retail giant Wal-Mart.

We should all lend our support to this fight. I'm not saying we need to fly planes into Wal-Mart stores, but how about some other reasonable alternatives. Like.....signing Planned Parenthood's petition to put a stop to Wal-Mart's refusal to prescribe birth control, supporting unions and other labor organizers in their fight on behalf of exploited workers, supporting legal aid societies that specialize in representing disabled workers who have been discriminated against in hiring, petitioning your representative regarding the inhumane treatment of illegal immigrants.....just to name a few.

Or, better yet, develop and circulate bumper stickers that read "Friends Don't let Friends Shop at Wal-Mart"

What greater sign do we need that Wal-Mart is engaged in unfair practices than objects falling from the sky???

BLAND, SAFE, & UNINSPIRING: The Ashlee Simpsonification of America

A Canadian entertainment news reporter may have just stumbled upon a plausible explanation for American teens' seemingly inexplicable worship of Ashlee Simpson and, in the process, unwittingly shed some light upon America's ever-increasing fascination with mediocrity.

She is neither warm nor cold; neither unattractive nor unusually striking; neither as edgy as her early marketing sold her nor as sexy as the more recent efforts would suggest. She is just ... there.

There you have it. The secret to Ms. Simpson's success is that she has taken no discernible risks, has made no effort to establish her uniqueness, and does not offer any tangible message to her audience. In other words, she has truly found the key to success in America.....don't challenge anything, blend in, accept your mediocrity, and then learn how to effectively market such mediocrity as an asset. This was the same formula used by Karl Rove to install George W. Bush in the White House. Brilliant. Truly brilliant.

Canada, our savvy upstairs neighbor, understands that Ms. Simpson's complete "unremarkability" is the secret behind her success:

...By this point, she could reasonably have been expected to be relegated to playing shopping malls, not just visiting them for autograph sessions as she did later yesterday. In the shadow of her older, blonder sister from the get-go, she briefly appeared slated to become the next Milli Vanilli after the most humiliating musical performance in Saturday Night Live's three-decade history. And yet here she is, mere months after being exposed on national television as a lip-syncer (and questionable jig-dancer), wildly outselling more seasoned artists...

...Ashlee, on the other hand, is sufficiently unimposing that hundreds of thousands of girls can easily imagine being in her shoes...

This cult of mediocrity has so permeated our culture that we barely notice it. We incessantly watch reality television. We increasingly frequent mediocre chain restaurants (Olive Garden, Chipotle, Starbucks) strictly because of their convenience and predictability. We accept a President who utilizes a profoundly limited vocabulary to mask his subversive designs. We sit idly by as our youth are bombarded with paint-by-numbers style, manufactured trend-setting garbage on MTV. And we make Ashlee Simpson the top selling "artist" in America even though her music is thoroughly uninspiring and, better yet, we know that she cheats. In a culture that so quickly forgives (or, ignores) the fact that our President lied to us regarding weapons of mass destruction, is it any wonder that our teens gave young Ashlee a free pass when she got caught lip syncing?

We are all guilty of worshipping mediocrity, whether we acknowledge it or not. How many of us have uttered this phrase: "I really like [him/her/it] because I totally identify with [him/her/it]." WE ALL HAVE. We like to IDENTIFY with persons and things because it makes us feel safe. It's comfortable. It doesn't challenge us in ways that we don't want to be challenged. And it reaffirms our choices.

I ask you this: WHY? Why do we so often define our preferences in art, film, music, politics, etc. in terms of whether we personally identify with the relevant speaker, artist, policy, etc? Don't we want to be challenged to see the world differently? If I wanted someone to identify with, I'd look in the mirror, not to the artists, leaders, and other contributors to the marketplace of ideas. I want music, art, political movements, and the like to grab me by the neck, and give me a swift kick in the ass.

Well, I for one, am taking a vow. I will never, ever, ever again compliment someone or something on the grounds that I identify with it. I need so much more....especially from people that I look to for artistic inspiration and visionary leadership. I don't want to live in KARL ROVE and ASHLEE SIMPSON'S AMERICA. I will no longer let them, or anyone else, get away with marketing mediocrity as an asset. I'm tired of people "keeping it real." I don't want any more reality.

We can do better.

Torture? What's That? Never Heard Of It...

President George W. Bush has defiantly proclaimed that the United States does not torture detainees. Rather, all suspected terrorists are being held at a quaint bed and breakfast in Nothern California's Napa Valley. After a mid-morning brunch to die for, the detainees are treated to a glorious afternoon of aroma therapy, mud masks, and a full body massage at one of Napa's most exclusive day spas with breathtaking views of the scenic countryside.

While the "best behaved" detainees are "treated" to an evening of wine tasting and mouth watering California-French cuisine, the "uncooperative" prisoners are "forced" to drink merlot and eat day-old quiche. The administration is hopeful that this stern treatment will teach the detainees to savor freedom.

The Final Solution: Terrorists Banished to Middle Earth

The United States Government has searched high and low to find the perfect location to secretly stash away accused terrorists. However, it has proven difficult to circumvent national and international laws prohibiting the mistreatment of prisoners and the establishment of clandestine internment camps.

Just when the CIA had abandoned all hope of finding a distant land where suspected terrorists could be secretly interrogated and ritually tortured, President George W. Bush arrived at a simple solution. A final solution.

The following is an exact transcript of a secretly recorded conversation between President Bush and a top White House advisor.

Advisor: "Mr. President, the CIA is expecting you to provide some direction regarding the significant problem of civil liberties and international treaties as they pertain to the ongoing imprisonment and torture of suspected terrorists."

Bush: "You know, I've been thinking about that. There's just nowhere on this planet to stick those prisoners without some group or the other finding out about the whole thing. But I was watching that hobbit movie last night, and I noticed that there ain't no humans in that Middle Earth Place...I thought there was, but then I saw them pointy ears and figured they were aliens or something....but anyway, I reckon if we transport those prisoners to Middle Earth where no one can find 'em, and there ain't no ACLU breathing down your neck, then we can make sure nobody ever finds out about what we've been up to."

Advisor: "Sir, are you being serious right now?"

Bush: "Serious as a heart attack.......oh, sorry 'bout that Dick."

Dick Cheney (having just entered the room): "No Problem. What are you sons of bitches talking about in here?"

Bush: "Well Dick, I think we better send those terrorists off to Middle Earth and stash them in that volcano thing with the big evil eye....you know...the place where Frodo's going to. Let's see some liberal watchdog group find those suckers inside a volcano."

Cheney: inaudible response.

Less than one month after the above communication, the CIA quickly put the President's plan into action. All suspected terrorists (or at least those who looked like they might be) were rounded up and transported to Middle Earth on the back of Gwaihir the Windlord. Halliburton was awarded a series of no-bid contracts to erect a state-of-the art prison deep in the heart of Mordor.

Chained together in the fiery pit of Mordor, under the watchful eye of Sauron, the ancient servant of Morgoth, these prisoners were detained for months on end. It is only due to the brave reporting of the Washington Post that the story of the Mordor Internment Camps have been discovered, and the abuses within finally revealed.

The Washington Post reports:

...The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism. It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions....

...Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long...

...It is illegal for the government to hold prisoners in such isolation in secret prisons in the United States, which is why the CIA placed them overseas, according to several former and current intelligence officials and other U.S. government officials. Legal experts and intelligence officials said that the CIA's internment practices also would be considered illegal under the laws of several host countries, where detainees have rights to have a lawyer or to mount a defense against allegations of wrongdoing...

...More than 100 suspected terrorists have been sent by the CIA into the covert system, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials and foreign sources. This figure, a rough estimate based on information from sources who said their knowledge of the numbers was incomplete, does not include prisoners picked up in Iraq...

FOLKS, READ THE WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE.....THIS IS 100% REAL

Every compassionate, patriotic, freedom-loving member of this great nation should rise up and protest this illegal, disgusting abuse of international prisoners! Its time to stand up to Sauron, Saruman, Ugluk, and the Orc army, and demand accountability once and for all.

The CIA, with the express approval of President George W. Bush has gone to great links to find remote, uncharted locations, free of all international laws, to detain, interrogate, and abuse suspected terrorists.

The Washington Post further reports:

...The agency set up prisons under its covert action authority. Under U.S. law, only the president can authorize a covert action, by signing a document called a presidential finding. Findings must not break U.S. law and are reviewed and approved by CIA, Justice Department and White House legal advisers...

...Six days after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush signed a sweeping finding that gave the CIA broad authorization to disrupt terrorist activity, including permission to kill, capture and detain members of al Qaeda anywhere in the world...

The Fellowship of the Bush has taken an ugly, dare I say fatal, turn. We only recently learned of the misinformation we were fed by the administration to justify the Iraq War. Now, in the wake of a war that cost over two thousand American lives, we further learn that the President has authorized prisoner abuse in OUR NAME.

It's time to get angry.

Thanks to TL for the tip.

A Supermodel With a Heart

In order to experience what life would be like without an angelic face, perfect skin, sensational breasts, plentiful endorsement deals, and multi-million dollar television contracts, supermodel Tyra Banks recently pretended to be a fat blob for a segment that will soon be aired on her absolutely unwatchable talk show. The brave Ms. Banks dawned a fat suit and was forced to endure the embarrassment of not being perfect.

Tyra described this experiment in humility as "one of the most hearbreaking days of my life." This from a woman who, on November 18, plans to air a segment entitled "Pursuing a Beautiful Booty" on her trainwreck of a talk show.

Thanks Tyra. I'm sure all of the depressed 300 pound women who learn of your heroic feat will applaud your 2 hours of mild discomfort in a fat suit. You already spent an entire episode of your show having a sonogram performed on your breasts to prove they were real. Need you further destroy the self esteem of your viewers (all twelve of them) by "pretending" to look like them for an afternoon.

Next thing you know, Maury Povich will pretend to be a sexually active pre-teen with hepatitis C and Judge Judy will pretend to be a manic-depressive gardener who assaulted a customer when they refused to pay her for her work.

I'm tempted to boycott the next Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue in response to this ridiculous stunt. But I won't. Why punish myself for YOUR mistakes. I will simply tear out the pages on which you appear!!!

Single, 28 Year Old Male Replaces Tree-Dwelling Funnel-Web Spider as Most Dangerous Creature in the World

National Geographic Magazine has reported today that the "Single, 28 Year Old Male" has finally replaced the "Tree-Dwelling Funnel-Web Spider" as the most dangerous creature on the planet Earth.













Whereas the Tree-Dwelling Funnel-Web Spider neutralizes and ultimately kills its defenseless victims with potent venom, the Single, 28 Year Old Male stalks its prey without the aid of any poison, claws, talons, or fangs. Rather, this complicated species relies upon his masked loneliness, undeserved ego, and ever-increasing sense of desperation to alienate his male friends and terrify unsuspecting females.


Researchers agree that the Single, 28 Year Old Male, overwhelmed by the responsibilities of adulthood, yet far too adolescent to adequately conceal his utter confusion and inner pain, is capable of destroying friendships, shunning family, and horrifying otherwise good-natured females.

Most Single, 28 Year Old Males, lacking confidence, tend to travel in clusters, congregating in major metropolitan areas across the globe. If you come into contact with one, do not attempt to stroke his ego or feed into his extreme sense of entitlement.

Multiple Choice Test

"Every youngster should have the opportunity to grow-up healthy, safe, secure, and equipped with the skills needed to succeed in life. Contemporary America, however, is rampant with challenges that could keep children from a positive life path."

Question: The above quote is attributable to what organization?

A: The National Center for Education Reform

B: Alliance for Health Reform

C: National Center for Youth

D: National Education Association

E: American Association for Affirmative Action

F: None of the Above


CORRECT ANSWER: F) None of the Above

The above quote was, in fact, taken from the D.A.R.E (Druge Abuse Resistance Education) website. The failed D.A.R.E. program, with its catchy, but entirely unhelpful slogan "Just Say No," has cost American taxpayers millions and millions of dollars over the past 20 years, and continues to somehow persist as a constant reminder of President Reagan's ill conceived, reactionary, propoganda machine infamously known as the "War on Drugs."

What I find interesting is that the above quote, perhaps accidentally, highlights the many reasons that we desperately need afforable health care, education reform (including higher teachers' pay), increased funding for public after school programs, and reasonable affirmative action programs in college admissions.

However, while we do have a National D.A.R.E. Day (April 14, 2005 / declared by President Bush), we unfortunately do not have an Affordable Health Care Day or Public Education Reform Day. Clearly, when it comes to improving the lives of impoverished, disadvantaged youth, we do not have our priorities in order.

Many of you reading this post have probably experienced the D.A.R.E program. I don't know about you, but my D.A.R.E. lessons essentially consisted of 1) a nervous police officer (probably resentful of the fact that he was assigned D.A.R.E. responsibility) yammering about how drugs will ruin your life; 2) the presentation of a display case containing a virtual buffet of illegal drugs, which was supposed to somehow make us detest drugs but, in actuality, only served to heighten our interest in these odd, fascinating substances (what exactly is unappealing about a leafy, green, herbal substance?); 3) a video presentation of various celebrities (ie. Eric Estrada or Evander Holyfield) explaining how we will all lose our minds if we ever so much as touch a drug.

Today, our public schools are suffering. Working class families can't afford to purchase prescription medication for their children. Teachers are underpaid and forced to rule over absurdly large classes. Affluent, white families are removing their children from public schools at an alarming rate, serving only to further alienate inner city youth.

And all we can do is preach, "Just Say No" to drugs. "Children of the world, if you just steer clear of drugs, your lives will turn out perfectly.....you'll ride unicorns down chocolate covered rainbows into an ocean of money and respect."

We are failing are youth, and all we can say is "put down that joint" or "don't get pregnant."

We are teaching our children policies of absolute intolerance when it comes to drug use and sexual activity, and yet WE continue to absolutely tolerate the abominable conditions of our deteriorating education and health care systems.

Do something about it. I DARE you.

The New Antagonism

As if his recent comments regarding the private assurances he received from the Bush Administration about Harriet Miers were not galling enough, 'Focus on the Family' founder James C. Dobson is at it again.

In a prepared statement regarding President Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, Mr. Dobson stated the following:

"Perhaps the most encouraging early indication that Judge Alito will make a great justice is that liberal senators such as Harry Reid and Charles Schumer and leftist pressure groups such as People for the American Way and Planned Parenthood have been lining up all day to scream that the sky is falling. Any nominee who so worries the radical left is worthy of serious consideration."

I could actually care less what Mr. Dobson's opinion is regarding the qualifications of Samuel Alito, but I am deeply troubled by this statement because I fear that it reflects a dangerous political trend in this country -- a trend which has infected both the Right and Left. This trend is typified by the proclamation that, "any nominee who so worries the radical left is worthy of serious consideration."

This attitude represents a type of New Antagonism which is rapidly becoming the norm in Washington --- sound policy, reasoned debate, and careful strategy are being replaced with arrogant, almost gleeful, antagonism. In other words, politicians, lobbyists, and other operatives inside the Beltway are measuring their own successes, and evaluating the effectiveness of their policies, and their leaders, in terms of how much they are pissing off their opposition.

Here's how this destructive thinking works: A policy must be reasonable and appropriate if the enemy disagrees with it. A nominee must be well qualified if the opposition despises him. A bill must be necessary and well drafted if the congressperson on the other side of the aisle is preparing to filibuster it.

THIS IS THE TYPE OF THINKING THAT PRESENTLY PERMEATES MODERN POLITICS.

It is an ethos perpetuated by the current media configuration.....talking heads yelling at each other, while a purportedly 'neutral' moderator lobs softball questions at them, creating a platform for the New Antagonism.

Politics has been, and always will be, a battle. That much is certain. But, a battle for what? Ideally, it should be a battle between ambitious public servants to develop and implement a strong vision for this Country, a respectable platform of ideas and reforms. Instead, it is turning into a battle for the sake of battle....it is about pride and gamesmanship, and NOT about creating a better America.

This may seem an obvious point, but it's a point that any true progressive must remind himself or herself of on a daily basis. Let's not fall into the habit of defining our successes by the degree to which we can frustrate our opposition. The New Antagonism runs completely counter to the Revolution of Ideas that all responsible progressives should be trying to effectuate every single day.