Birmingham Free Press Editorial

Method to the Moderates

2012-01-28T17:57:00.000-08:00

By Lee Waites

As I watch the Republican primary unfold I feel my aching joints and aging, sore muscles more acutely than ever. The comical way the debates play out and the sadness with which supporters see their champions rudely unmasked for who and what they really are, having been hoodwinked or brainwashed to believe their candidates actually desire more than victory. It's a sad extension of the human condition, but in truth more akin to the social maneuverings in a pack of junkyard dogs. It makes my body all too self aware of the rut in which the human race finds itself, wiggling around with no power or strength of will to break free. I feel so old since I've been watching the same mess over and over throughout my life.

Where is the motivation to serve? Where is the empathy? These are the only admirable driving forces for serving one's country, to protect and serve the group. Nowadays it's more a lustful frenzy of self serving extremism, using base notions to drive campaigns. Policy becomes an extension of the campaign. And therefore our country falls further into the pit. I vaguely recall watching the passion and bluster of Richard Nixon when I was a boy, the events narrated by the unmatched delivery of Walter Cronkite. I can honestly say in the face of today's offering of politicians and media talking heads I miss them both. Yes...even Nixon. He had plans that were meant to fix the problems of the World. he was, for sure, a horrible egomaniac. In light of the candidates running now, it seems a bit justified.

Ron Paul seems to be the only one in any of these debates who exhibits any admirable traits, expressing many ideas and notions that stem from a desire for good policy as opposed to knee jerk pandering. His opponents' ideas are obviously designed solely to win. I'll admit that many of his ideas are appealing. The ones that aren't, and the basic concept that the Government has such a limited role to play, at the exact time when other nations are forging ahead on the world stage with just such close involvement from their governments, makes him an unappealing choice. But philosophically I can at least understand what his ideas stand for. And he seems to be the only candidate currently running for the Republican nomination with any character. He harkens back to a simpler time. But things are far from simple now.

Newt Gingrich has so many flaws it's a wonder he has ever been taken seriously. The moon base idea is actually one of his better plans. But maybe we could have done that in the 90s. Or maybe we can wait a bit...until people aren't hurting as much. (Now Mars...I could get behind that plan.)

Santorum...cool name. If you drop the Rick part, it's almost a super hero name. Or a Sufi, a poet. But...it's not. And it's Rick. And he will undoubtedly pander to the religious right wing. And how can you believe a word of his God talk when he's a politician. In fact...God talk is so wrong to bring into politics just given the very nature of both. It is an unholy union.

Romney...totally just wants to win. Republicans know this all. That's why they're sure to pick Romney. Certainly not a super hero name. I'm very liberal, and the guy doesn't piss me off. He seems like he is just driven to succeed and has no ill will toward me or my fellow Liberals. So if, as they say, President Obama is such an awful leader, why not go for a Santorum, or a Gingrich? Because they know that the swing vote might go for Mitt. Quite possibly they will choose diversity for the Vice Presidential position, a woman, an Asian or maybe an "actual" circus clown. It's strategy driven, not by ideals.

The Republican party has set itself up, marginalized itself so much that if it puts forth the candidate that represents the nature of the GOP today it will be apparent that the driving force of traditional Republican values runs counter to the desires and needs of the American people. Traditional Republican thinking is backwards, designed to return us to policies that have time and again proven failures, unbridled market worship...wars on everything...including Americans.

Unfortunately, the same can be said for the Democrats. In truth, we can see that political ideas to date, based on the old paradigm of us vs them have failed. Politicians are required to play a game and pick a card. They cannot afford to align themselves with the policies of the opposition, lest they lose their financial backing, lose the game. The American people however, are not playing a game. They are losing their houses. They are struggling with day to day issues that to many lead to a spiraling cycle and a downward trend that might take years from which to recover, if it is even possible. The American people need solutions.

Too many extremists in our own country, driven by social philosophy, religious dogma, greed, corporate interests, etc forget that according to most polls, and based on simple observation, today's America is divided nearly down the middle in it's support for political parties. That is why the few in the middle have so much pull. Why each side will attempt to appear reasonable. That is why every American should take pause, get serious and think about the effectiveness of each policy put forth by each candidate. Stop listening to the commercials. Stop screaming rhetoric. Stop using labels. Seek out the person who espouses the desire to represent the American people as a whole, who is willing to compromise, realizing that he or she is acting on the behalf of our entire country.

Currently the person most seemingly willing to compromise is President Obama. He makes me mad sometimes. He doesn't do everything I think he should. That's exactly the reason the American people should make the adult choice and reelect him. In turn, he needs to get the job done so we can go back to grilling out and drinking beer.

Infographic: Student-Led Activism & Protests

2012-01-25T12:11:00.001-08:00

c/o our friends at bestcollegesonline.com

Via: Online Colleges Blog

To Our Facebook Overlords

2012-01-11T07:16:00.000-08:00

Very short and concise editorial in response to Facebook blocking our posts to our own page.

When you become a major source for information sharing you have a responsibility to adhere to time honored traditions based on widely accepted interpretations of our Constitution.

The power base may shift. The controls may change. But the issues are the same and the right to freedom of the press must be maintained.

You cannot choose what information we are allowed to see or what constitutes news. You do not have that authority. This is a public trust issue and you need to be aware of your responsibility to use your power wisely. This includes proper controls on your users, both to avoid undue, arbitrary censorship and to protect their freedoms.

The only reason for this short editorial is to illustrate that the blocking of our posts to our own Facebook page is an issue of the 1st amendment. You have created a new town square. That is a wonderful thing. You must treat it as such. This is a simple explanation of your responsibility.

I will now attempt to post this to our Facebook page. I respectfully request that you return our ability to do this.

Here’s to the American Dream

2012-01-11T06:18:00.000-08:00

By Sabrina Pandora

I’d like for this to see some circulation, folks, so if you could repost it and ask that it be passed along, I would very much appreciate it. Maybe if enough people read it then maybe someone might be held accountable for these sort of things, and it might save someone else from the same fate.

When I met Wendie Goers, she was just beginning her gender transition, and amongst the advice that I gave her, I warned her that in order to finally gain possession of her own soul and be true to herself, she would have to be prepared to lose everything. How true that advice has proven to be today.

I lost my job in early 2009, and she lost her job in mid 2009. We both set to hunting work with a fervor, making our daily job to seek out opportunities to get us back into the workforce. She fretted and worried but I reassured her… something would give, someone would hire us. We were intelligent, motivated and experienced- sure, we were a little unusual, but that wouldn’t put people off in a tolerant city like Atlanta.

We worked, we chased, we hunted… and we failed. We drained our savings, we drained our retirement, we drained our nest egg, we sold everything in sight and traded like fur trappers on the Mississippi. We kept other folk’s spirits up, fed the hungry that came to our door and did our best to be a haven for those in need and for those whose circumstances were poor- after all, that’s part of the American Dream. Take care of people and be good folks, help out here and there, do what you can… part of what makes America great, and what makes Atlanta such a nice city. We kept at it and kept at it, all the while with me reassuring Wendie that something had to give eventually… and I was oh so terribly wrong.

I think my favorite ‘opportunity’ was the one where it came down to Wendie or the other candidate for a job with An Unnamed Workshop, and they decided to hire the other candidate (with the possibility of Wendie getting contract work). We later found out that the other candidate had lied extensively about her skills and experience, which Wendie had not… and of course, Wendie was never contacted for contract work ever, nor even reconsidered for the position, never contacted... hell, they couldn’t even be bothered to reply to her inquiries. In the end they apparently rehired the person who had quit and just gave them a big old raise instead. It beat hiring a tranny I guess. You know what those people are like, after all. They put people off and scare away customers.

So that brings us to our current topic- our beloved and embattled home. Wells Fargo financed Wendie’s purchase of our home back in 2005, when she put 20% down and bought into the idea that this was a ‘transitional neighborhood’. If that transition meant ‘from bad to worse’ then that description was accurate- the original note for the home was $189,000. Today it is valued at $40,000- how’s that for a transition?

Now, if we’d been smart, we would have seen the writing on the wall when we first became unemployed, realized that we were now unemployable by virtue of being middle-aged transwomen in Atlanta and just walked away from the mortgage, let it slide into bankruptcy and used the money we still had at that point to just buy a foreclosure elsewhere free and clear and been better off for our trouble. But instead we played it straight. We believed in the American Dream. We held out hope for change, kept at it and slowly burned through every resource we had.

Finally in 2011 we got a break and an idea… if we could go back to school, then we could get loans and grants and that could help keep us afloat while we learned a trade. Cosmetology is a career that is historically open and embraces ‘alternate lifestyles’- or as we liked to put it, “Let’s get into a field where nobody cares that we’re big girls with deep voices!” Then we got more good news- Wells Fargo had a mortgage assistance program that could get our payments lowered, and if we qualified, we could get our mortgage payment lowered for good! We were still sinking, but we were treading water like champions now. All we had to do was make it out of school and we would have trade skills in a field that would embrace us, and more importantly, hire us. We could do this!

Or not.

First we got our bit of news from one of the preeminent salons in town, who pointed out that while effeminate gay men are always in fashion with moneyed women, transwomen never will be, and they wouldn’t ever consider hiring us… and they weren’t alone. Our dream of a new career took a hit, but we persevered. We could make it work… we could just work within the gay community, because we didn’t repel them; or at least, not as much as so very many of the straight community.

Then came the notice that not only had our mortgage assistance program run its course; great, were we approved for a new payment structure? Hahaha! Not only were we not approved, we now owed even more than we had been ‘assisted’ for over that six month period. So either pay Wells Fargo five grand plus right here and now or we foreclose… wait, what?!? Can’t we appeal? Sure, feel free. Don’t expect Wells Fargo to respond though. Is there someone else we can speak to?

Nope, it has to go through the one guy handling your case who doesn’t want to talk to you, return your calls or acknowledge any paperwork that you send in. Well, if we can scrape them together can we at least make regular mortgage payments for now? Nope, your payment option is frozen until you pay us… wait, six grand and change now, all in one lump sum. No, wait, scratch that, we’ve decided that we’re just going to foreclose on you. Oh, and don’t expect much communication about it either… here’s a month’s notice to get out of your home, and be grateful for that.

Now, I am not a businesswoman, obviously. So I do not understand the intricacies of mortgage financing… particularly the part where refinancing the home to keep a couple who has clawed and struggled to hold on to a home in a terrible DMZ of a neighborhood, who have watched the value of the home plummet lower and lower, who have braved drive-by shootings and muggings on their doorstep to try to hold on and turn the neighborhood around is not preferable to simply dumping the property.

See, here is Wells Fargo logic at work. If they can take a loss on the remaining $140,000 of this note- which they will, oh boy will they- and force us to default, then they can sell the house as a foreclosure on the courthouse steps. Let’s see, according to the Fulton County tax assessor’s figures, on the average that means that this house should sell for about $10,000. Yup, ten grand, leaving $130,000 for them to write off (though they did collect fifty grand from us in the seven years we’ve been here).

Is that how they paid their bailout money off?

And then the house will likely be bought by an investor who has never set foot in this neighborhood (nor will they) who will just as likely turn what was once our home into Section 8 housing… at least, after the repair all of the damage that will occur as soon as we aren’t here, like replacing the AC unit and furnace the locals will steal for copper, the refrigerator they will steal outright, the gutters they will tear off for the aluminum… it is a lot like watching locusts attack a farm crop, really.

I know, you think I am exaggerating… sadly, I am not. There is a reason almost all of the AC units in this neighborhood have cages welded around them.
So here we are, still trying to get out of school- hey, the congressional cut to the grant program really helped too, America, thanks for that. So much for helping out with the bills. We got a little money, but finding out it was going to be cut right in the middle of our scholastic career was a winner for sure. And now after all of this we’ll lose our home, the nearby property values will decline that much more, and we will be out on the streets with severely damaged credit after all of our savings has been poured into a home that is no longer ours.

I’d like to tell you that through all of this I still have optimism, that I still have hope. I would like to tell you that this story will have a happy ending and that a miracle will come along and save our home, and let us keep our little house in the ghetto that we’ve worked so hard on to make it a nice place, where we were going to build a salon in the garage so that we would be able to give ourselves jobs in a field that apparently isn’t very fond of us, but at least might support us. I would like to say that I still believe in the American Dream- that perseverance, doing the right thing, working hard and being good honest people still pays off.

I’d like to say that, but damned if it would be very convincing through all of the tears.

Dueling Mormons in New Hampshire

2012-01-10T13:41:00.000-08:00

I don't expect today's New Hampshire primary to be anything like as exciting as last week's Iowa caucuses were. All the polling has consistently shown a strong lead for Mitt Romney. He's very probably going to win. I know. But secretly, I'm hoping New Hampshire wil surprise us. It wouldn't be the first time, after all.

Substantial as Mittens' lead is, it's slipped six points since last Wednesday, from 43% to 37%. He's still 20 points ahead of likely second place Ron Paul, but tied with fellow Mormon Jon Huntsman in Dixville Notch's well publicized midnight voting. Where did those six points go, you may be wondering? Straight to Huntsman, it seems.

Less than a week ago, Huntsman was polling around 8%. The latest polls show him surging up to 18%, running neck and neck with Ron Paul. Considering his dismal .6% finish in Iowa, a second place finish here would be the shot of adrenaline he needs to make it through South Carolina, and on to Florida.

To be fair, Huntsman's meager .6% of Iowans was more or less what he expected. He took a pass on the caucuses to focus on more moderate New Hampshire, saying, "They pick corn in Iowa. They pick presidents in New Hampshire." It took a while, but it's starting to look like that gamble may pay off in a big way.

Despite, or perhaps thanks to, his relatively low profile, Huntsman has earned something of a cult following as the Democrats' favorite Republican candidate. Unlike many of his opponents, he is not completely batshit insane, which does hold a certain appeal. He's the only member of the GOP field who unambiguously believes in evolution. He not ony preaches, but has practiced bipartisanship, serving as President Obama's ambassador to China. He's unapologetically intelligent. And he's really funny on tv. These are all excellent qualities in a person, presidential contender or not.

Huntsman is without question the Republican candidate I'd most like to have dinner with. Actually, he's the only one I can imagine being in the same room with without trying to make him cry. I'm sure it would make for an interesting evening, but a contentious one as well. While his support for same sex civil unions, though not marriage, renders Huntsman far and away the most moderate of the GOP contenders, a look at a few more of his positions shows an abiding commitment to conservative values.

He is relentlessly anti-choice. He wants to repeal health care reform, and to eliminate the employer tax deduction for contributing to health care coverage. He wants to, "streamline," the FDA approval process, making it easier for drug companies to bring new meds to market without demonstrating efficacy or safety. His statements on energy policy are factually sloppy, and would prioritize greenhouse gas producing fossil fuels above investment in sustainable energy sources. Where he initially voiced his belief in the human contribution to climate change, he has recently back pedalled substantially, falling in line with his fellow Republicans in saying the science is inconclusive. Disappointing, that was.

No one expects Huntsman to do much of anything in South Carolina, where a more evangelical electorate's not-Romney vote will likely be split between Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. At present, he's polling below Steven Colbert, but as Colbert won't be on the ballot, maybe some of his supporters will shift to Huntsman on election day. A strong showing today would probably send him directly onto Florida, whose primary is shaping up to be a deciding factor in the GOP nomination. I hope Florida has learned from its past mistakes, and is ready to handle the responsibility, but I remain skeptical.

By Gaije Kushner

Oh What a Week!

2012-01-09T05:03:00.001-08:00

Very late on the night of Tuesday, January 3rd, I went to bed blissfully believing the people of Iowa had made my dreams come true by voting Rick Santorum to the head of his caucus class. It was quite a disappointment, waking up to find Mittens had won it after all, courtesy of eight Iowan spoilers. I shouldn't have been surprised, considering the lead had been flip flopping around all night, changing twice in the time it took to microwave my mushroom tortellini.

All of last week was like that though, wasn't it, for the GOP's presidential aspirants? So strange it veered into surrealism, from Iowa to New Hampshire, with an unscheduled stop in Austria, courtesy of the good Dr. Ron Paul.

Despite a third place finish, Dr. Paul seemed to think he'd won a massive victory, beginning what would in other hands have been a concession speech with the declaration, "We are all Austrians now!" While I'd happily sell my soul for an EU passport, I very much doubt Austria would be any more inclined to give me one in the wake of Paul's surprisingly strong showing than it had been the day before. Nor do I see the preference of 26,219 Iowans as a ringing endorsement of the largely discredited Austrian school of economics upon which Paul's economic policies are based.

The eventual silver medalist, Rick Santorum, offered the biggest surprise of the night in his speech. In a stunning departure from his usual hate speech, he made a stunningly persuasive attack on Mittens' only electoral advantage, his supposed electability. As I understand it, this supposition is based on his having won a statewide election as a Republican, in the largely Democratic state of Massachusetts. It doesn't seem to take into account the vastly different policy positions Mittens espoused at the time, instead credits him with some sort of electoral magic. Not counting this one, he's participated in three campaigns, winning just one. When does the magic start?

Santorum, on the other hand, reminded us of his own repeated victories in Democratic districts, achieved without soft pedaling his crazy train conservative agenda. Granted, Pennsylvania Democrats are not the most progressive of us all, but still, they are Democrats, and repeatedly sent Santorum to D.C., with full knowledge of his policy positions. That's the kind of magic more often found in Disney films, than Congressional campaigns.

For all he was the night's big winner, Mittens can't have been thrilled with his result. In 2008, when he came in second to Mike Huckabee, he received 29,949 votes, 25.2%. This year, five years and vast fortunes spent as a full time presidential candidate bought him 66 more Iowans, just 24.7%. It must be unpleasant, discovering you're too unlovable to buy even electoral love,at any price. Mittens is just too dull to love. He's isn't even interesting enough to bother hating. He's like the adults in Peanuts cartoons, an invisible presence, sort of squawking at us blandly.

He did himself no favors as the week progressed. He may believe his own claims of job creation, but no one else does. He must have known the business success of which he endlessly boasts would at some point face media scrutiny, but he didn't bother coming up with much of a response. There are those ethereal 100,000 jobs he created by downsizing and outsourcing other jobs first, but they're already heading back into the ether. He further explained, in an interview with Bloomberg Television,that,"every time we reduce jobs somewhere, it was to try and save the enterprise and make it more successful." Aside from his appalling grammar, this statement suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the world within which most of the electorate, 99% or so, reside. Has anyone in the history of unemployment ever been consoled by knowing it was all for the good of the shareholders? And if, as he's always saying, we need businesses to expand to create more jobs, yet businesses need to cut jobs to expand, it's at best a zero sum game he'd have us playing.

I hate the word disconnect, but no other comes to mind to describe Mittens' response to questions about the extent to which his interests intersect with those of Wall St. He didn't offer any meaningful critique of Wall St. practices, or demonstrate any real understanding of why his ties to the financial industry might be seen as problematic. Nothing that could have made him the least bit more relatable to that pesky 99% of of potential voters. Instead, he assured us he was not, "dependent on someone else for my survival. I'm independent of Wall St. By the way, I haven't ever worked on Wall St. They were service providers to the business I was in." He's not independent from Wall St. as a matter of principle, or because, like many of us, he's found their practices personally detrimental, in one way or another. No, Mittens' independence springs from superiority. Wall St. firms are nothing more than hired help to billionaires, after all.

He apparently sees this as a selling point. In yesterday's debate, he astonishingly told us only the independently wealthy should ever run for office, citing his father's sage advice to, "Never get involved in politics if you need to win an election to pay a mortgage." Whoever's handling his debate prep should really try explaining to him the concept of the oligarchy, and its general unpopularity in this country.

The week's back to back debates gave us more of the evasions and incoherence we've come to expect from such events. Rick Perry vowed to reinvade Iraq,because Iran will be moving in on it, "literally at the speed of light." Maybe someone told him Dr. Who was a documentary. More likely, he doesn't understand the meaning of the word literally. He further distinguished himself on Sunday, displaying his ignorance of the definition of socialism by confusing it with policies of President Obama's. Doesn't a day of prayer in Texas or something require his personal supervision?

Ron Paul lost his place in time in Saturday's debate, trying to get anyone to care about Newt Gingrich's failure to serve in Vietnam. Didn't we decide to move on from such things when we elected draft dodging Bill Clinton president twice? Or surely when we allowed The Bush regime to take things over? If that's the best ammunition Dr. Paul can find to use against Newt, he needs to be watching more cable news.

Last week also brought us a special bonus preview of the general election, when a Georgia judge ruled to allow a hearing to resolve the question of President Obama's citizenship. Apparently his birth certificate does not suffice in Georgia. I assume we'd have seen any film footage of the birth by now, so I cannot imagine what proof the court will require. Even if Obama had been born in Kenya, which he of course was not, no one's yet questioned his mother's citizenship, have they? Isn't the son of an American citizen a, "natural born citizen," wherever he might happen to have been born? This is what happens when civics classes are removed from the curriculum.

This week promises more excitement. The New Hampshire primary, is coming up,of course. Mittens is so far ahead in the polling, anything short of massive victory will disappoint, and boost the runner up's momentum heading to South Carolina. I'm hoping for a repeat of 2008's New Hampshire surprise, turning all the pollsters on their ear, and finally giving Senator Santorum the victory of my dreams.

A Mythunderstanding of Slang

2011-12-22T06:04:00.001-08:00

by gendanke

I used to love pointing out that the sadist who put the “s” in lisp was the same one that stuck an “r” in rhoticism, defined as the inability to pronounce the letter “r.” This would eventually draw out that one illiterate prig who, with double-negatives arguing that “nobody owns no language,” only served to put an extra sniff in my Awesome Scholar’s Arrogance. Because everyone knows educated people don’t start sentences with “because,” don’t use slang, and most certainly never aim to boldly split infinitives. The “gifted underachiever” is that guy delighting that he finds Sara Lee’s “Nobody Doesn’t like Sara Lee” grammatically offensive as it associates him with class, regardless of how much of the dirt on his face is chocolate frosting.

In 2003, Lynn Truss wrote Eats, Shoots & Leaves, a hilarious tale of a pedant mourning the death of punctuation; she refuses to board the buses at Victoria Station because posters on the side advertising Hugh Grant’s Two Weeks Notice [sic] were maliciously missing an apostrophe. Defining the capacity for nausea at the comma in “Bob,s Pets” as a Seventh Sense only the elite possess, she’d rather curl up in a box than live in a world where signs like “Waiter’s Wanted” exist to offend with their awful punctuation.

Now, there is no question language is important; the human brain assembles the world a million ways a million times a day by juggling words in combinations the best computers sweat through. It shapes culture in fascinating ways; the Australian aboriginal language Dyirbal classes nouns into four categories: 1) animate objects and men 2) women, fire, and dangerous things 3) edible produce 4) miscellaneous. So where an English speaker inflects nouns only in respect to plurality and verb agreement, the Dyirbal speaker must first identify that noun as either male, female, possible threat, or whether or not he can eat it before uttering a single sentence. Isn’t that interesting?

Some languages, like Japanese, have the “adversative-passive” tense for verbs which, like the insanity clause, allows people to abdicate responsibility. Mishima didn’t commit suicide; he was suicided. But despite awesome German nouns like Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz, which means “beef-labeling-regulation-and-delegation-of-supervision-law” or the Spanish word for handcuffs meaning “wife,” language, like all heroes, has a tragic flaw. Without a pinch of salt, it achieves the alchemy of transmuting the ugliest hypocrisies into a “spreading-of-democracy” or arbitrarily vilifying human impulses by labeling them a “sin.” In one swoop, it undermines a person’s social class and therefore value by lumping how he speaks into a subcategory called “slang,” which we’re taught to associate with imbecility without having to prove why that person is below us.

It slaughtered Lenny Bruce, a genius smarter than the morons who never had to explain why Bruce was being arrested other than because he used words like cocksucker and was therefore disobedient. In 1966, two such cocksuckers conducted tests on black children and concluded that from their absent use of Proper Grammar they were little more than animals. So what else could condescending bigots do but set up “Bereiter-Engelmann” preschools, where these awful little savages could be taught a little class by imitating white people?

Exactly how is being repulsed by the way a person speaks different than being nauseated by their skin color? It’s a bitter pill to swallow for us pedants; both are forms of willful negligence allowing you to assume value without having to create it. So what if it’s amusing knowing your gorgeous ear is sensitive to the erroneous modifying of verbs with adjectives? There is little qualitative difference between Ms. Truss refusing to board a bus transporting awful grammar and Miss Annabelle refusing to because there’s a Negro riding on it.

The real imbecile is the one presuming he knows what you are because he buys into the myth of slang being “immoral.” It grants him the petty narcissism of being able to show that he’s offended. Does this mean grammar is racist and should therefore be scorned? Before you go around lynching grammar as elitist, I leave you with this—in 1327, Welsh conspirators needed to murder King Edward II without clear evidence of their involvement. One of them sent this note to the perpetrators: “Kill Edward not to fear is good.” Purposely ambiguous, punctuation was left out in case the plot backfired. So poor Edward did die at the mercy of a scalding iron shimmied up his anus where, quite frankly, the one thing that could’ve saved his colon was a colon.

Suddenly Santorum

2011-12-21T20:10:00.000-08:00

I guess it was inevitable, though I would never have dared to hope for such a thing. Now that the, "Anything but Mittens," contingent of Republican primary voters have worked their way through Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich, it looks like it just might be Rick Santorum's turn on top. Rick Santorum. The man whose name will forever more be synonymous with, "the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the result of anal sex," thanks to sex columnist Dan Savage. Really. He's doing well in Iowa.

Much has been made of Ron Paul's surge in the Iowa polls. He does share the racist, misogynistic, homophobic values so dear to the Republican base, it's true. But apparently he doesn't take them far enough, because he's not the only candidate benefitting from Newt's demise. Rick Santorum's numbers are climbing too. And God knows, there is no one more racist, misogynistic, or homophobic than Senator Santorum.

In case you've forgotten what an abomination of a human being Santorum is since Pennsylvania voters finally mustered the good sense to vote him out of office last year, let's take a little trip down memory late, shall we?

He may be best known for his virulent homophobia. He has compared homosexuality to bestiality, pedophila, and incest. He's bizarrely equated the love between same sex couples with his for his children and mother-in-law. He doesn't really see what all the fuss is about same sex marriage anyway, as his view of marriage has nothing to do with affirming one person's love for another, but is all about being, "open to children," whatever exactly that means, and bettering civilization.

He takes the anti-choice agenda to an astonishing new level. Not only does he want Roe v. Wade overturned, which is par for the patriarchal course, he'd like to see Griswold v. Connecticut thrown out as well. It was the pre-Roe ruling in which justices first invoked the right to privacy, in granting married couples the right to use birth control. For one thing, in Santorum world there is no such thing as a right to privacy. None at all. Nothing extant protects the physical bodies of citizens from the exercise of state power. That in and of itself carries terrifying implications a plenty.

Just as importantly, Santorum thinks birth control itself is a bad, bad, thing, saying in 2005:

I think it’s harmful to women, I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young. I think it has, as we’ve seen, very harmful long-term consequences for society. So birth control to me enables that and I don’t think it’s a healthy thing for our country.

So, no birth control, and no sex outside of marriage. Santorum seems to believe even sex within a marriage should be federally regulated. Because, you see, "if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." Consensual sex, amongst adults, leads inexorably to the legalization of polygamy, adultery, and incest. I'm pretty sure adultery is legal already, but maybe the imagined threat of imprisonment is the only thing keeping Santorum from straying beyond the marriage bed. Even more disturbing, though, is the moral equivalency drawn here between adultery, polygamy, and incest. Don't we all agree that incest is worse than adultery, or even polygamy, carried out among consenting adults?

Abortion is, of course, even worse. In Santorum world, it is, in fact, worse than slavery. “But unlike abortion today, in most states even the slaveholder did not have the unlimited right to kill his slave,” he tells us, in his 2005 book, "It Takes a Family." It's nice how he's found a way to combine two of his favorite hobbies, racism and misogyny in a single insane sentence.

More recently, he did it again, saying in January, " find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people’.” Apparently black people have no business being pro-choice, because having been legally defined as something other than fully human in the days of slavery. Which gets really confusing, because he's also said legal abortion is worse than slavery, which wasn't really so bad after all. Or something like that.

He made a similar point when he joined Michele Bachmann in signing a family values pledge stating,"sadly, a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African American baby born after the election of the U.S.A.'s first African American President." Because slave owners were super respectful of their possessions' family feelings, and never, ever, sold parents off to the highest bidder without their children. Right.

He's described the interactions between Catholic Priests and any children they sexually abused who were over the age of 13 or so as, "a basic homosexual relationship." He thinks it's horrible and selfish for women to work outside the home just because they need to provide for their children, or, worse yet, find it satisfying and fulfilling to do so. He blames Social Security's financial woes on legal abortion. He thinks something specific to American freedoms has lead to doubling human life expectancy. He's either a little bit crazy, or unfathomably stupid. Neither of which, recent history tells us, necessarily rules him out of the presidency.

Granted, his numbers haven't gone up as far or as fast as Paul's have. But the most recent Public Policy Polling survey of Iowa has him up from 6% to 10, tied with former frontrunners Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry. And Mike Huckabee did win Iowa in 2008. So anything is possible.

Alabama Law can not only take a Child away from a Parent, Make False Accusations, and it Can Make the Parent Pay Child Support

2011-12-20T16:54:00.000-08:00

Parents beware!!

Layne Gunter of Trussville, Alabama was falsely accused of child neglect. It is his job as nuclear engineer to travel to facilities throughout the South to fix trouble that occurs there. There are only two people in the South who does the kind of troubleshooting work he does. Mr. Gunter is one of them. Nuclear industry is keenly aware of wanting to avoid the same disaster that occurred in Japan on March 2011.

Ever since his first wife died, he had an agreement and relied on his grown and married daughter next door to watch his one minor child whenever he had to go on business trips.
On his business trip in January 2011, he did the usual. He called her daughter to ask to watch the 13 y.o. child.

When he returned, he was already accused of “child neglect”, the child had been “removed from home” and placed in official custody of the daughter next door. Ironically, this was the same one who was supposed to be watching over the young child in the first place. The social security payment that the child received due to her mother’s death had already been transferred to the married daughter.

DHR had been lied to by the daughter next door and the minor child, and was used to crucify this very devote church-going man who meticulously keeps all his commandments. The judge did not hear anything he had to say, including proper documentation of phone calls he made to the daughter next door to make sure the youngest was being watched.

The judge was not listening to Mr. Gunter. He heard all the lies, and the youngest lied just as good as the rest. She had good coaching. The daughter next door who has the custody has particular need for extra money. In addition to $750/mo. social security, now they are to get $900/mo in child support.

Mr. Gunter would rather rot in jail rather than pay something for false accusation that he is not guilty of. He will also retire from the nuclear industry. It would be best if people in the South pick up their things move to the Northwest.

Kazumi Hart

Twilight of Taste

2011-12-18T14:46:00.000-08:00

If you knew me, you wouldn't be surprised to hear I won't be seeing the new Twilight movie. I've long since aged out of its target demographic, and I usually see smart movies. I'm amazed by how good the third Olson sister was in Martha Marcy May Marlene. I can't stop thinking about Melancholia. When I do go for silly, it's silly with a meta twist of irony. Stepbrothers, maybe, or Wet Hot American Summer. If you knew me, it would never occur to you I'd consider doing any such thing.

But I did. Not for long, one minute, maybe five, that's all. For the very same reason I decided in the end against it. I love the Twilight books, especially the last, beyond all reason. So just like I never saw Demi Moore's turn as Hawthorne's Hester Prynne, or last year's Never Let Me Go, I won't be seeing Breaking Dawn because I like the book too much to want to see a filmic version.

I know better, I really do. I'm entirely too old to be reading teen vampire porn at all, let alone loving it. I know the books aren't very well written, the heroine is intolerable until the last book, and there's arguably an anti-choice Mormon subtext. My love for them is every bit as weird and inappropriate as the books themselves.

I don't know what possessed me to start Twilight in the first place, not a clue. It was Edward Cullen, Bella Swan's vampire boyfriend, though, who kept me reading, kept me coming back for more.

For starters, he is exactly my type. Tall, skinny, pasty, and deeply invested in his vision of himself as dark, complicated, solitary and strange. His please stay, go away, initial approach to courting Bella was also awfully familiar. So I kind of couldn't help myself. That's what I always say.

As things progress, however, Edward becomes something else entirely, the world's most perfect boyfriend. Really, without flaw. He likes to talk about feelings, he craves commitment, he never presses Bella sexually, giving her space to sort out her own teenage desire, and of course, he's good for rescuing her from the endless parade of evil vampires out for her blood. And that's the least of it.

Edward has nothing to do but hang out with Bella, think about Bella, talk about Bella, protect Bella, watch Bella sleeping, Bella, Bella, Bella. He's rich like Warren Buffett, so doesn't have to work. In high school for maybe the 25th time, academic work is nothing to him. All he has to do is kill a deer or something now and then, to keep himself in blood. That's it. He has nothing better to do, nothing he's more interested in, nothing to distract him from his Bella. When he tells her, "You are my life now," it isn't just romantic hyperbole. He means it literally. Best of all, when Bella tells Edward to go away, he does. What could be better?

Bella herself, however, is a whiny brat, throughout the first three books. She wants to become a vampire herself, immediately. She wants to have naughty pre-marital sex. She doesn't like Edward's extravagant gifts. She can't do much of anything for herself, she's impossibly insecure, and has no discernable sense of self protection. She's exactly as unbearable as any actual 16 year old girl.

In Breaking Dawn Bella is transformed, literally and figuratively. Her fairy tale doesn't end with the wedding, it continues into the days and months after, during which Bella gets everything she's ever wanted, and it's even better than she'd dreamed. Clumsy and awkward as a breathing being, Bella is great at being a vampire, amazing the others by taking so easily to the whole thing. She and Edward have a lot of fabulous married vampire sex. Her werewolf ex moves on. Chronically victimized, requiring endless rescue through the first three books, here, Bella does the rescuing. She saves Edward, his family, and all their vampire friends, from the power mad vampires of the Voltari. She doesn't just become a vampire, she becomes a sexy bad ass. I'd take her over Edward any day.

Off Grid

2011-12-17T12:01:00.000-08:00

By Lee Waites

The novelty will probably wear off before too long. But for now the various little chores and big tasks required to get up and running are kind of fun. I, my wife and our two young children are living off grid. By off grid, I mean backwoods off grid. We’re away from it all. It has been our plan to build an earth berm house for years, incorporating various alternative energy sources and a complete lifestyle change to reduce our addiction to the wasteful habits of modern life. Some of these habits are so ingrained we don’t even think about them.

I once worked for this woman who lived in a very large house. She dressed in expensive hippie clothes. The police in her neighborhood would more likely than not pull me over if I was there after dark. From what I could tell of her life, she was very spoiled and very wasteful. I remember when she saw some of my stickers she began to identify with me. I don’t think people like this understand how uncomfortable that kind of thing makes people like me. You simply can’t have it all. We have completely different ideas about success.

After we spoke for a while she told the nanny to get the kids ready. She politely and with a look of utter self-satisfaction, put the kids in the back of her SUV and drove away. She had just had a lovely encounter. I winced at the “Live Simply So That Others May Simply Live” sticker on the back of her Chevy Tahoe. (If you don’t get why I winced, ask just about anyone else around you to explain.)

My family struggles to have enough money to get started. I’ve researched alternative living for years, since my days as an anthropology major at our prestigious local U A of B. I’ve kept up to date on the emerging technologies and improvements to old technology. But like so many others we kept spinning or spiraling into debt, or when lucky, just dead broke. I know many of you can understand how wonderful it is to make it back up to just broke.

A while back, we moved into a little farm house in the country, trading work on the house for rent. We bought a wood burning stove and some propane heaters and began to practice for our new life. The house was built in 1860-something, had real log floor joists set up on dry stacked stone. When built, there were no building codes and it was put together a bit on the cheap. Of course, I need to shut up because it was put together before electric circular saws and nail guns. So the men who built it are probably tough enough to rise up from the grave and come give me a good thrashing. We spent a great deal of time and effort to get the house livable. But it was a constant uphill battle. In truth, the house needed far more love than anyone will ever give it again. But it helped toughen us up. It never got cool enough in summer or warm enough in winter. It was full of brown recluse spiders (who really never bothered us by the way). Once they figured out we lived there they moved into the walls and left us alone. But it was a good transition to a hard life.

Earlier this year, we had a bit of a disagreement with our landlord at the farmhouse. We had a few words when I refused to shoot some stray dogs that were making a ruckus on the property. The spirit at the old farm house became tainted. It was time to move.

We bought an older RV and pulled it over to the property on the river. And yes, I do realize how lucky I am to have a few acres on the river. The beauty of an RV is that it is actually self-contained and designed for conserving energy and water. We already had an old school bus on the property so we had plenty of storage space and a fairly safe haven in a storm. The beauty of the school bus is that they’re made strong. Until we get our first shipping container out here, a component of our future house, we’ll use the bus as a safe haven during storms. Not the best by any means. But after weathering the fear of twisters in the old farm house, the bus is actually a step up. So with a few generators and some salvaged lumber we’re setting up camp.

I know once we get established we will be able to have most of the comforts offered by the grid. I’ve seen others who live the same if not better from renewable resources. But for now, it’s the hard life. I try to look at the positives, the way man once must have. For instance; the rains just came back in. It makes our new driveway a complete mess. My kids cried because we had to walk 1000 feet to get to the car parked past the mud puddles (the jeep broke down again). They made it onto the bus and I got back home. I realized how much water was falling out of the sky onto my head. So I quickly set up several wash basins under those troublesome low points in the tarp and sliced a drain hole. Rainwater for free. That’s how it is.

The Inevitable Smoking Ban

2011-12-17T11:38:00.000-08:00

by Ian Hoppe

Photo by Mark J Sebastian

Initially, when I conceived of this piece, it came to me as a knee-jerk response to the (somewhat) self righteous pandering of those involved in, or peripheral to, the anti-smoking campaign in the Birmingham area and Alabama at large. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a smoker. Not an incredibly heavy smoker, but I spend a lot of time at Birmingham bars and night clubs and smoke much more heavily when I am partaking in the drink. Hence I am one of those people at whom an attack of this kind is leveled. So, as is the case with most smokers, I was immediately defensive. My hard-line libertarian streak began swinging around wildly, calling up those arguments that one might see in a chain e-mail sent from some reactionary friend or family member decrying the ‘Nanny State’ and paternalism ruining businesses across the country.

But then I took a deep breath and decided to look at this issue with the most objectivity I could muster.

First things first, read the proposed ban. The bill up for consideration at the moment is HB149 and is what British folk might call ‘The Full Monty.’ This bill, in its current form, wants to completely outlaw smoking in and around bars, restaurants, and night clubs. For clarification, the term “smoking” in this context is entirely inclusive and includes not just cigarettes but pipes, cigars, cigarillos, bongs, hookahs, and even those newfangled electric cigarettes.

I should also mention that there is no provision allowing smoking on patios or outside of establishments. The bill even goes so far as to say that ashtrays or other smoking receptacles must be removed from all areas.

I get the feeling that the strategy here is to go for the whole enchilada (I like colloquialisms . . . and enchiladas) with the expectation of rolling back some provisions during the legislative process. However, I think that it is safe to say that a bill of this kind would negatively affect businesses to which it applies. I talked to a local smoky bar owner/operator who asked to remain nameless. He agreed with me that these provisions are extreme and would have a dramatic affect on his patrons, most of which come there to drink and smoke profusely. He did say, though, that he would be in complete support of a ban, if it allowed for smoking on a patio, was e-cigarette friendly, and made exemptions for cigar/hookah bars, tobacco shops, and other establishments whose primary function is smoking things.

This seems like a legitimate stance to me. But it takes the argument in a completely different direction. If we allow smoke shops to remain open and for people to smoke inside of them as well as lighting up on the patio of a restaurant, then the implicit statement goes from, “Smoking is bad for everyone, and you ought not do it” to the much more reasonable, “Smokers are not allowed to negatively affect those around them.”

If this second statement is what we can agree on, that smoking is fine but that smoking ought not to affect involuntary non-smokers in a negative manner. Then I would like to ask smoking ban supporters what they think about the following proposition. Tax breaks for bars and night clubs that prohibit smoking altogether, and tax credits for smoking bars to have effective smoking ventilation professionally installed. This would simultaneously give owners incentive to go non-smoking and clean the air for patrons and bartenders alike. There would be no change in the flow of business; contentedness of everyone involved would only increase, and my libertarian streak would be satisfied.

Sumiton Annexes Birmingham

2011-12-17T11:20:00.000-08:00

by Jim Reed

Listen to an audio version of this column.

I learned the other day that my driver’s license had expired. Note that I did not receive a notice stating that my driver’s license is due to expire soon. I learned that only late notices are issued.

“Why would that be?” I ask a friend. “They could just send me a note three weeks before expiration instead of three weeks after—you think?”

“Why would they do that?” says the friend. “If they tell you you’re delinquent, they get to assess a penalty on top of the license fee. It’s called revenue-generation.”

I don’t argue with this statement, since I can imagine no other reason. I have to admit it is clever—and, of course, evil. That’s why I find myself standing here in a Butler Building-type structure in Sumiton, Alabama, about to receive my pain-free driver’s license.

The day before, I had gone to the Jefferson County cathedral of licensing to obtain my renewal, only to find a long, long line of people ahead of me, some of whom had been waiting a long, long time. Denial is always my first defense, so I walked past the extended queue to speak to anyone who could tell me that this wasn’t really the license line.

“Yes, this side of the hall is driver’s licenses,” a very pleasant employee told me. “And this other side is everything else having to do with licenses and the like.”

I said, “This is wild—is there a better time to come?”

She smiled and reported that the situation is the same every day. “People start lining up at five a.m., even though we don’t open the doors till eight.”

I turn and begin the hall-long trek to the end of the line.

“Hey, Jim!” a familiar voice beckons. I look at the middle of the “other” line and see my friend Ben Elliott standing there grinning his usual sardonic grin. “

Are you trapped here?” I ask.

“Yep,” Ben says. “It’s the way of the world.”

We chat and giggle at the outrageousness of it all. Ben is resigned to his certain fate, but I decide to just leave the building.

Being an optimist, I had parked at a half-hour meter.

So, next day, here I am in Sumiton, northwest of Birmingham, grateful that Liz suggested I pay for my license in another, less disorganized county. It actually works! A pleasant drive to this village, a chat with the librarian and a patron, a meandering path to the Butler Building, and I’m only third in line! Life is good.

Ms. Ash is the sole officer who processes licenses and apparently runs everything else: answers the phone, takes the ID photos, does the paperwork, and wrangles the crowds—yep, she’s prepared for crowd control, herding the three of us as if we were fifty people. “Take a number . . . stand right there ’til that chair is empty . . . now, take the yellow chair after that . . . now, read this chart.”

We have a nice conversation, she does her duty, and I’m out of there in minutes, feeling smug but sorry about the long gray lines in Birmingham.

The round-trip voyage to Sumiton gives me time to plan my next civic action. My campaign to have Birmingham annexed is all in my head, but with a little help from you, it could become reality.

Hard Times

2011-12-17T11:19:00.000-08:00

by Glennwood Urbz

On a recent trip to New York City, I decided to take a walk and catch the soul of Harlem. I stumbled upon Marcus Garvey Park, where kids were playing in the water fountains and several games of intense chess were in session. There was a card game with money on the table and a young man selling freeze cups; I bought two. This was Harlem at its finest—electric and caught up in the energy of the moment. I flipped my camera out in true tourist form and begin snapping away. I was about to take a picture of several elderly black men sitting on a park bench until one of the men noticed me and alarmed the others. They pointed fingers in protest of my invasion of their privacy! So I asked “My brother what’s the problem?” He informed me in his Caribbean dialect that he and his friends were hustling up money for something to eat and fell short of the goal. The older one said it was hard times in Harlem and that I should go downtown and take a picture with the Happy People. Where’s my bailout?

The men in the park reminded me of a friend who told me he was tired of taking handouts. He had served several years in Alabama Corrections and was doing the best he could to avoid trouble. In his attempt to gain employment he put in a number of applications to no avail; nobody’s rushing to hire felons. I felt his pressure building and saw the tears in his eyes when he said his daughter called and asked, “What kind of father is that?” My friend said he was going to go and see the judge that sent him to prison and ask where felons can find work. He said it was hard out here for him and the monkey on his back was now a full-grown gorilla. He once told me that, believe it or not, he was doing better in prison than on the streets. They say, “It’s billions to be made behind bars!” I haven’t heard from my friend in several weeks. Last I heard he had some time on his hands. It’s hard times in Birmingham just as it is in Harlem.

They say the message is in the music so I asked Hip Hop what has happened to our song? Why are we leading these kids on in these Rap Video Universities? Our ancestors once sang songs that lifted our spirits beyond our conditions. Today the lyrics are intensifying the celebration of guns, sex, money, and violence, promoting foolishness and mental genocide, furthermore handicapping our conditions with a crab in the bucket attitude. Sometimes I wonder why rappers glorify bling and drug sales. They sell the youth dreams when in reality, the only thing waiting is a jail cell. So the seven year-old has his pants sagging because he sees Lil’ Wayne do it and thinks it’s cool. We as black men need to reevaluate or do a better job of raising our sons instead of watching them raise their guns.

Or we find ourselves in a compromising position with a gun to the rib cage and the youth saying it’s hard times. Give it up!

So you must ask yourself what kind of human being are you if you see wrong and don’t say nothing or turn the head? The same problem you choose not to correct will be sitting in your lap in the near future. What happened to the village that raises our children? At what point in time did we stop caring? My uncle sent a letter yesterday saying that the prisons are full of men 18 to 24 years old with lengthy sentences. It’s no wonder they are tearing down schools and building prisons. Economically depressed communities with drug addictions breed violence. So on 16th street in Birmingham, where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once marched, an addict is crying for help. She says, “It’s hard times in Alabama.”

False Flag

2011-12-17T11:08:00.000-08:00

By Stephen Smith

On October 11, FBI director Robert Mueller called a press conference to announce that a sinister plot by Iran to assassinate Saudi ambassador Abel al-Jubeir with the help of a Mexican drug cartel had been foiled. The whole thing was described as a James Bond-type operation that Mueller said “reads like the pages of a Hollywood script.” The assassination was to take place in Washington D.C. and involve the bombing of both the Saudi and Israeli embassies. It was big news for about 24 hours and then disappeared from the American press in favor of more important things like Kim Kardashian’s divorce. The rest of the world continued to report on the story with an air of skepticism and Iran called the whole thing “laughable.”

We Americans have to have a boogieman. And that boogieman has to be totally irrational and pure evil. There is nothing too far fetched that you can say about the boogieman that the American public won’t buy into. As we continue to downgrade our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan the boogieman is starting to look more and more Iranian. Why would Iran take such a foolish gamble that might very possibly result in military retaliation by a trigger-happy U.S. that loves to watch explosions on television? Why would they be so careless as to deposit large and easily traced sums of money into a dummy bank account set up by an FBI agent posing as a Mexican hit man?

One of the two suspects in the alleged assassination plot is Manssor Arbabsiar, a 56-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen and used car salesman who has lived in Texas for over two decades. Arbabsiar isn’t particularly religious and is known to be a heavy drinker who frequents strip joints. His boss described him to the Voice of America as “a simpleton who failed at even the most menial tasks.” This is not your typical James Bond villain. Arbabsiar was arrested at J.F.K. airport and has pleaded not guilty to the plot, though his “confession” is the primary evidence for Iranian involvement. The other suspect is Gholam Shakuri, who the Department of Justice claims is a member of Iran’s elite Quds Force and Iran claims is a member of an exile group whose aims are to overthrow their current government. U.S. officials maintain that the plot was orchestrated from the upper echelons of the Iranian government.

On November 18, the U.N. General Assembly voted to condemn the alleged assassination plot. The unbinding resolution was introduced by Saudi Arabia and passed with 106 votes in favor, 40 abstentions, and 9 votes against. It didn’t directly accuse Tehran of involvement but rather condemned “terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.”

As the American media seems to have lost interest in what, if true, should be one of the most dramatic foreign policy crises in recent memory, one has to wonder what really happened. Republicans are constantly threatening to bomb Iran. If they were looking for a motive to start yet another war they haven’t pursued it... yet. Possibly the whole thing is just a comedy of errors. Are all terrorists incompetent boobs? Must the American public periodically be entertained with a series of failed plots to justify our wars and suspensions of liberties?

If Iran really tried to pull off this assassination plot their motivation could only have been suicide. Conspiracy theorists point to Israel stirring the pot of antagonism between the U.S. and Iran. Possibly. That makes more sense than some incompetent used car salesman leading a secret life as an international man of mystery. More than likely the whole plot can be placed squarely on the lap of the shape shifting lizard people that secretly control the world. The only real question is “what are they up to this time?”

You Aren't So Beautiful

2011-12-17T10:58:00.000-08:00

by Gaije Kushner

original photo by André Natta

Driving around Birmingham and its endless suburbs does not exactly offer a feast for the eyes most days. The 280 traffic, the ridiculous SUVs, remnant Bush Jr. stickers clinging to their bumpers, the ubiquitous chain stores and restaurants, especially Chick-fil-A, and the Starbucks here, there, and everywhere. Step out of the car, and it’s all unfortunate hair and pleated khaki shorts. On those days coming across one of those, “You Are Beautiful” signs is the visual equivalent of nails on a chalkboard.

It’s nothing to do with their questionable legality, placed as they are on private buildings and public structures, nor with the aesthetics of graffiti. It’s the message itself that troubles, assuring each and every passerby he or she is beautiful. Because most people really aren’t so beautiful. You probably aren’t, neither am I.

Beautiful is a word, with a specific meaning. Applied to people, it refers to someone unusually appealing to the observing eye. It is utterly superficial, and not terribly inclusive, which shouldn’t be a problem for us. Some people are better looking than others. However we might wish that truth away, it isn’t going anywhere, which shouldn’t be a problem for anyone either. No one has trouble acknowledging other physical or mental traits exist along a continuum. Some people are taller, smarter, better runners, more intuitive, more all kinds of things than others. We’re okay with those distinctions, yet we want beauty to exist in a strange, vacuum-packed category of its own. We want to see both the word and the thing itself as infinitely malleable, but neither is.

Efforts to redefine what we mean when we talk about beauty like You Are Beautiful Birmingham have two rather contradictory goals. To expand the definition of physical beauty so everyone gets a turn at it, and to remove the physicality from beauty altogether, redirecting our attention to internal qualities instead. Simultaneously saying, “this thing is not at all important,” and, “this thing is so important no one should be left out of it.” That doesn’t really work, in fact suggests a disconnection from reality and language.

We like to believe in beauty’s subjectivity. We tell ourselves and one another how widely ideals of beauty vary from one person or culture to another. It’s a generous impulse, really, wanting to believe everyone will be seen as beautiful by someone, somewhere. Unfortunately, it doesn’t hold up to the scrutiny of science. For decades now, study after study has found that across culture, race, class, gender, and sexual preference, we find symmetry and certain proportions most attractive in face and figure. Recent research suggests these traits are effective markers of genetic and reproductive health, personality even. However subjective our individual assessments of beauty may feel, however random our standards of beauty may seem, they are based in our biology, one more expression of our shared DNA.

Definitions of beauty consistently specify it as something particularly pleasing to the physical senses. Again, it is a word, bearing a limited meaning, one inapplicable to intangible inner qualities. This doesn’t diminish their importance in the slightest. They are almost unspeakably important, far more so than external appearance. But being imperceptible to the senses, to please them or do otherwise, they cannot rightly be described as beautiful. Why should they be? With so many other, better words with which to discuss interiority, why the insistence on this one? A revalorization of interiority deserves to be taken up on its own terms, not uncomfortably wedged into one that will never quite fit.

We absolutely value and reward physical beauty beyond all reason. It benefits us all to challenge those realities, no matter what we look like. But pretending differences in beauty don’t exist isn’t the way to go about it. Neither is an attempt to force the word itself into a meaning it doesn’t carry. If we describe everyone as beautiful, inside or out, we only succeed in stripping it of meaning altogether, making it that much more difficult to make any sense of one another whatsoever.

Inevitable Romney? Really?

2011-12-01T07:30:00.001-08:00

by Gaije Kushner

For months now, all kinds of people have been insisting on Mitt Romney's inevitability as the Republican party's presidential nominee. Surely you've seen it. It's been all over cable news, editorial pages, coast to coast, and, of course, the internet. But that insistence has not been accompanied by convincing explanations as to its own existence. It's almost as if Mittens' champions believe the force of repetition, fueled by their desire, will turn insistence into reality. Alas, things rarely work out that way. They do offer reasons for their belief, of course they do. It's just that none of them bear much relation to reality.

The favorite seems to be the idea that Romney has the support of the party bigwigs, whoever exactly they may be. As evidence, they say he's getting the vast majority of GOP endorsements, and has connected with the big donors who tend to gravitate toward the institutional favorite. It's true he's won the bulk of party endorsements thus far, about 55%, according to a Huffington Post analysis. But the same analysis confirmed earlier findings that the rate of those endorsements in this election cycle has lagged far behind that of the last five contested Republican presidential primaries. So, yes, those party bigwigs who have committed themselves thus far have gone for Mittens, but an awful lot of them are still withholding judgment, six weeks from the Iowa caucuses.

As far as the big money donors supposedly swarming Romney, they haven't materialized as his supporters would like to believe. His overall fundraising total, $32 million through the third quarter of this year, is dwarfed by President Obama's $88 million. In the third quarter, silly Ricky Perry's campaign brought in $3 million more than Romney's $14 million. More to the point, 83% of his contributions came in amounts of $259 or less. Not such big money after all.

Then there's the idea it's Mittens' turn. According to this theory, Republicans have a self-defeating prediliction for nominating the previous election cycle's loser. For instance, John McCain. The problem with this one, though comes in his ever stagnant poll numbers. Try as he might, Romney cannot seem to get above 25% in national polls. He's been running for president for the last five years, and can't break 25%. If he's going to get the nomination as a kind of consolation prize for 2008, shouldn't someone have told the voters who'll have to give it to him by now?

Romney's debate performances have been universally acclaimed. Surely that should count for something, his supporters opine, shouldn't it? Maybe it should, but it doesn't seem to. So far, Mittens hasn't seen a single post debate bump in his poll numbers. Life is full of disappointment.

Last but by no means least, we have the electability argument. As one of my two Republican friends put it, Mittens "projects an air of competence and a technocrat mien, and he's profoundly unscary, not amenable to being demonized as a raving would-be starver of granny and such." This lines up pretty well with what other supporters have had to say. Basically, as they see it, Mittens has to get the nomination, because the other candidates are just implausible. But I'm afraid this view requires an awfully optimistic view of Republican primary voters. When did competence become a priority of theirs? I just don't see a technocrat mien appealing to the tea partiers, or all those Bush Jr. voters. I disagree wholeheartedly about his not being scary, in a general election context. He has reiterated his devotion to social conservatives' anti-choice, homophobic agenda sufficiently to elicit terror on my part.

More to the point, Romney's Mormonism makes him scary indeed to the evangelicals who comprise about 40% of Republican primary voters. In poll after poll, they consistently say they do not regard the Latter Day Saints as real Christians, and are disinclined to give their votes to a Mormon candidate in the primaries. On the plus side, their hatred of President Obama is such that, should Romney be the nominee, they will support him, despite his membership in such a creepy cult. Even so, I'm not quite understanding how a candidate who continues to lose to the incumbent President, in poll after poll, can be considered so very electable. I guess these things are relative.

According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, one third of likely GOP primary voters do see Romney as the most electable. Not exactly an overwhelming consensus. Worse yet, 70% say it's more important to them to vote for the candidate who most closely represents their beliefs, than for the candidate most likely to win the White House. Not a wise approach, but there it is.

It always comes back to those pesky poll numbers for our Mittens. His just aren't great, not great at all. They suggest a candidate who, far from being an inevitable victor, is something of a long shot. Whatever the reason, voters just don't like him that much. Might be that technocratic mien. Even soulless Republicans need to feel an emotional connection to their candidate. Romney offers them no point of connection whatsoever. He has no personal charisma, no compelling story, really nothing for them to grab onto. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, is a roiling petri dish of emotions. Just saying.

Secret Loans Reveal the Arrogant Aristocracy of U.S. Banks

2011-11-28T09:54:00.001-08:00

by Ian Hoppe

$7.77 trillion.

That number is the (actual) amount loaned out by the Federal Reserve in secret during the 2007 to 2009 financial crisis, from which we are all still reeling. It finally came out in a Freedom of Information act and a lawsuit by Bloomberg LP.

Just to put this number in perspective, since we’ve all become desensitized to the ‘billions’ and ‘trillions’ that are tossed around like pennies these days, $7.77 trillion is more than half of the US GDP in 2010. That means that the Fed loaned out an amount equal to half of everything of value produced in or by the United states in an entire year. Try to maintain that context and consider the following:

As a result of these various bailouts and transactions numbering in the tens of thousands, the “Big 6” banks increased in size (^39% since 2006)*, increased the amount spent on lobbying congress (^33% since 2006)*, and have all but ceased lending to businesses and individuals since. They made money on the deal (an estimated $13 billion net)*, and are sitting on it. Except, of course, that money they are routing to congress and attorneys to keep transparency and regulations at bay.

When we were all worried about TARP funds and congressional bailouts in the mere billions and small trillions of dollars, this egregious lending was going on behind the scenes without our knowledge and without our representatives’ knowledge. How are we or our elected lawmakers supposed to make decisions with incomplete information? This is shameful.

The “Big 6” consist of; Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. Given the depth of failure it seems obvious that these institutions are dangerously inept in their practices and completely incapable of managing risk. These bailouts extended by The Fed, came with no restrictions and even further corrupted the incentive to acquire and balance with safe assets.

The big bank bailouts were bad enough, but with huge amounts of money flowing behind the scenes in an effort to sustain the clearly defective and contaminated monetary syndicates and their position in our staggering little republic, one wonders if a true aristocracy has formed, backed by the full faith and credit of the US government.

Sources:

http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/nicweb/top50form.aspx
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html

Cain/Gingrich

2011-11-17T18:32:00.001-08:00

by Gaije Kushner

I have a dream for the Republican party, which I have had since sometime this summer. It's simple enough, and far more realistic than most. At least, it’s much likelier to come true than my getting Maureen Dowd's job, or my own talk show.

Whatever might this be, you're hopefully wondering by now? Only the possibility, probability maybe even, at this point, that the Republican primary voters who don't want to vote for Rick Perry, because he's crazy, and carries a gun when he heads out for a run, and those who don't want to vote for Mitt Romney, because he's a Mormon Ken doll, and used to be a baby killer, will come together to nominate a true freak show as their presidential candidate, thereby ensuring Obama's second term.

Despite the punditocracy's best efforts to imbue Romney with a sense of inevitability, his support consistently hovers below 30%, running neck and neck with the amount of likely primary voters who say they will never vote for him, for whatever reason. Mittens has been running for president for at least the last five years. Unless he's been saving his best material, if he hasn't sold the voters' on himself by now, it isn't going to happen. It's probably time for him to start sending out some resumes, get himself a real job.

It's almost impossible to think of Rick Perry as a serious contender at this point. His poll numbers have been dropping like flies, ever since the first time he was allowed to speak in public. If only he could somehow contrive to spend the rest of primary season in Texas, silently killing animals or something, for the rest of primary season. But that's probably not a viable option.

For a little while, I thought Herman Cain might just be the man of my dreams. He's so very entertaining, so preposterous a presidential candidate. A conservative talk radio host no one had ever heard of, former CEO of a third-tier pizza chain, who'd never held public office? Seriously? Of course not. Add in the creepy, inappropriate jokes about electrified border fences, and Anita Hill, his apparent inability to understand, or even remember, his own anti-choice position, and of course those allegations about his crotch grabbing management style.

It's the last of those finally eroding Cain's support. I was surprised it took so long, so many accusations for it to happen. But then I remembered, Republicans have no souls, and understood it all. It's really too bad, as a Cain nomination would have guaranteed both an entertaining general campaign, and Obama's reelection. But life is full of disappointments, or so I'm told.

All those Cain supporters are going to have to choose another candidate eventually. You might think they'd give up the fight, and get onboard with Mittens, or resurrect Perry's campaign. But that doesn't seem to be what's happening. Whose numbers are rising as Cain's fall? None other than Newt Gingrich's. Remember him?

It makes some sense, at least as much as anything Republican voters do. He's been so far below the radar thus far, he somehow feels like a fresh faced newcomer to the field, despite his lengthy political career. Simultaneously, that lengthy career makes him a comforting, adult figure, in the midst of all the primary mayhem and madness, to those who fondly remember his tenure as Speaker of the House. Apparently some do.

The lack of attention has also allowed voters to forget Newt's obvious flaws in a general election. The ethical problems, the serial infidelities, his overall smarmy nastiness. There are reasons he's no longer Speaker of the House, or even a member. They should suffice to keep him out of the Oval Office, and he's pretty entertaining himself. So, Cain, Gingrich, either way, I'm good.

Rick Perry's New Hampshire Antics

2011-11-07T19:38:00.000-08:00

by Gaije Kushner

Watching Rick Perry's bizarre performance at the recent Cornerstone banquet, in Manchester, N.H., I found myself profoundly grateful to the governor for having done such a fantastic job of taking himself out of contention for his party's presidential nomination. Well, once I left off laughing, I was.

If you haven't seen the speech yet, it's almost impossible to describe. Perry giggles and bounces on his toes, gesticulating wildly. He loses his place in his speech, has to take long pauses to remember what word or gesture is supposed to come next. At one point, discussing New Hampshire's state motto, he exclaims, "This is such a cool state, c'mon, live free or die? Ya gotta love that!" Sounding more like a frat boy near the end of spring break than an actual adult, let alone a presidential candidate, Perry goes on to say something semicoherent about the Alamo, and slogans, finishing big with, "Live free or die! Victory or death! Bring it!" the first two, of course, reference the state motto again, and then the Alamo. The last calls nothing much to mind, just the second President Bush's infamous mission accomplished challenge to evil doers, only that was, "Bring it on!" so it doesn't quite work. I'm not sure what he was getting at with that one, but then, the governor probably isn't either.

There was another semicoherent rant, something to do with fundraising, in which Perry announced, "Gold is good!" once or twice. I'm not entirely clear as to what he meant, but I have to admit, it would make a great catch phrase for the reality TV show I'm ardently hoping is in his future.

Perry finished big, with more maniacal grinning, shouting, "Today has been awesome!" He could barely contain his joy at being presented with a small jug of maple syrup. Then it was finally over.

The truly mesmerizing thing, though, isn't anything the governor said or did. It's the gleam in his eyeballs. The incoherence coupled with so much energy. An overall demeanor I expect to see in myself at 3 am, after a busy, varied night out. Or in someone else, about halfway to complete insanity. Not in presidential candidates touring New Hampshire.

The temptation to speculate as to what exactly Perry was up to proved too strong for pretty much every cable news personality, or viewer. Not even Fox news could resist. Of course MSNBC's lone conservative host, Joe Scarborough, was all over it.

On his Morning Joe, Scarborough referred to Perry's, "truly bizarre behavior," suggested Perry might have had a few drinks before his speech to loosen up a little. His sidekick, Mika Brzenski, rambled on a bit herself, saying, "It just makes you think, that's all. There's not a law against thinking someone was acting completely loopy and wondering ... if they were maybe ... I'm wondering." If you're too loopy for Mika, something is very, very, wrong.

Later, on Fox's The Five, Greg Gutfield said, "That reminded me when I take an Ambien and have a scotch." In co-host Bob Beckel's opinion, "That looked more like shrooms." Andrea Tantaros thought, "He looked unstable." Former Bush Press Secretary Dana Perino, an old hand at defending the indefensible, thought Perry had just gotten overexcited. She might even believe it. She never did seem all that bright.

One friend of mine similarly suggested the governor might just have been overtired. I am intimately acquainted with the effects of lack of sleep upon a human brain. This wasn't that. Another described him as a, "stoned bumpkin with suppressed dreams of being Jeff Foxworthy." If there's anything more tragic than having suppressed dreams of being Jeff Foxworthy, I can't think what it would be. Others called Perry an unwatchable bitch, a bobblehead, and reminiscent of both George W. Bush, and Mr. Rogers. Gawker thought he seemed awfully gay, thanks to the giggling, and the uncharacteristically lisping overenunciation,
The most specific idea was, "benzodiazepines, some Inderal to stop the shakes, valium, and three fingers of Wild Turkey."

The last is closest to my own best guess. What with all the goofy grinning and eyebrow waggling, the giggling and the bouncing, I'd say there was a combination of uppers and downers going on. Maybe Perry overdid some kind of something or other on his own— benzos, painkillers, or some Wild Turkey—the possibilities are endless. Some overachieving staffer noticed his boss was not quite right, and gave him a handful of his Adderall, or Ritalin, or Dexedrine, hoping they would pull him through the speech. This clearly did not turn out to be the very best of all possible plans.

It wasn't all fun and games in Manchester though. Perry did manage to get across the basics of his plans for tax reform. Taken together, they amount to a declaration of war against the middle and working classes. It wasn't that he said anything new and different, just the timely reminder of who he'll be when he sobers up.

There's the ill considered, implicitly regressive, 20% flat tax. Hurriedly concocted in response to Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan, this will be optional, at least initially. Perry's big argument for this one is its simplicity. Who cares if a tax plan unfairly distributes the tax burden, if you can fill out your return on a postcard in two minutes?

Perry also plans to eradicate the estate tax, saying, "The death tax expires before you will expire." He further vows, "You can wave goodbye to the capital gains tax, and the dividend tax." Considering that the estate tax isn't applied to any estates of less than $5 million, and many of the very, very, rich pay only capital gains and dividend taxes, this will lead to a radical redistribution of wealth towards the top. Fortunately, 1% can't make up an electoral majority. But they do tend to have the best drugs.

More Adventures of Mitt and Rick

2011-10-28T05:54:00.000-07:00

by Gaije Kushner

The social conservatives who currently constitute the Republican base have never loved the prospect of a President Romney. They don't find him trustworthy, they say. His shifting positions on some of their pet issues have them questioning the depth of his commitment. Some even say they wonder if he has any core principles at all, or if he's willing to say anything to get himself elected. Oddly enough, the same group seems untroubled by Rick Perry's recent changes of heart around the very same issues. Maybe it's just my suspicious mind, but I can't help thinking they aren't being entirely forthcoming about the precise nature of their issues with Romney.

It's certainly true Romney's positions on abortion, gay rights, school prayer, health care reform, and taxes, have changed dramatically since his Massachusetts days. Where he once was pro-choice, he now values lives fetal over those full grown and female. Promises to advocate for gay rights have given way to support for the Federal Marriage Amendment. Despite having increased an array of fees and taxes as governor of Massachusetts, he's signed a pledge to neither create nor increase any existing taxes, should he be elected president. The senatorial candidate who supported a federal health insurance mandate, the governor who proposed and signed Massachusetts's universal health coverage law, has become a presidential candidate calling for the repeal of national health care reform, its mandate, promises of something approaching universal coverage, maybe, one day. In 1994, he was an opponent of school prayer. By 2007, he'd somehow become a supporter.

It is indeed a lot of change, all in the more conservative direction one might reasonably expect to appeal to Republican primary voters. Romney's held to his new positions consistently since at least 2007 though, rendering questions about his commitment somewhat suspect. Granted, it's impossible to know what he, or anyone else, believes deep down in his innermost heart of hearts. But why does that matter, in the face of his endlessly avowed conservatism, his clearly stated support for their agenda?

Perry's about faces, on the other hand, are of a much more recent vintage. They began in August, and seem still a work in progress. Shortly after becoming a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, Perry was predictably questioned about some of the more extreme ideas he'd voiced in last fall's manifesto, "Fed Up!" These included declaring social security unconstitutional, along with child labor laws, environmental regulation, and the federal income tax. He went on to call for the repeal of the 16th amendment, which establishes that federal income tax, and the 17th, which provides for the direct election of senators.

How did Perry respond to the questions? Did he take the opportunity to further articulate his thoughts? Explain them, carry them to their logical conclusions? No, not exactly. In a matter of days, his communications director was saying, "Fed Up! Is not meant to reflect the governor's current views," his campaign announcing he did not in fact believe the 16th and 17th amendments should be appealed. His critique of social security no longer centered on constitutional concerns. Instead, he doubted its long term financial viability.

The ideas in his book aren't the only ones Perry's repudiated. As recently as July, his support for the 10th amendment's protection of states' rights was a governing principle. He went so far as to say both abortion and gay marriage were issues to be addressed by individual states, as each saw fit. By August, he was supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment, and pledging to use every means available to him as president to deprive American women of control over our very own bodies.

Perry's changing views are, again, much more recent than any of Romney's. If they aren't politically motivated, they are so plentiful, so sudden, as to be inexplicable. Yet, neither conservative advocates nor mainstream media seems much bothered about them, especially compared to their responses to Romney's. It's impossible not to wonder what the difference could be. Might it have anything to do with Perry's endlessly professed evangelical Christianity, Romney's Mormonism?

About 25% of all Americans consistently say they are less likely to support a Mormon presidential candidate, as do 15% of Republicans. When it comes to the white evangelicals amongst them, the number jumps to 30%. In September, a Gallup poll found religious Republicans preferred Perry over Romney by a margin of about 2 to 1. A CBS poll just two weeks ago found 42% of white evangelicals saying most people they know would not vote for a Mormon.

In 2009, in the wake of Romney's failed first go at the Presidency, then RNC chair Michael Steele opined, "it was the base that rejected Mitt because it has issues with Mormonism." If Mormonism promoted political positions or values in opposition to the white evangelical Republican base, this antipathy might not be so disturbing. As it doesn't, it seems nothing but a religious test, based on the belief Mormons are somehow not real Christians. Is there any reason to think they'd feel any different about a Jewish or Muslim candidate? A Buddhist, or maybe a Hindu? I'd love a way to see all this as anything but religious bigotry and hate, but it continues to escape me.

Occupying Eric Cantor

2011-10-23T09:00:00.000-07:00

by Gaije Kushner

Until now, the erstwhile occupiers of Wall Street, and wherever else, have been little but an annoyance to me. Almost everything they've said, or done, or Facebooked, has irritated me beyond description. But last Friday, shockingly enough, some of them, the Philadelphia branch, to be precise, did something fabulous. They shut down, shut up, Eric Cantor, which can only ever be a good thing.

Cantor is, of course, the House majority leader, tea party suck up, and D.C.'s foremost douchebag du jour. He is also a power hungry media whore, and a bad, bad, man. Yesterday he was scheduled to give a speech at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton business school. He'd no doubt anticipated a cozy gathering of one percenters, baring their tiny souls, and sharing tax evasion tips. But that, alas, was not to be.

No tickets had been sold, or reservations taken. Nothing to ensure the friendly audience Cantor had expected. Instead, admission was on a first come, first serve basis, for the first three hundred in line. If that kind of free for all wasn't bad enough, imagine Cantor's dismay upon hearing all three hundred were likely to be protesters associated with Occupy Philadelphia.

Maybe he saw no point in wasting his words of wisdom on people who would never donate to any campaign of his. Maybe he wanted to keep his illuminati plans to help the 1% complete the enslavement of the other 99 a secret from the rabble. Maybe he was scared the mob would teeter over the brink of violence, and burn his castle to the ground. Whatever the reasons, Cantor cancelled his speech, making the world a better place, as long as he stayed silent, and disappointing the 500 protestors who'd gathered to greet him.

Happily enough, the university's student newspaper, The Daily Pennsylvanian, obtained a copy of the speech Cantor had planned to give. It's hard for me to imagine it wasn't handed to them by some GOP staffer, who just didn't understand it was full of the kinds of things nice people just don't talk about in public.

Surprisingly, Cantor did acknowledge the existence of income and opportunity inequality. Even feigning empathy for a moment:

We know that we all don’t begin life’s race from the same starting point. [...] The fact is many in America are coping with broken families, dealing with hunger and homelessness, confronted daily by violent crime, or burdened by rampant drug use. Recently I was asked, “What does your party say to that 9-year-old, inner city kid scared to death, growing up in a life of poverty? What can you do for that little girl? That child needs a hand up to help climb the ladder.

He almost sounds human here, doesn't he? Recognizing other people exist, and might even be deserving of a little help sometimes?

As second in command of the House majority, Cantor is one of the few lucky people in a position to actually offer real help. What might he propose? Subsidized after school activities? A private/public partnership to get poor kids into internships and summer jobs they might not otherwise have access to? Reimagining subsidized housing, or community policing? No, of course not. Don't forget, that empathy was only make believe. Instead, he offers something he calls, "The Steve Jobs Plan."

I believe that the most successful among us are positioned to use their talents to help grow our economy and give everyone a hand up the ladder and the dignity of a job. We should encourage them to extend their creativity and generosity to helping build the community infrastructure that provides a hand up and a fair shot to those less fortunate, like that little 9-year-old girl in the inner city.

So, the plan seems to be asking the billionaires amongst us to do nice things for poor people. Which I'm just not seeing turning out terribly well for the poor.

Surprisingly enough, Cantor's non-plan somewhat echoes what some of the occupiers have been saying about shifting the culture's moral compass, rendering greed and the will to power socially unacceptable. I didn't think much of the idea coming from them either. Maybe seeing their thoughts reflected in such an unflattering mirror will bring about an occupational epiphany, a new understanding of the impossibility and irrelevance of shifting a nonexistent moral consensus. Then this might not be a one time thing. They might start to annoy me significantly less, on a daily basis. They might even start thinking about accomplishing something real. That would be delightful.

Remember the Good Times

2011-10-20T14:02:00.000-07:00

by Gaije Kushner

Muamar Gadhafi is dead, NPR tells me. Having just had a look at the corpse video, I expect they're right. They usually are. I understand he was a terrible, horrible, dictator. I do. The Libyan people are celebrating in the streets, and rightly so. Prisoners are hoping to be released, their death sentences overturned. I hope they, and all of Gadhafi's surviving victims, find peace and justice. It's certainly long overdue. Despite all that, I find myself wondering if I'm the only one who's going to miss him, just a little? Probably so, yeah.

I realize this probably makes me a bad person, but so many things already do, I can't start being bothered by that now. It's nothing to do with his policies. I find them all appalling; of course I do. It's just that over the years, he has proven such an excellent source of entertaining crazy. I can't imagine who could ever take his place.

Gadhafi's antics first came to my attention a decade or two ago, when I discovered his Amazonian Guard. Beautiful women, all decked out in make-up and heels, fully armed. They looked like they'd been plucked straight off the set of a Robert Palmer video, to surround and protect him, at all times. They travelled with him, took vows of chastity for him, got into scuffles with other security contingents on his behalf, some may have even died for him. He saw them as symbols of modern Libyan women, powerful, glamorous, and virginal.

Then came the nurses, the pretty Ukranian nurses. They lived in luxury apartments, had their own drivers, frequent lavish shopping trips, and called their employer Papa. They also monitored his blood pressure, insisted on frequent exercise, and travelled with him. When he visited less developed nations, they insisted he wear gloves at all times, to protect against exotic diseases they saw lurking on every surface. One nurse in particular, Halyna Kolotnytskya, was reported to have a special connection with her employer, constantly at his side. On her flight back to the Ukraine in February, she drank more than might have been wise, telling her fellow passengers, "Papa is good and Papa is eternal. Quadaafi will be victorious, and in one and a half to two months I will return there." She clearly lacks the gift of prophecy.

In recent years, apparently thinking his work on behalf of Libyan and Ukrainian women was done, Gadhafi turned his attention to the plight of western European women. During a 2007 trip to Paris, accompanied by 30 of his Amazonians, camels, and probably a nurse or two, requested a meeting with 1000 French women. The women were instructed to stand when he entered the room, and not to upset His Excellency.

He began by telling them all he'd done for Libyan women, reforming divorce laws, employing them as bodyguards, and such. But he wasn't there to talk about himself, or his country. Oh, no. He wanted to express his wish to "save European women" from their "tragic conditions" under which they were "sometimes forced to do work they do not want to do." Tragic indeed.

Paris was just his trial run. In 2009, Gadhafi paid his friend Silvio Berlusconi a visit. In Rome, he had a hostess agency, whatever that is exactly, round up 200 women. They had to be at least 5ft. 7, attractive, and couldn't dress too revealingly. The women were bussed in to the Libyan ambassador's residence. There, they were treated to Gadhafi's thoughts, not on their tragic plight this time, but Islam. His efforts to convert them included the assertion Jesus had not been crucified. Instead, "God in heaven took him. They crucified someone who looked like him."

After two hours of such pearls, the women left. Some offended by their host's portrayal of Christianity, all complaining they hadn't been offered any refreshments, and at least one, by the name of Rea Balko, sold. "He convinced me," she said. "I shall be converting to Islam." Her family must be very proud.

Last fall, Gadhafi took things to the next level, bringing 20 of those same Italian women to Libya. For two weeks, they stayed in 5 star hotels and resorts, rode camels, drank warm camel milk, and enjoyed the Colonel's company. Clio Evans, one of the lucky ladies, describes a cozy time, "We sat in a tent and joked and laughed for ages." Can't you just see it? Gadhafi and 20 Italian women, bonding in a real way in that tent? Doing each other's hair, and having pillow fights, no doubt. But was he really fully present for the slumber party? Or was his mind elsewhere, filled perhaps with thoughts of his beloved Condoleeza Rice?

Gadhafi made no secret of his feelings for Condoleeza. In a 2007 interview he declared, "I support my darling black African woman. I admire and am very proud of the way she leans back and gives orders to the Arab leaders . . . Leeza, Leeza, Leeza . . . I love her very much. I admire her, and I'm proud of her, because she's a black woman of African origin." When Rice visited Libya the next year, he continued addressing her with his private pet name for her, Leeza, and showered her with $212,000 worth of sparkly gifts. But none of us could have prepared us for the discovery, deep within his lair, of a photo album, filled cover to cover with Condi. It's not quite a stalker style altar, but really, close enough.

I could go on and on. The endlessly changing spelling of his name, the tent he wasn't permitted to pitch in Central Park, inspiring Ronald Reagan to utter the comic book words, "Madman of the middle east."

Who could possibly take his place? Hugo Chavez is too ill. Kim Jong Il doesn't leave the house enough. Vladimir Putin's too busy wrestling bears underwater, and coming up with ever more creative methods of assassination. Maybe a Kardashian will prove equal to the task, or one of Bravo's Real Housewives? I see some potential there.

Pink Fatigue

2011-10-19T05:29:00.000-07:00

by Gendanken

Pink is the color of breast cancer awareness. It’s also the color of rash, that pigment of excess from grating a nerve too long. This year’s rub is the pustular “Pink Snuggie” that’s promised to donate $50,000 to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. I’m being asked to believe that the creeps who will sell you a robe you wear backwards at 4 times the price, the same rogues behind “HeadOn” and the ComfortWipe (an overpriced stick used to distance the hand from the atrocious act of wiping one’s bunghole), can simultaneously wish to help a demographic they’d squeeze dry for a profit. This October, I’m being asked to be the idiot that would actually buy their blankies in honor of Breast-Cancer-Awareness.

Marie Claire has an article this month by a certain Lea Goldman, who asked a charity executive how much money his organization actually donates and what does he mean by saying he donates “company capacity” if not actual “money?” What he actually means is “manpower,” which amounts to handing out flyers, not money. That’s a long string of male pronouns, don’t you think, for a cause so inherently female? That’s because the majority of breast cancer “non-profit” founders not only make 6-figure salaries, but they’re also quite male: the founder of Coalition Against Breast Cancer, sued last June by the NY Attorney General? Andrew James. His “treasurer?” A housepainter with a criminal record, and the owner of their telemarketing firm, Garret Morgan. The Arizona-based Breast Cancer Society is the nonpareil of James T. Reynolds II, with the title of “II” dangling on the end of his name like a booger in salute to his father, who owned Cancer Fund of America before being pummeled by the BBB for donating less than a penny for every dollar raised. Remember that—less than a penny; that’s not even currency.

Sometimes founders are actually women who’ve survived The-Cancer-That-Maims, but when they are, like Janelle Hail who founded the National Breast Cancer Foundation, they quickly roost and create a network of rank despotism to churn out huge salaries for sons and husbands as well. All enjoy annual raises and personal loans, nary one of them making under $150,000 yearly. Turns out anyone can file a tax-exempt 501(c) and many, who are well-meaning survivors not educated enough to thrust their good will beyond breast intentions, eventually get swallowed by people like Reynolds who feed on pink glut.

What’s astonishing is discovering what they mean by “research-and-education,” deducted as an expense on their financial reports, required to be made public. Suppose they hire telemarketers charging 50 cents for every dollar they make from donations. If the charity writes something like “Don’t forget to douche!” at the bottom of the bill they send you, why, that’s considered education! No lumpy silicone to grope and no booklets with scary words like “ductal carcinoma” and “health care;” the invoice they send is your path to vaginal enlightenment thanks to the fine print and the narcissistic warmth of knowing you gave to a Good Cause. Telemarketers being incredibly expensive, with the added costs of pink, pointless, cheap garbage, we can safely imagine how much money actually goes to people with cancer.

More women are affected by breast cancer awareness than any other disease and why? Because of a lesson girls learn every time mothers crowd conversational space to proudly talk about pregnancies in glorious detail: like Gloria Steinem and Madonna, women are obsessed with their ‘parts’ and whatever comes leaking out of their girly poots. Surf the web—feminist literature is beset with cant on Reproductive Rights and Abortion unlike the earlier suffragist who actually cared about traits above the poot: intelligence, character development, money, and voting. That was boring, so they made the movement sexy, catering to that stubborn need to talk about clots and children. Heart disease is the number one killer of women, but breast cancer is voluptuous whereas a brown ribbon for colon cancer is not.

In India, the Pink Chaddis Campaign (“chaddis” means “underwear”) recently had women throwing their panties at the ‘patriarchy’ in response to right-wing conservatism. Sound familiar? Like their sisters, they too think throwing their delicate “parts” at a problem will solve it.

The Fountain of Youth

2011-10-13T06:45:00.001-07:00

by Lee Waites

It does not matter what kind of alcohol you choose. Inside of that bottle is magic, a veritable Fountain of Youth .

From your first sip you start to feel a little younger. As you drink your first beverage you feel youthful, full of energy, like a 16 year old. You can do anything, talk to girls, shoot a great game of pool.

Your second and third drink you are still fine, coasting along in youthful bliss. Everything is wonderful, you spend your money freely as if there is no tomorrow.

By the time you reach your fourth drink you're getting quite young. With the mentality of, let's say a 13 year old, you stumble through your words not knowing quite what to say. You begin to get a little socially awkward not walking smoothly, stumbling slightly, bumping into things, awkward. If only you were self aware enough to know.

A few more drinks, you're a toddler. You don't walk well at all, don't speak well at all, don't have any idea where you're going, what you're doing. You bump into people, trip over things, grope at unknown ladies. Unfortunately it is nowhere near as cute in this situation as it was when you were actually 2 or 3 years old.

The smiles that you once received have been replaced by jeering and sneering. They just don't understand.

If only others could simply realize your state of mind. If only they could appreciate what you have achieved. Reaching the pinnacle of your journey you slobber, drool, spit up and attempt to nurse at the closest source.

The Fountain of Youth. I'll drink to that.

The G-Babes Return Home

2011-10-13T05:22:00.001-07:00

by Glenn A. Griggs II

Today my mom informed me that Kobe and Kori would be returning home to their biological family. Three years have passed before I could bat an eye good. The sperm donor of the boys couldn’t be found in a game of hide and seek, which is way too common within the Black community. Their mother was drifting in the streets of Birmingham, searching for that feeling. Rather than see the boys be bounced from home to home and school to school, my mom and dad enrolled into foster care parenting classes and received their certification. They took the boys in.

Naturally, the boys cried when they were removed from their familiar surroundings into a safer and more stable environment. At the ages of two and four, you couldn’t separate them. They bickered amongst themselves yet came to the conclusion that I was an easy target to get sweet treats. What a beautiful bond! They wouldn’t let “G Momma” out of their sight. And I can still hear my Pops telling the little G Babies to stick together through thick and thin because if they didn’t have each other, what did they have?

Kobe and Kori brought life back to our family and street. They raced their dirt bikes up Nassau Avenue like Nascar. Later a game of Church would break out as one little girl played the preacher, Bible in hand. Kobe and Kori shouted as they imitated the adults they just saw on Sunday. “Hallelujah!” One lil' one screamed, “Amen!”

My parents gave the boys exposure to different cultures and cities, including Orlando, Dallas, and New York. Speaking of New York; I can recall my brother Malcolm having a party and some of his female friends were in attendance. Kobi and Kori couldn’t go to sleep that night. Too much was going on and the pretty girl wouldn’t let their eyes rest. They entertain the ladies as only lil' boys could, by showing off toys. Kori even changed and got into his favorite Spiderman pajamas. For sure, these PJs will work their magic, he must have thought, to give him the super powers to charm his date. The four year-old said with great confidence to the 21 year-old female, “How bout we go to New York, eat at PF Chang and see the Statue of Liberty.” Who could say no to that? Playboy Hugh Hefner better watch out for this young one!

I would like to commend my parents for stepping up to the plate and giving these boys a solid foundation, guidance, and love, and also for expressing the importance of character. They easily could’ve said nope we don’t have the time; there are not enough hours in the day. Besides, our work is done; we have raised four kids and all have graduated college. But that would be selfish, and G Daddy always taught Kobi and Kori to share. My Pops would call giving me reports on Kobi’s reading ability. The excitement in his voice was one of a proud father.

We didn’t expect the G Babies to stay with us forever, but at times it seemed as if they would. Their chitter chatter will be greatly missed. Almost 7,000 kids in Alabama are in foster care. Give a kid a chance; it might change your life.

Good Deeds Punished: The Sequel

2011-10-11T05:10:00.000-07:00

by Jim Reed

In my previous column, City employees L.G. and G.L. were busily coming up with suggestions to present to their bosses—ideas on how to improve revenue. This is a transcript of their second meeting. – JR

L.G. and G.L. are meeting in the musty conference room for a follow-up on their “Make More Money for Birmingham” project. G.L. is still on the payroll, because L.G. has not yet found a way to isolate this employee, who just a week ago was asking too many questions.

L.G. slurps some coffee and ponders the scrawls on the legal pad next to the cup. “Well, what’s the progress on pleasing the Big Bosses?” L.G. inquires, without looking G.L. in the eye.

“Good news!” says G.L. “Revenue is up because of the penalties we’re enforcing on shoppers, tourists, visitors, loft dwellers, merchants, professionals and the like.”

L.G. wrinkles a brow. “What penalties does that cover?”

G.L. consults note cards. “There’s the fine we imposed on people who park on the street and stay more than two hours.”

“You mean the SHOPPING PENALTY?” L.G. is a very specific person.

“Yeah. We chased away a lot of rule-breakers this month,” chuckles G.L. “Like parkers who didn’t know you can’t feed a meter all day and stay in the same spot. We don’t post the rules, so we get to give out more tickets that way. They don’t know they’re breaking any rules, so we rake in even more dough. They’ll never come back downtown again!”

L.G. likes the sound of this. “What else are we doing to the rule-breakers?”

“You know those Loading Zones, where everybody thinks that you can stop for ten minutes and load or unload a car?” G.L. becomes more animated. “We made sure we don’t post any rules, so lots of people are getting big fines for parking there. They don’t know it’s wrong so they are sure to get tickets!”

L.G. doesn’t like G.L., but it looks as if some progress has been made. “What else can we do to increase revenue without spending any money on public relations or promotion?” L.G. asks.

G. L. is stumped. This is as far as the thinking has gone so far.

L.G. is patronizing. “Have you thought about beefing up the patrols? You know, for 40 years, meter maids have stopped giving tickets for on-street parking after 4:30pm. Why don’t we change their hours and have them give tickets up till 6pm, at least?”

G.L. likes this. “Yeah—and why not give tickets all night and on weekends?”

L.G. doesn’t want to work more than the four-day week on the books, so this doesn’t seem like a good idea right now. “Let’s think about that one for a while.”

G.L. is disappointed but wants to get in good with L.G., so he makes one more effort. “Why don’t we increase the $15 parking fine—uh, shopping penalty—to $50 and really teach those overtime shoppers a lesson?”

L.G. likes the punitive feel of this suggestion but needs to think about whether the Big Bosses would consider this to be a bit much right now, politically speaking.

G.L. is trying to be helpful, so he makes one more stab. “By the way, I did some research on what other cities are doing about on-street parking.” L.G. awakens, hoping there’s some more good news. “There are no parking meters in just about every downtown area I can find. There is slanted parking in lots of places, which means people can park quickly and efficiently. There are some places where police officers actually feed the meters of overtime out-of-towners and leave a note welcoming them to the town and hoping they’ll come back to shop.” G.L. has a long list. “And in these towns, Loading Zones are really Loading Zones, and no-one gets a ticket.”

L.G. says, “Yes, but if we went to those systems, we’d lose penalty revenue.”

G.L. says, “But my research shows that a lot of these places are booming with new retail, new loft dwellers, new professionals, more tourists and the like, thus bringing in more tax revenue.”

L.G. has never thought about tax revenue being a greater boon than penalty revenue. Some pondering must be done, and in the meantime, G.L. must be calmed down and encouraged to share these radical ideas with no-one. “Well, I don’t know whether the Big Bosses want more tax revenue. They seem to be happy with doing little and penalizing more,” L.G. says.

“Have you run this by them?” asks G.L.

L.G. Frowns and looks down. What an idiot! he thinks. I’m not going to be the one to run this by the big bosses. They’ll probably think I’m crazy, trying to shake things up by doing more public relations and less penalizing. L.G. finally gains some composure. “Well, let’s keep this under our hats for now. As long as we don’t change what we’re doing, we stay out of trouble. We’ll just keep on handing out tickets, and wait for an opportunity to bring up these new ideas—at the right time.”

G.L. is discouraged, because of the long list of things not brought up. maybe at the next meeting, he thinks.

To be continued.

Tweeting Wolf

2011-10-10T06:14:00.000-07:00

by Gendanken

Here's a little story, written while tropical storm Lee promised to rejuvenate the drying carcasses of local television careers with the promise of another April 27—that “unprecedented development” that keeps developing unprecedentedly. It ends with how the meanest hick can grow up to wear bowties on television and how people named “Cleetus” employ him. It begins with Iowa peasants gaping at their televisions.

Midwesterners in the late '60s were enraptured by a recent technological wonder known as the Weller Method. You had to warm the television up to channel 13, darken the screen with the knob, then turn to channel 2 for a dazzling feat of human ingenuity: the screen would suddenly glow white, and there, in the mouth of an electromagnetic god in Cletus’ own kitchen where granny skinned marsupials on Sundays, a man could predict tornadoes by assuming one was within 20 miles of yonder. It was believed that channel 2, at 55 megacycles, was sensitive enough to detect lightning in tornadoes; this obviously made it Truth and was therefore superior to granny’s superstitious wallop of feeling “shooting corns, coming storms” in her bloated varices.

Weller’s method had circuitry. You could be modern using words like “frequency” and “megacycles” when referring to your share of That Scientific Method because your little piece of Industrial Progress had an antenna, F connectors, and aerial plugs with electrons zooming through a cathode tube.

Never mind that tornadoes don’t always yield lightning or that some televisions actually had filters weeding out signals. Never mind that granny could easily thwart the growing hysteria with a knuckle—no, the entire Cletus household had to run like chickens because the television said so.

This is why half a century later, with the Facebooks and the Twitters and all the little Birmingham articles praising the “most advanced communications web” in the world, you still found yourself caught in a storm because you thought it was “only raining” until that piece of insulation splattered on your windshield.

This is what happened to a lot of us on April 27, 2011.

We’re like Cletus drunk on Technology and the Cult of Personality— a dangerous hybrid ripe for doing stupid things because we believe people on television are actual people, and now that loveable but stupid weatherman has cried wolf on storms so long that a tornado has snuck up on your lawn.

Why? Because we love that fuzzy-wuzzy Mickey Ferguson, he who makes weather cute and user-friendly with his bowtie. We loved watching James Spann shrieking out tornado warnings—never mind that millions had no power. We loved the science of it all, with him on his MacBook juggling video from Skywatchers while, like a good housewife, simultaneously tending a million Tweets. But when Skycam zoomed in on the giant funnel eating Tuscaloosa, the light caught on spittle foaming on Spann’s lip. Cletus could never appreciate what this man actually said at that moment when the blackened wind loomed darkest on the screen: that this was a “once-in-a-career” phenomenon.

It was a moment plucked from Dickens, glossed with a mucus of subterfuge and clammy hands wringing in anticipation. While homes were being destroyed, this weatherman was frothing over its significance to his career. He’s like the yenta delighting in the transport of a little piece of gossip.

Christopher Lasch, an American historian, wrote of the “public men” that our society markets like cereal and deodorant: “Public men fret about their ability to rise to crisis, to project an image of decisiveness, to give a convincing performance of executive power . . . Public relations and propaganda have exalted the image and the pseudoevent”- Changing Modes and Making It

The token symbols for that pseudoevent are Crayola-coded “terror alerts” and sleeves rolled up to the elbows, like all the weatherboys wear after pulling 5 hours on a cut-in, and people like that need people like Cletus to keep them in sleeves.

If Cletus were alive today you’d find his little cowlick in the crowd of thousands stalking Ferguson on Twitter.

So keep in mind that these ‘scientists’ are performers, under-educated peons who in Spanish broadcasts actually report the weather in stilettos bracing a swollen décolletage of eye candy (in Russia it’s an actual striptease), actors pantomiming the ancient noise of commerce, malcontents unworthy of the hosannas scribbled out for them in local papers.

Man prides himself in not being the earth’s cuckold, delighting in his secular ability for words like ‘networking’, ‘megabyte’, and ‘tweet’; he will mutate the last quark in the universe if it meant putting that much distance between himself and a savage divining gods in excrement and that much moral height above granny’s corns, yet he’s still the peddler he’s always been selling beads in Rome.

Is it any wonder, then, that another one of American’s sweethearts, Mr. Lewis Black, states the definition of ‘meteorologist” in the English language means “liar”?

Tightening the Beltway

2011-10-07T11:54:00.000-07:00

“Highway projects generally contribute to economic development but do not automatically generate or guarantee such growth.” This statement is taken directly from the economic impact study commissioned by the pro-Northern Beltline Coalition for Regional Transportation (CRT). It is an ironic place to find an affirmation for our fight against this $4.7 billion highway project.

At a time when many cities are spending money to retrofit inefficient, sprawling settlement patterns, the Northern Beltline will create more of the same, all in the name of supposed “economic development.” Worse yet, neither the Alabama Department of Transportation nor the CRT has performed necessary studies to ensure that this massive investment is a good one. They have never examined alternatives that could potentially deliver greater growth and more jobs, with fewer negatives and for less cost. Why?

Perhaps it is because we live in a 1950s time warp where highway projects are still considered wise investments and where what is good for big business is good for us all. Prominent and influential members of the Birmingham Business Alliance (BBA) who stand to directly benefit—large landowners, utilities, developers, builders and others—have pushed for the Beltline for years. They even admit that it is their number one legislative priority.

Atlanta tabled a similar economic development project called the Northern Arc. Detractors argued that the project would promote unsustainable development and congestion, further perpetuating the urban sprawl and traffic that are Atlanta’s hallmark. They pushed instead for more compact, mixed use and transit-oriented development as well as for the adoption of “smart growth” strategies. And who were these quixotic environmentalists? A coalition of Atlanta-based corporate, utility and real estate interests.

Meanwhile, here in Birmingham, our corporate elites pursue a more archaic course. Stung by the effectiveness of initial grassroots opposition, they ponied up money to start the CRT, whose only job is to shill for the Beltline. And they commissioned a very limited economic impact study which focused narrowly on questions that would support their pro-Beltline bias instead of asking fair questions about the project’s long term pros and cons.

We too, want jobs and a prosperous, thriving Birmingham. But we also believe in good stewardship, not just of the environment but also of possible investments in the region. The Beltline is bad on both counts.

Eva Dillard
Staff Attorney
Black Warrior Riverkeeper

Two Major Losses

2011-10-06T08:36:00.001-07:00

by M. David Hornbuckle

Yesterday, we lost two major figures of recent American history, Steve Jobs and Fred Shuttlesworth.

The news spread quickly, in Birmingham at least, about Shuttlesworth. For several hours, my Facebook feed was chock full of remembrances and eulogies. They were discussing it on NPR all afternoon too.

Shuttlesworth was a true American hero. Kyle Whitmire said on the radio, and I agree with him, that from a global perspective, the Civil Rights movement is probably the most important thing to come out of the United States ever. It happened in the United States, largely, because of events in Birmingham. It happened in Birmingham because of Fred Shuttlesworth.

Sometime in the evening, Steve Jobs passed. The news eclipsed the news about Shuttlesworth, naturally. In recent years, Jobs has certainly been in the news a lot more. Most people have heard of Steve Jobs even if they haven't heard of Fred Shuttlesworth. There's no denying that Jobs was probably the Thomas Edison of our time. His impact on the technology industry has been no less than revolutionary. He changed the way we live.

Still, there is something about the coincidence of these two losses happening so close together that bothers me greatly. I don't want to try to equate the two. I never met Fred Shuttlesworth, and I'm not what you'd call an "Apple fanboy." So neither of these losses are especially personal to me, but I feel the impact of both deeply. I think the thing is this: I'm a little bit in denial about Steve Jobs until I've had some more time to absorb the first loss. If Steve Jobs was the Thomas Edison of our time, it's not too much of a stretch to say that Reverend Shuttlesworth was something like the Moses.

I suppose I just feel compelled to remind everybody, just not forget that we lost more than one revolutionary this week.

Local Limbaugh Clones

2011-10-05T11:18:00.000-07:00

by Stephen Smith

When Rush Limbaugh first became nationally syndicated in 1988, he started a phenomenon that would spearhead an entire industry and revitalize AM radio. Limbaugh’s formula proved to be so successful that few of his imitations dare veer far from his established formula. Right-wing talk radio is successful simply because righteous indignation is fun to listen to. The average person might not have cared much when Walmart began offering a Spanish language option for its credit and debit systems, but listeners to AM radio were treated to passionate tirades predicting the downfall of western civilization. The minutia of some obscure tax bill might be boring but diatribes about class-warfare and creeping socialism make for good radio.

Locally the best stations for right-wing propaganda are Crawford Broadcasting’s 101.1 The Source and Cumulus Media’s 100 WAPI. As no one listens to music on the radio anymore, the behemoth Limbaugh started has moved to the FM frequency. Though most major cities now have progressive radio options too, that is not the case in Birmingham. For years one of the most enjoyable local right-wing radio personalities was Hank Erwin. Before being elected to the State Senate in 2002 Erwin could always be counted on for a laugh when you were stuck in rush hour traffic. Who doesn’t enjoy a lisping representative of an ex-gay ministry bragging about his wonderful relationship with his ex-gay wife? No one has risen to replace Hank in bringing the metro area tragic tales of pornography addicts or warning us about the satanic underpinnings of Karate and Tae Kwon Do.

Russ and Dee Fine did a good job of feigning outrage until 2006 when they were unceremoniously fired from The Source in the middle of a show without prior warning. Russ insisted it was a plot by the fraternal order of Freemasons and then Governor Bob Riley, who schemed covertly to get the Fines off the air before President Bush visited the area. It couldn’t have possibly had anything to do with the fact that their rhetoric had gotten to a point they were claiming Hispanic people don’t wash their hands after they go to the bathroom. The Birmingham Free Press had a long feud with the Fines after Dee defended an Auburn University frat boy who was photographed at a Halloween party in a Ku Klux Klan costume pretending to hang another boy in blackface. Dee actually said on the air that—you might want to sit down for this—“kids dress up as witches on Halloween. You don't see the witches out protesting.”

Most of the current on-air personalities at The Source are nationally syndicated Limbaugh clones. The closer you get to home, the more they talk about Jesus. Michael Hart is on weekday mornings from 6 to 10. He is an autodidact who educated himself by reading Atlas Shrugged and the Bible supposedly in order to get a really unique perspective that would make him stand out from other right-wing pundits.

The Source airs Lee Davis from 11 to 1 weekdays. Lee also loves the Lord and Ayn Rand. He is at his best when he talks sports or regales his listeners with stories about war or history. Forced into the role of a Limbaugh clone by market demands, Lee missed his calling as an audio book narrator or fiction writer. Seriously, when this guy weaves a tale of woe or heroism it can bring a tear to your eye. Even if it’s about how FDR ruined the country with social engineering or Joseph McCarthy was a defender of freedom.

Over at WAPI Matt Murphy hosts the weekday morning slot. Murphy champions all of the right-wing talking points you would expect from a Limbaugh clone. I had a long back and forth with him through email after he did a show on global warming. He repeated all the misinformation of the denier conspiracy theory and we basically got nowhere. It was Rush Limbaugh that started this particular anti-science movement and it can be assumed Murphy’s research is limited to the websites of other talk radio hosts.

The best local Limbaugh clone is Richard Dixon on WAPI in the afternoons from 2 to 6. Richard’s bio states, “at the age of four he was abandoned by his parents at a local mall and raised by security guards.” Though it is his job to parrot all of the standard right-wing talking points, Richard is quick-witted and genuinely funny. The only time I ever called into a talk radio show it was the Richard Dixon show. He was going on about how evolution wasn’t true. Shockingly, the only people willing to call in who accepted the reality of evolutionary theory were me and a biologist from UAB. I was followed by a dozen or so other callers who painted me out to be a gullible fool for believing in evolution. With a listening audience that must have snacked on paint chips as kids the Limbaugh clones feel no need to educate but rather choose to misinform, stir the pot of social division, and promote an anti-intellectual agenda that can’t be good for the country.

Dear Facebook

2011-09-21T07:06:00.000-07:00

by Gaije Kushner

Dear Facebook -

I remember when I first found you. I thought you were kind of douchey, with that whole sending to friend requests to every one of my email contacts, without asking me if I thought that was a good idea or not. So, you know, I had a look around, was unimpressed, and went back to myspace.

You know how the rest of this went, don’t you? More and more people started using you, myspace became sad and empty, and even a little creepy, in a To Catch a Predator kind of a way. All those nonexistent, allegedly hot girls started sending everyone friend requests, or whatever they called them on myspace, and it was over.

I’m not going to lie. I was resistant to you at first. But over time, I got used to your little idiosyncracies, your foibles. Eventually, they even grew charming. I’ve had a lot of fun with you. Every so often you’d make some little change, and I’d adjust in time.

Then along came google+. It was exciting at first, maybe because things had grown a little stale between you and me. All those circles, so conveniently accessible from gmail. But really, that was just a summer fling. The excitement faded, and like myspace before it, though without the predator hunting, google+ emptied out. I came back to you, wholeheartedly.

That’s why I just don’t understand why you’ve done this to us, when things were going so well. Personally, I hate Top Stories. I’ve never once chosen to look at your Top Stories. What do you really know about what stories I’d consider Top? Not much, that’s obvious. As long as I could avoid Top Stories, choose to see my Recent Stories instead, it wasn’t so important. But now, now you’ve taken that choice away from me. I can’t get away from your fucking Top Stories, no matter what I do. There’s no setting I can change, no box anywhere for me to click, to make them disappear again.

And then, what is this Ticker thing on the right side of my screen? Why would you think I’d want anything like that? If I wanted Twitter, I’d use it. I don’t, but look, there it is on my screen anyway! Taking up space, making me claustrophobic, and enraged. That’s not really my best look. It’s really one I try to avoid as much as possible.

If other people want these screens full of crap, I don’t care. Give them what they want. But you’ve taken away my right to choose, Facebook, the prevention of which is a cornerstone of my political beliefs. I’ll wait around for a little while, I guess. I do tend to have trouble letting go. But make no mistake, I hate every single one of these changes. If you don’t change them the fuck back, I’m going to be making a long term commitment to my summer fling over at Google.

Sincerely,

Gaije

Gays Out in the Military

2011-09-20T05:41:00.000-07:00

By Lee Waites

Well, late last night it happened. They came out of the closet and I hid under my rock.

At midnight, Eastern time, the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell took effect. I waited by my door with my homemade Molotov Cocktail. By the way, I don't think the inventor knew much about making drinks. It was horrible. My hangover started with the first sip.

I knew a drink would come in handy though. I wanted to be relaxed when all those homo soldiers started invading my house, Red Dawn style. Patrick Swayze, God rest his soul, must be turning over in his grave. There was a real man.To think, Patrick and those kids fought off the Cubans, renegade style, just to have our military handed over to a bunch of homos.

I knew this would happen. As soon as they decided that not asking and don't telling was off the table, the Gay Army was bound to take over the straight Army. I'm sure the soldiers will all have to get designer uniforms now. And the barracks will be redecorated. That might be a plus. Some new curtains, a splash of color.

Not like in my day!

I was a member of the KISS Army when I was growing up. We could have taken over the Army, Army. That would have been rockin'! Just imagine the pyrotechnics. General Gene Simmons. Admiral Stanley. That cat guy with the misguided solo career. Dude, that would have been great. And we could put on our make-up and platform shoes, our spike shouldered fatigues. Now that would have been something. Not gay at all.

Is the KISS army still a thing? We need to find out.

I waited through several cocktails, hunkered down. Eventually they waited me out. I fell asleep slumped over my teddy bear by the front door. I woke up this morning feeling horrible. I'm not sure if the gay soldier pride parade passed my house while I was sleeping. I was too bombed out to notice.

Angry Day

2011-09-18T11:30:00.000-07:00

By Lee Waites

It's an angry day for me. I should be enjoying the beautiful weather outside. I should be happy at the success of the paper, the things we've been able to do with no money, and no cliquish connections, no large advertising budget.

I worry. I watch the cloud of complacency settle time and time again over Birmingham, to be stirred slightly at punctuated intervals, then settle again. There is so much to do.

Motivation is hard on an angry day. I could be motivated to cuss. I could be motivated to give up and drive away. I could be motivated to do all the things that in doing would kill the things that need.

Complaining and bitching and moaning. It's all the same worms wiggling in the same old dirt. That's fine too. But I feel the need to stretch my legs and get to walking.

Abstract question: Are we going to do it all again and again?

Milquetoast answer: Define " it."

It's hard to see. The physical intrinsic.

Sundays are wonderful. Pain, humiliation, suffering, angst, worry, wait to sneak out for some time in the jail-yard sun.
That's why it hurts me to watch you. For a time they are my eyes, my arrogance.

Milquetoast answer: Define " we."

Good Deeds Punished

2011-09-12T05:36:00.000-07:00

By Jim Reed

"The Big Bosses say we've got to get busy making Downtown Birmingham work better," City employee L.G. says to fellow city employee G.L., as they sit down at the Formica conference table under the blue-tinged fluorescent lights.

"Well, what could be better than what we're already doing?" asks G.L., who is willing to implement rules if it could just be determined what the rules are.

"I don't know...but the Bosses say we need to do some brainstorming and bring them some new ideas," L.G. grumbles, pulling out a legal pad and a pocket-protector ballpoint pen.

After a period of silence, during which both employees realize they don't have any ideas but had darned well better come up with something to fill the pages of that legal pad, they start rattling off thoughts.

"I know—why doesn't the City impose a fine that punishes visitors and shoppers for breaking the rules? That would bring in some extra revenue and maybe please the Bosses," says L.G.

G.L. says, "How would that work?"

L.G. nibbles the tip of the pen and begins to get excited. "Well, let's say some shopper breaks the law and parks in one on-street parking space for more than two hours. Any idiot should be able to get their shopping done in less time than that—then, they'd be taking up space that other people could use," L.G. proudly exclaims.

L.G. likes this idea and is on a roll. "Yeah, let's make the shopper really suffer, so that this won't be repeated. What if we charge a $15.00 SHOPPING PENALTY for each infraction? That should teach 'em!"

G.L. approves but has a sudden out-of-the-blue thought. "Is there any precedent for this? Like, does Homewood have parking meters, or do the Summit and Galleria malls charge their shoppers for staying too long and spending too much money?"

L.G. is impatient. "Don't be silly. Those places would close down within a month if the public learned they'd have to pay for parking and pay extra shopping penalties—they'd just go someplace else."

G.L. is confused. "Well, wouldn't that be the case Downtown, too? I mean, wouldn't people stop visiting and shopping here if they learned about these penalties?'

L.G. is trying to impart wisdom to the less experienced G.L. without being critical. "No, you don't understand. This is BIRMINGHAM! Birmingham doesn't have to follow the same rules as the Malls and the Suburbs. The City doesn't have to make money off of retail like those places do—in the City, we can make more money imposing fines than we could ever make from having free on-street parking for retail businesses."

G.L. wants to learn but is still puzzled. "Are you sure? I mean, like, if you attracted a whole lot of retail and service and professional businesses Downtown, wouldn't you wind up making big bucks from taxes…maybe even more bucks than the Meter Maids bring in?"

This is an alien concept to L.G., who was brought up in the post-Costa Head/Birmingham Green era, when it was assumed that the City would never again be a retail center. "Look, it's just plain easier this way. We won't have to exert much effort to get this extra income. Just impose the parking fines, impose the loading zone fines, enforce the parking limits to a T and rake in the revenue. We don't even have to be polite to the shoppers and merchants. Just do our job. The Bosses will be proud."

G.L. at this point makes a mistake and begins to think outside the box. "But, what about the merchants? Won't they lose customers and consider moving to the 'burbs? What about the customers, won't they realize you can park free and friendly at every strip mall and shopping center in the state? What about the tourists and conventioneers and layovers and others who come through the City every day? Won't they get a bad taste in their mouths, knowing that the Tourist Association is begging them to come to Birmingham but isn't warning them about all these shopping penalties in advance?"

At this point, L.G. makes an important notation on the legal pad. Something like G.L. isn't going to make it in this department. G.L. needs transfer. G.L. troublemaker.

"Well, let me spell it out for you, G.L. The more we punish the merchants and visitors and shoppers and loft dwellers, the more money we make. If they're not willing to pay the penalties, let 'em go elsewhere. There are always plenty more fresh faces coming to town."

L.G. leaves the table, dismisses G.L. and starts preparing a report for the Big Bosses.

Chiming in on 9/11

2011-09-11T17:27:00.000-07:00

By Lee Waites

I was driving to a job when one of my employees called me and told me what was happening. It was such an absurd notion at the time I remember giggling, thinking he was joking. He convinced me to turn on the radio. When I got to my customer's house she was watching it on television. I remember mumbling, "Oh, this is gonna change things." She stared at me. It's impossible for me to interpret, or translate that stare.

At the time I remember thinking very rationally, about the earlier attempt to bring down the Towers under Bill Clinton, the failed basement bomb. I remember thinking about the big picture, what our military and covert responses would be, what would happen to our economy. I remember thinking we would surely wind up losing some more of our rights as a result of the attacks.

Then my thoughts began to wander. What had we done to bring the attention of such hatred? What was actually coming next? Would there be more explosions?

After I got home and sat down to watch the planes fly into the tower, again and again, I realized I and my family were safe for the moment. Who knew at the time? I began to cry. I thought about all the families of the people, the phone calls, the dead, the lost, the not knowing.

We can argue, bicker and debate. We can care, forget, plan and react. We can imagine the pain, remember the loss.There are a million different ways and things to think about the events on that day. My thoughts and prayers go out to the families of those who lost lives on, or because of, that day. I especially feel for the young children who lost a parent. I cannot think about it very hard.

Things did change after all. Of course. Reactions we had always criticized other countries for became common place. We failed somewhat, but only somewhat. The game isn't over yet.
.
I know if we change, lose our rights because of 9/11, or lose the vision of our Founders, we have lost the fight. If we honor the loss of those lives, call them patriots, then we must honor the ideal of freedom.

I know there are tragedies all over, all the time. This one is ours. Own it. Whoever you are. Speak your mind. I try to be open to more than my own response. I would not presume to tell you how to feel. Wave a flag if you want. Cry. I personally recommend you be decent to your fellow humans.

I also know there will always be more dead than living, one day to include all of us. They stack up behind this point in time like an ever increasing wave of what has been, that will eventually wash away everyone. As the crashing approaches closer to my person, it's a blessing to assume the dead no longer care.

It's My 9/11, Not Yours

2011-09-11T13:26:00.000-07:00

By Gaije Kushner

Having been in New York on Sept. 11, 2001, I’ve never understood the rest of America’s responses to it. Immediately afterwards, talking to people out there somewhere, they seemed to feel a little left out. They wanted to be part of it all somehow, without having to think too much about any unpleasant details. The euphemistically designated Patriot Day lets them have it all. They get a day in which to participate, without much requirement for contemplation of the first such day.

In Salem Missouri, a Patriot Day rally offers a pie competition, fireworks, and some appalling religiosity.

There’s no terror on Patriot Day. No fear at all. No thoughts of anyone on the second plane, heading straight for the North Tower, seeing the first, burrowed deep inside its own tower. No space left for hope, not one inch of plausible deniability, all taken over by terror. Nor of the fear that could push people out into the air, off of rooftops 110 stories high.

South Whidby, Washington promises, on Patriot Day, “This year’s event features a picnic buffet, dessert, and silent auction.”

There’s no meaningless death, on Patriot Day. The word patriot alone imposes artificial meaning, where none existed. Even implies a choice no one would have made. Not one of those 2606 people, inhaling smoke, crushed by falling towers, burned alive, or killed on impact, woke up that morning harboring thoughts of patriotic self sacrifice, not even all those first responders. Their deaths didn’t serve any purpose. There was nothing patriotic about any of it.

Scottsdale, Arizona sees things differently, telling us, “The Patriot Day celebration commemorates those brave civilians and first responders that heroically sacrificed their lives for our freedom on 9/11.”

Maybe the best thing about Patriot Day is its being just one day. Sept, 11th went on and on and on. The smoke, and smell, for weeks above the city. Missing fliers posted everywhere, before everyone understood the missing would not be found alive. Even then, it felt so wrong to cover them up with fliers for a show, an apartment to sublet, used books to sell. The New York Times series, “Portraits of Grief,” brief profiles of each victim, ran daily through the end of the year. Remains kept turning up for years, on roofs of nearby buildings, in manholes, in construction debris. Earnest James, then 40, was identified just last month.

South Florida residents can enjoy a Patriot Day American muscle car parade.
I still have a hard time understanding how Americans feel about 9/11. The trouble’s not so much with Americans though;it’s all with me. I just can’t see how it’s any of their business, ultimately. It didn’t happen to them. It didn’t happen to their cities. It happened to me and mine. Their attempts to mark the day, their pie contests and silent auctions, their American muscle car parades, demonstrate such a lack of understanding about what really happened. Compared to New York’s own more somber commemoration, a few quiet speakers, a moment of silence at 8:47 am, the time the first plane hit, then reading the names of dead, America’s best efforts feel like sacrilege.

9/11 Didn’t Change Everything

2011-09-11T06:37:00.000-07:00

By M. David Hornbuckle

I was in Manhattan that day. I saw much of it first-hand, in real time, not on television. It was horrible. There are things I saw that still haunt me, that I still don’t want to talk about.

Perhaps that’s why I find all the public hoo-ha about the tenth anniversary of it to be disturbing.

A lot of people died tragically that day. A lot of people, including myself, were scarred by what they saw. It is appropriate for those directly affected by the tragedy to recognize this day in some private and personal way. That is what I will do. It makes sense for the government to heighten security. For the rest of America, it’s my opinion that they should not worry about it so much.

That day changed the way a lot of people thought and felt about a lot of things. Much of what changed was wrong. Much of it validated what the terrorists wanted in the first place, which was to make us all terrified.

I’ll tell you what I felt on that day and have felt ever since. It was horrible. It was tragic. It was disgusting. It was depressing. It was angering. But I would be damned if I was going to be terrified.

The Jobs Speech

2011-09-08T00:02:00.000-07:00

By Gaije Kushner

Tonight, President Obama will be delivering his long promised speech on jobs to a joint session of Congress. For the last few days, commentators and pundits from NPR to the BBC have been busily speculating as to its contents. What do they most want to know? What presidential proposals could possibly make it through the GOP lead house. Smart people around the planet have been pondering this as if it’s a reasonable question. Maybe they’ve been playing some journalistic version of survivor? Shipwrecked themselves someplace hot and green, without access to any form of media. No television, no internet, not even newspapers or magazines.

Can anything else account for this colossal lapse of comprehension? Congressional Republicans don’t want new jobs created, don’t want to see the economy improving. The House will not be passing anything Obama proposes. He could call for a resolution affirming the cuteness of baby Pandas, and they’d block it for showing excessive solidarity with China. Their one and only goal is to get him out of office. They’ve been saying so for years. Anyone who missed it just hasn't been paying attention.

Last fall, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office.” Not to improve the economy, burn the lesbian witches, turn the whole show over to Exxon Mobile, or enact any other aspect of their dubious agenda. Just to get rid of Obama.

Or as Speaker of the House, and overlord of the orange people, John Boehner put it, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one term president.” Every so often Boehner’s hobbies, smoking, drinking, and crying in public, have made him seem almost human. After all, who hasn’t been there? Bumming Camels off strangers, after a martini or ten too many, trying desperately to stop the sobbing, so you can explain the gory details of the break up, the lost job, the most recent rejection letter? But then, almost counts for nothing, once you’re old enough to drink, smoke, and make everyone else at the bar uncomfortable.

Then there’s Boehner’s sidekick, the Booboo to his Yogi, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. He doesn’t even get to almost. Lately, he’s been busy making things worse for victims of natural disasters. It’s not enough for him that they’ve lost their homes, businesses, or lives. He won’t be happy until they’ve lost all semblance of security about their futures. He hopes to achieve his nefarious ends by threatening to block any additional funding FEMA might need for disaster relief, unless it comes with balancing budget cuts.
Cantor kicked off his campaign of terror in May, after a tornado leveled Joplin Missouri, killing 159 of its former residents. Kept it up through August’s east coast earthquake, damage to his own district be damned. And on past Hurricane Irene the next weekend, unswayed by its 43 deaths, or by billions in property destruction.

What has he achieved so far? Well, for starters, to meet the immediate needs of Irene’s victims, FEMA’s had to suspend funding for long term projects nationwide, dating back to Hurricane Katrina. This alone could cost countless jobs. Then, uncertainty about future recovery funds will reduce consumer spending, and it won’t do small businesses any favors. They’ll be struggling to hold onto current employees, forget about expansion or new hires. All it took was a little fear mongering, rendering reality irrelevant.

Which works out well for Cantor. In reality the possibility of his keeping a single dollar out of FEMA’s coffers is so minimal as to be non-existent, like unicorns, anything cuter than baby pandas, or that of the House passing anything this president proposes.

Michelle and Irene

2011-08-31T09:00:00.000-07:00

By Gaije Kushner

Say what you will about Michelle Bachmann, she's never boring. Like Rachel Zoe, or a Top Chef winner, Bachmann is not content to rest on her laurels. She remains deeply committed to bringing her fans some fresh new crazy as often as humanly possible.

Over the weekend, she described Hurricane Irene, and last week's east coast earthquake, as God's attempt, "to get the attention of the politicians." We expect that kind of thing from Pat Robertson, or James Dobson, or whoever else the religious right is throwing money at these days. Presidential aspirants, not so much.

Jerry Falwell apologized for pinning 9/11 on those abortion loving lesbian feminists. Glen Beck apologized for equating Reform Judaism with Islamist extremism, and for making fun of Malia Obama. Pat Robertson apologized, kind of, for calling for Hugo Chavez's assassination. Bill O' Reilly apologized for suggesting there were circumstances under which a, "lynching party against Michelle Obama," could be appropriate. David Letterman apologized for his tawdry office affair, as did Bill Clinton. Apologizing is like breathing to Americans. It's just what we do.

Well, most of us. By now we should know to expect the unexpected from our girl Michelle. She does apologize occasionally. For instance, she apologized for confusing Elvis's birthday and the anniversary of his death, and for endorsing the idea black children were better off during slavery than they are now. She certainly knows how to demand an apology. Chris Wallace had to apologize, repeatedly, for asking her the perfectly reasonable question, "Are you a flake?" A Pawlenty (remember him?) aid had to apologize for referencing her, "sex appeal," when we all know her name recognition would be absolute zero, if she didn't look so good babbling on TV. Don't we?

We should have known better than to expect an apology for crediting God with Irene's murder and mayhem. In fact, this may have been her weirdest apology yet. First, basically repeated herself, clarifying only that, while she'd been joking at the time, she really, truly, meant what she'd said.

My comments were not ones that were meant to be taken lightly: What I was saying in a humorous vein is there are things that politicians need to pay attention to. It is not every day that we have an earthquake in the United States. What I think we are seeing is that in this country, we have to have a margin, financially. When we are so far over the cliff financially we don't have the margin that we need anymore."

The best part is her claim that God's punishing us for the federal deficit. Or something like that.

Bachmann's conception of God gets more confusing by the minute. If he is actually feeling neglected by our politicians, couldn't he be more direct about it? Why bother with earthquakes and hurricanes? Why not just appear to them, or lead them to some golden plates, or pull their hair? Who expects God to be so passive aggressive? Probably the same people who expect him to care about our federal deficit.

Incomprehensibly, media observers have been classing this as just another one of Bachmann's goofy gaffes, on par with the Elvis flub, or not knowing where the Revolutionary War began. But it's nothing of the sort. A gaffe is an error, a faux pas, a mistake. This wasn't a gaffe at all. Bachmann said it intentionally, because she meant it. She really does see God as kind of a dick, yet claims pleasing him to be her highest priority.

When someone tells you who she is, you should believe her. No matter how scary that truth might be.

Perry vs. Bachmann: Who’s Scarier?

2011-08-30T15:39:00.000-07:00

By Gaije Kushner

Michelle Bachmann is a mesmerizing creature. Like a snake charmer, or the pied piper, she is simultaneously terrifying and entertaining. The wacky Christian hijinks, creepy wifely submission, appalling policy positions, and that hair, combine to make just about anyone look comparatively smart and sane.

No one has benefitted from this more than Texas governor and GOP presidential dreamer, Rick Perry. By focusing attention on a well-constructed economic narrative, he has successfully positioned himself as a more mainstream alternative to Bachmann’s flamboyant crazy train. But look past the spin, at each candidate’s positions on some touchstones of domestic policy, and Perry’s quieter brand of crazy comes into view.

For all of her ranting and raving, Bachmann’s policy positions are essentially what we expect from 21st century Republicans. She’s anti-choice, and she’s pro creationism in public schools. She offers a generic opposition to federal income tax and regulation, but she elaborates on few details beyond a belief that poor people need to stop slacking and start paying their fair share. She has proposed the elimination of Social Security and Medicare—for future generations, not for all those aging baby boomers who’ll be heading to the polls next year. Her general disdain for science can be seen in her assertion that global climate change cannot be manmade, because, “carbon dioxide is a natural by-product of nature.” Yeah, like anthrax and arsenic.

The centerpiece of Bachmann’s campaign is her longing for a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, or any legal recognition of same sex partnerships whatsoever, by state and federal governments. Homosexuality, she tells us, is, “part of Satan.” Everyone knows Satan can be vanquished via Constitutional amendment. It’s just a wonder it’s taken us this long to get around to it.

Perry is more moderate than Bachmann on exactly none of these issues. Creationism, climate change, he’s right there with her. The only noticeable difference between them is Perry’s tendency to take the crazy to a whole new level.

He’s all for using the Constitution to exorcise Satan from the land. That’s just the beginning of his big plans for our founding document. He wants an amendment banning abortion, of course. Then the repeal of the 16th Amendment, which created the federal income tax, and the 17th, mandating direct election of senators. He pines for the days when state legislatures selected senators. This plan would encourage senators in ideological extremism. It would be a fabulous way for political parties to consolidate power. Any advantage to erstwhile voters remains unclear.

Constitutionally defined checks and balances on governmental power aren’t really working for Perry. He’d abolish lifetime appointments for federal judges, including Supreme Court justices. He’d also empower congress to override Supreme Court decisions with a 2/3 vote, freeing them from silly concerns about legislation’s constitutionality.

Perry’s understanding of the Constitution is idiosyncratic, at best. Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional, in his world. As are civil rights protections, environmental and financial regulations, the minimum wage, and labor laws.

Given his disdain for federal regulations protecting individuals from the workings of corporate power, Perry’s call for a moratorium on federal regulations shouldn’t come as a surprise. Yet it does, being such a colossally bad idea. Do we really want our 8 year olds taking over the counter meth, to keep them awake for their 20 hours working in the coal mines, for $2.50 an hour, washing it down with water chockfull of toxins? Well, Governor Perry does. Because, hey, that’s job creation!

You’re probably scared of Perry by now, but you might be wondering about his entertainment potential. Don’t. It’s huge. He once shot a coyote while out for his daily run, and he was a cheerleader in college.

Michelle Bachmann has never looked so good.

The Magic Pee Wee Suit

2011-08-11T11:06:00.000-07:00

By Jim Reed

After many decades of living, loving, and getting by, I’ve come to the conclusion that everybody feels cool at least once in a lifetime–maybe even a few times in a lifetime, for the lucky ones.

Coolness is a state of mind, which means that you may feel cool to yourself, but you have no idea how you might look ridiculous–uncool–to others.

There’s the time in my life when I owned and wore an exact replica of the Pee Wee Herman suit–you know, his trademark outfit–which consisted of this form-fitting neatly pressed narrow-lapeled suit complete with white dress shirt and bow tie. In my case, I wore the obligatory Mad Men thin necktie. Also, in my case, I wore black wing-tip dress shoes instead of Pee Wee’s white loafers. But in all other respects, I looked like Pee Wee Herman. I was skinny as a rail, still had my hair, wore hornrimmed glasses, and thought the coolest thing in the world was my then-fashionable suit.

You might have guessed by now a couple of things:

1. This was back in the 1960s, long before Paul Reubens had ever conceived of Pee Wee and his suit, so in essence, Pee Wee wore an exact duplicate of my suit, rather than the other way around.

2. This was the era of Mad Men, when we all smoked and drank and caroused too much, and had miles to go before we became enlightened about the wrongness of smoking and drinking and carousing too much.

Anyhow, I worked as an on-air personality at Tuscaloosa’s fledgling television station, then known as WCFT-TV, Channel 33. I would snazz up in that suit, grab my loaded, hand-wound 16-millimeter movie camera, and go off to cover some news event, hoping to get back to the station in time to have Curtis Lake develop and edit the film while I wrote the story to go with it. Then, I’d get ready to host the daily live Noon broadcast interview show, called “This is the Show that Starts at Noon,” which remained on the air for four years.

Back in those days, you could look cool while out in the public being recognized as a TV personality, but there was no way to be cool, once you got back to the station. At the station, you were just another employee, trying to keep your job, stay out of the way of the more hostile pointy-haired folks, and just having fun doing your job. It is thus with virtually all jobs: as long as you can concentrate on and perform the tasks you love, you’re happy. But office politics and office politicos will be working full-time trying to spoil it for you. Denial is your only weapon.

Anyhow, for a few minutes at a time during those years at Channel 33, I could overcome my insecurities and self-doubts, don the Pee Wee suit, leave the station to cover a story or host a panel or judge a beauty contest or make a personal appearance, and just plain forget the other facts of life I had to put up with.
The Pee Wee suit was my magic time machine, my way to beam up and away each time conflict threatened to douse me. It made me feel like somebody, even though I wasn’t. It made me feel stylish, even though I wasn’t. It gave me a few chuckles many years later, when I saw Pee Wee himself wearing that outfit and feeling like a million dollars.

I wonder if Pee Wee found my suit at a thrift store

Jim Reed is the proprietor of Reed Books in downtown Birmingham.
http://www.jimreedbooks.com

In Defense of Standing by Facebook

2011-08-10T07:39:00.000-07:00

By M. David Hornbuckle

Reposted from M David Hornbuckle Dot Com

With all the media hoopla about Google+ a lot of people are once again talking about jumping the Facebook ship, and that's worth looking at. So far, I have not actually seen very many people trade one for the other. Most people I know, if they've signed up for Google+, they are trying (and mostly failing) to keep up with both, usually favoring the familiar over the new toy.

I can't emphasize enough how important Facebook has been for me in the past 2-3 years in maintaining my social and professional life, so I'm not going to give it up without a fight. Facebook has many flaws, but the complaints I hear most often about it are things that are easily resolvable.

If Facebook is prodding you over and over to be your homepage, you probably have your security settings on "ultra paranoid mode." If you say No to the request, a cookie is set to remember that answer. If your browser doesn't accept cookies, you are just going to have to deal with that. Maybe Google+ doesn't have that prompt yet, but it will come as the application attempts to grow. Getting the most out of Facebook, just like getting the most out of the internet in general, means you have to take a certain leap of faith and not worry so much about the paranoid security issues that plague the blogosphere. Reasonable security measures are valid, but if you do things like set your browser to never accept cookies, the internet just doesn't work.
People in your news stream you don't care to hear from? Hide them. Just click the little X in the upper right corner of the post. You can always defriend or outright block people who are particularly troublesome, but hiding people keeps them out of your way without disrupting their experience. They'll never know that you aren't reading their posts.

The "Circles" feature on Google+ is admittedly interesting and more intuitive than the similar features on Facebook in many ways. I know I'm relatively alone in this, but I went to a lot of trouble a couple of years ago to put all my FB friends in Lists. However, these Lists aren't as flexible as Circles. I can filter my feed to only view things from friends in a certain List, and I can use my security settings to block Lists of people from viewing certain things. But I can't easily share a post with only people in one List while depriving it from others. I hope FB will take a cue from Google + and improve the flexibility of Friend Lists. The new way Groups work on FB may be intended to resolve that issue, but again, it's not that flexible. I want to organize people on my end, but I don't want to force them to comply by becoming part of a "group." Friend Lists accomplish this, but not perfectly.

Google+ is sort of interesting to play around with. It does a couple of things FB doesn't do, like the "Hangout" feature, though I haven't yet found anybody to "Hangout" with. None of my friends seem to be on G+ at the same time I am. Plus, I relish the times when I get to "hang out" with my friends in real life, and I think this sort of thing just makes it easy to sit around at home instead. I can see it being fun or useful in certain situations though.

Moreover, Google+ doesn't have a lot of the features that I absolutely count on Facebook for. I use the Events feature religiously to organize my social calendar. I like being reminded when it's someone's birthday, even someone I don't talk to often. It often prompts me to spend a little time catching up with that person. I have many FB applications blocked—things like Farmville and Mafia Wars. I don't mess with most of that stuff. But I do play Scrabble and a couple of other games on FB whenever I need to give my brain a five minute break during the day. Google+ doesn't have any of these games.

In addition to personal social stuff, I have three "business" identities I manage frequently (Ghost Herd, Birmingham Free Press, and Steel Toe Review—plus a couple of others that I don't use as much currently), and Facebook is the easiest and most efficient way for me to engage with fans/customers/readers who are interested in those things. I don't personally know all the people that are "fans" of those pages, and I don't want to communicate with them as "M. David Hornbuckle" because many of them don't know who M. David Hornbuckle is. Facebook allows me to have these multiple identities and manage them relatively easily.

Finally, before you say "Facebook sells your personal information to other companies," I say, who cares? If you don't want Facebook to know anything personal about you, don't tell Facebook anything personal. But I fail to see why this is a problem. How this works is, Facebook's advertisers look at the things you say you are interested in and target advertising toward you based on those things. If you are going to have ads anyway, isn't it better for them to be for things that you are interested in knowing about rather than just random stuff? Targeted advertising on the internet has been revolutionary. Nobody at Facebook is sitting around masturbating over your Caribbean beach pictures because you posted them. A more or less automated process is looking at keywords and other clues in your profile and deciding you might be interested in a cheap Jamaican vacation sometime. What's so bad about that?

Moreover, the internet is and should always be considered a public place. If you don't want your shit out there in public, don't use the internet.

Is There Life After Death?

2011-08-03T08:58:00.000-07:00

By Stephen Smith

Is there life after death? On the surface the question might seem nonsensical. If someone is alive they are not dead by definition. But that’s not what we mean by the question. Most contemporary philosophy seems to come down to the definition of words. The question of life after death isn’t a subject typically addressed by contemporary philosophy; it is a question from an earlier time when the obvious objections had yet to be realized. Is the “human experience” in any way a continuity? Are we the same entity we were as a child? Are we the same entity we were yesterday?

So putting aside the fundamental problems with the wording of question of life after death, let’s just agree to run with the classic understanding. Does the human experience continue beyond the grave? Theology and “spirituality” offer a seemingly endless list of cocksure and contradictory answers to all of life’s mysteries, but these tend to be based on revealed truth rather than evidence. Is there any evidence for life after death?

There are three usual lines of so-called evidence for the continuation of the human condition past the grave: Near death experiences (NDE), out of body experiences (OBE), and ghosts. For some reason the ghost thing is usually dismissed by believers. Somehow the idea of ghosts is not as serious as NDE or OBE. This is totally arbitrary and cultural. The whole question is about ghosts. Is there a ghost inside your body that controls your brain? Does this ghost skedaddle when the host body is no longer useful? Calling it a soul or spirit isn’t in any way informative and calling it energy is just an abuse of the English language.

To move forward at all we have to just sort of roll over and accept the fact that the tough questions have to be ignored. This isn’t an issue that philosophy is well prepared to deal with, though that doesn’t seem to give the philosophers any pause. The primary objection to life after death is that brain functions seem to be able to explain all of human experience, and a misfiring brain can account for NDE. But the believer will respond that the brain is just a tool of the ghost. Just because you can cut out the part of the brain that remembers your wife’s birthday only means the ghost doesn’t have access to it anymore. The brain is just the ghost’s tool. Kind of like a lug wrench or pachinko machine. The obvious next step with this opposition to the materialist view is that now rabbit and human ghosts can be considered equivalent with one just having access to a better brain.

Considering that philosophy's best arguments for life after death are simply rhetorical and there is good rhetoric for almost any imaginable philosophical position, it is better left to look to science for answers.

It is easy to find all kinds of crazy stuff on the internet about NDE, but there are a few sober groups. Dr. Kenneth Ring, professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Connecticut, published an article in the peer reviewed Journal of Near-Death Studies in 1993 claiming that the ghosts of dead people were able to see events far away from their corpses. They would supposedly report all sorts of details when resuscitated. But these aren’t the sorts of experiments that can be repeated in a laboratory setting unless you are willing to deal with a mad scientist.

In 2010, Dr. Jeffrey Long, an M.D. who is also associated with the Journal of Near-Death Studies published a book called Evidence for the Afterlife that summed up the hundreds of scholarly articles written on the subject over the past few decades. Long claims these experience have nine proofs of life after death: 1.) Lucid death, 2.) Out of body experiences, 3.) The blind were able to see, 4.) People under anesthesia heard and saw what was happening to them, 5.) The “whole life passing before you” phenomenon, 6.) Meeting family members, 7.) Young children have the same experiences as adults, 8.) Worldwide consistency, and 9.) Changed lives.

Most of the “research” for these “studies” appears to be anecdotal. The journal itself, though fairly sober, does feature stories about a six-year-old kid meeting the Devil and another one being greeted by his recently deceased puppies. It’s also worth noting that both Ring’s and Long’s books were published by Harper Collins and not a university press, though the journal itself does seem to be above board.

In 2001, a 20-year Dutch study of cardiac arrest survivors suggested that, “NDE might be a changing state of consciousness (transcendence), in which identity, cognition, and emotion function independently from the unconscious body.” Since not all cardiac arrest survivors experienced NDE, the study casts doubt on a physiological explanation. But this just moves the bar from different kinds of brains to different kinds of ghosts and doesn’t really answer the fundamental question. Is there a ghost in the machine?

Earlier this year the Review of General Psychology published by the American Psychological Association did a state of the research concerning NDE and concluded, “[t]he claims made by out-of-brain theorists should not be underestimated by cognitive neuroscientists: if true this would imply a new relation between the brain and consciousness…we are far from solving the question…it is useful to remain open to both interpretations.”

But why do we have to die for our ghosts to roam free? What about OBE? It seems that one should be easy to test. Put a photograph on a high shelf, have a subject leave his body and come back and say what it is. Dr. Sam Parnia of the Weill Cornell Medical Centre in New York, and Southampton University has been performing just such a study since 2008. You can dig around his website (horizonresearch.org) all day and not find the results. It seems a bit suspicious. His findings were suppose to be released early in 2011 but Dr. Parnia has only responded, “[m]any people have written to us and have asked to be updated with the study results, however, as I am sure everyone will understand, we are unable to release data in a piecemeal fashion. We therefore look forward to being able to release the results of our study once the study has been accepted for publication in a major Pier[sic] Review Journal.” Don’t hold your breath.

Dr. Parnia is claiming he’s run out of money. But honestly, how much can something like that cost? It seems like if you could leave your body it would be worth a hundred bucks to pop into the clinic to prove it. One has to suspect no strong evidence has been discovered. This hasn’t stopped any number of folk from pointing to such studies as proof of the afterlife.

According to Brain: The Journal of Neurology, OBE “are due to a paroxysmal cerebral dysfunction of the TPJ [temporo parietal junction] in a state of partially and briefly impaired consciousness.” So really all we have is anecdotal evidence of any sort of consciousness without a brain.

So what about the ghosts? If we are going to go with anecdotal evidence there is a ton of it for ghosts. We’ve got ghosts on film and stories of people seeing, talking too, being haunted by, and falling in love with ghosts since the dawn of time. For all practical purposes ghosts are the best evidence for life after death there is. Are we really ghosts temporarily housed in slowly rotting collections of meat and bones? Maybe. Who knows?

Shep

2011-07-25T05:58:00.000-07:00

By Lee Waites

Here’s the story: You’re dining in your favorite restaurant. Your waiter—let’s call him, oh, I don’t know . . . Shep. Well, Shep goes to the kitchen and gets your appetizer. Let’s pretend it’s an avocado dip. In fact, It’s your favorite avocado dip in town. You’re very much looking forward to it. He pours a pitcher of water from the drink station, puts it on the cart beside your dip. While he’s there he grabs his bottle of cleaning solution. It’s a nice toxic solution, good for cleaning. Some Health Department official with some pesky regulation made him store it nice and safe, under the counter where it wouldn’t be close to your food.

You consider Shep to be a friendly waiter. You like him fairly well. On his return trip, cart full of food, he stops beside a counter where he talks to his manager, briefly. They giggle, slightly, at some funny little joke, then glance up, looking sheepish, remembering where they are.

Shep continues on, cart laden with yummy goodness. Upon reaching your table he places your delicious avocado dip in front of you. You’ve been waiting patiently. Mmm . . . it smells really good. Shep turns over your water goblet and pours it full of water. He sets it down in front of you with a smile. All is pleasant. He picks up the cleaning solution bottle, shakes it for a few seconds, leans carefully in, then sprays a fine mist of cleaning solution over your avocado dip. He removes the sprayer from the top of his bottle and pours a small amount into your water. You smile. He smiles.

You’re so happy your food has arrived. You pick up your chips and dip away. You feel grateful. After all, you need to eat don’t you? You wash it all down with your ice cold fresh water. That’s what we do isn’t it? We eat. We drink. We smile. We pay our bill.

For some reason, on the way home you begin to feel somewhat ill, tired, run down and sick to your stomach; you have no idea why. You get into your house, go immediately to the bathroom and look at your reflection. You take a few vitamins. That should help. You probably need more sleep, that’s all.

You bed down to a fitful night, for some reason filled with nightmares of people dumping toxins and junk into your drinking water. They look like the Penguin from Batman, hundreds of them. Dumping and laughing and pointing at you, pouring 50 gallon drums of sludge into a river. You wake up the next morning with pain in your lower back, right where your kidneys should be. You can’t figure out why you feel so bad. Then, in a brief moment of clarity, you think to yourself, “Maybe the problem is I’m a complete idiot and I participate in a greater social idiocy which allows blatant violations of the law resulting in pollution which harms my idiot body and destroys our God given, beautiful environment!”

Then the moment passes. You get up from bed, lumber to the bathroom, where you brush your teeth . . . in that water.

To learn more about the Shepherd Bend Mine, which has received the go ahead to discharge wastewater a mere 800 feet from a major drinking water intake for the Birmingham Water Works Board, go to www.blackwarriorriver.org

BFP Takes a Stand

2011-07-13T10:36:00.000-07:00

directed by Brent Staufffer
lyrics by M. David Hornbuckle
music by Khush
(via 'Songify')
recited by Scoop

Your Scene Sucks - A Declaration of Independence

2011-04-11T21:47:00.000-07:00

By Tim Boykin

The two most important things in my life continue to be music and counterculture. You already know what music is, but I think counterculture (as I understand it) probably needs defining. It's very simple; the establishment, or status quo, is ALWAYS WRONG. It exists solely to set stifling parameters on life and culture. So a 'hipster' or 'scenester' for me is defined not in that they dress a certain way, or have a certain style of music they prefer, but rather that they are pretty much pathologically, and en masse, doing it in a "paint by numbers" way, and for all the wrong reasons (presumably to further and protect their own social and/or economic status). Somebody else has hit on a successful or recognized formula, and so now the scene police move in to make sure that if YOU don't do it that way, you risk being ostracized and shunned. The scene police are my eternal foes, because they are the enemies of creativity and growth. Without creativity and growth, we stagnate and die. The only sensible, healthy response to this is to revolt, to defy. You wouldn't eat a pound of arsenic would ya? Me neither.

Hipsterism has reared its ugly head throughout history, from the Salons of Paris in the late 19th century to hardcore punk in the 1980s, up to the so-called 'indie rock' establishment. I remember as a kid in the early 80s really feeling energized by what was happening with the emerging American hardcore scene. It was a wide open frontier. All the bands looked and sounded different. The only constant seemed to be rejection of adhering to any format that might have been established by the first wave of punk bands from a few years before. But by the mid 80s, it happened; hardcore had become cut-and-dried, paint-by-numbers.....established. If you wanted to be accepted by 'the scene,' you had to do A., B., and C., etc., or you were OUT. Where had the the rebellion gone, the creative fire? My response was to hoist the ol' one fingered salute.

Which brings us to now. I don't care what you're into. You might be a crust kid. That's cool. You might love death metal. Me too. But I'm inspired by everything from grindcore to honky tonk to jazz to electro to stuff across the entire spectrum to stuff that doesn't even exist because I haven't come up with it yet. I am open to divergent, nonlinear, non-mainstream ideas. But I will not reshape anything I'm doing to adhere to a pre-defined, one-dimensional concept of what any scene thinks I ought to be doing.

Tim Boykin is a Birmingham-based guitarist, vocalist, songwriter, and teacher. An active member of the local music scene for the past 30 years, Tim currently performs with the bands Throng of Shoggoths, Tim Boykin Blues Band, MP4, and SharBaby, among others. He teaches guitar at Highland Music on Clairmont Avenue.

How To Shut Up Pesky Creationists

2011-04-08T16:59:00.000-07:00

Shelby Attacks Public Broadcasting

2011-03-16T18:50:00.000-07:00

Listed below is a letter written from Senator Richard Shelby to Chairman Tom Harkin wherein he suggests that the reasoning behind his desire to deprive NPR of funding is because of some unfortunate remarks made by Ron Schiller, Senior Vice President for Development at NPR. Cutting through the bullshit, I have to wonder how the Republican machine was prescient enough to know Mr. Schiller would, frankly, be ridiculous enough to ramble on so unfortunately, when they decided months ago to attempt to deny funding to NPR.

It's obvious that, with the incredibly Right leaning corporate media, led by Fox News which has done a relentless job tilting coverage and tone in the news to their perspective, Republicans would want to eliminate any possible competition for informing the American public.

The reasoning is no mystery. There has been an unholy union between greedy corporate friendly, fiscal conservatives, and dogmatic, religious zealots since the Reagan administration. Both groups are willing to win at all costs, the ends justifying the means. And total control of the mainstream media message is a powerful tool. So, even though, compared to most other expenditures 2.9 million dollars is pocket change, Republicans are going after NPR. Hell, 2.9 million is a drop in the ocean of our debt. So why, in God's name,would we not focus our attention on the many larger problems? It's obvious. The power base has shifted in our country.

At one time we had a king. And we threw him off, then we had powerful men, and groups of men that controlled our country through the control of resources...wait...I guess we can stop there. Does ANYONE actually believe that corporate money does not buy most politicians? Aside from a few noble, patriotic men and women willing to risk great injury and experience incredible sacrifice by throwing themselves into the newspaper game and trying to publish a small,local newspaper free of corporate bias (shameless self promotion), most of the media is business first. And corporate business is, after all, making money for the shareholders.

That 2.9 million dollar figure mentioned above is important. Of course It's not that 2.9 million is pocket change to an individual. I'm sure we could think of plenty of our bills, and our friends' bills, we could pay with that. And yet, ah yes, the unfortunate math, 14 trillion. I'll assume you know what my argument is so I'll not repeat it.

America will recover financially. Even if our economy falls from number one, we have become a power broker like no other in history, like nothing our forefathers could have dreamed of. So then, what rights will we give up on the way to that recovery? We are destroying the public schools. We are destroying freedom of the press.

We have destroyed habeas corpus, and many other civil rights. Republicans are after total control. They are making a power grab, lusting for the ability to ravage unencumbered by an informed public.

Mark my words, the Republicans are after your soul. This you better believe. You better make damn sure you believe every single thing they stand for when you give it to them. Because, like everything else they touch, they will take it all.

Below is from Senator Shelby's office:

WASHINGTON, DC, Thursday, March 10, 2011 – U.S. Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), ranking Republican on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (Labor/HHS), today sent a letter to Subcommittee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) announcing his intention to defund National Public Radio (NPR) following highly questionable and biased remarks by Ron Schiller, the Senior Vice President for Development at the organization. NPR receives taxpayer funding via grants provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). The CPB is funded through the Labor/HHS appropriations bill. In fiscal year 2010, NPR received roughly $2.9 million in taxpayer funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

March 10, 2011

The Honorable Tom Harkin

Chairman

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on

Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education

131 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Harkin:

We are writing with great concern about the remarks by Ron Schiller, the Senior Vice President for Development at National Public Radio (NPR), at a recent meeting regarding funding for NPR. Mr. Schiller expressed biased and highly questionable comments that we hope are not shared with NPR leadership. Further, he represented to potential donors that NPR would be “better off” without federal funding. In this time of fiscal austerity, we should make wise investments and direct scarce federal resources to organizations that will use this funding to serve the needs of the nation. It is clear that Mr. Schiller’s comments do not reflect the majority of Americans’ views and call into question what NPR stands for.

Therefore, it is our intention to look at all available appropriations vehicles to discontinue funding directly related to NPR programming. NPR receives funding from the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (Labor/HHS) Appropriations bill through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s system support account, radio programming, and community service grants. NPR received roughly $2.9 million in the fiscal year 2010 Labor/HHS Appropriations bill and it is our intention to work with our colleagues to terminate funding for NPR.

We look forward to working with you to ensure that federal funding is being spent in the best interest of the American taxpayer.

Sincerely,

Richard Shelby Lindsey Graham

Ron Johnson

An Argument for High Speed Trains

2011-03-13T17:53:00.000-07:00

Socialist Shelby Announces $3,719,399 for Alabama Fire Departments

2011-03-02T20:20:00.000-08:00

Socialist!

WASHINGTON, DC Tuesday, March 1, 2011-- U.S. Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, today announced that the Department of Homeland Security will award a total of $3,719,399 to five fire departments located in Alabama. The funding is provided through either the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program or the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response program.

“Firefighters are in the field everyday protecting our citizens,” said Shelby. “We have a responsibility to ensure that our first responders are adequately prepared to respond to any event. These grants are evidence of our nation’s continued commitment to our first responders.”

Of the $1,177,067 awarded to Alabama through the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, the following fire departments will receive funding:

$90,250 to Dickert Volunteer Fire Department, located in Randolph County, for vehicle acquisition
$20,523 to Little Texas Volunteer Fire Department, located in Macon County, for operations and safety
$36,100 to Ashville Fire Department, located in St. Clair County, for operations and safety
$844,944 to City of Birmingham Fire & Rescue Service, located in Jefferson County, for operations and safety
$185,250 to Town of Oak Grove Volunteer Fire Department, located in Talladega County, for vehicle acquisition

The Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency awarded these funds as a part of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (AFG). The AFG is designed to enhance response capabilities and to more effectively protect the health and safety of the public with respect to fire and other hazards. The grants enable local fire departments and emergency medical services organizations to purchase or receive training, conduct first responder health and safety programs, and buy equipment and response vehicles.

Additionally, Mobile Fire-Rescue, located in Mobile County, will receive $2,542,332 through Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER). The SAFER program is meant to support the hiring of firefighters and recruitment and retention of volunteer firefighters.

Alabama Democrats Against GOP Closed Door Proposal

2011-02-02T21:46:00.000-08:00

February 2, 2011

ADP Chairman Mark Kennedy: "After 136 years of open door policies under Democratic leadership, a new day of Republican control has dawned in the Alabama Legislature but the sun isn't shining."

Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard and Senate President Pro-Tem Del Marsh suggested Monday they may block citizens' access to duly-elected public servants by attempting to close off legislative hallways during the regular session and to make the legislative offices available to Alabamians by appointment only.

By doing so, Rep. Hubbard and Sen. Marsh will be allowing legislators the opportunity to avoid questions and concerns from voters by refusing them access.

Alabama Democratic Party Chairman Mark Kennedy said, "After 136 years of open door policies under Democratic leadership, a new day of Republican control has dawned in the Alabama Legislature, but the sun isn't shining."

When announcing the potential change, Hubbard referenced the tragic shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D - AZ). However Kennedy asserted that Hubbard's use of the tragedy in Tuscon to draw a parallel to security at the Alabama State House was a stretch, noting the incident took place well outside the walls of the U.S. Capitol and Congressional office buildings where citizens are still able to walk freely today.

Kennedy also pointed out that there is a police presence at the state house and visitors are required to pass through metal detectors and security checkpoints at the door. This move by Representative Hubbard will do nothing more than facilitate questionable closed door meetings and possibly skirt the new ethics law recently passed in the special session.

Republicans: Please Clarify

2011-01-27T16:12:00.000-08:00

In his testimony today, before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs’ Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery, Senator Richard Shelby expressed his concern with the speed at which payouts are being made to claimants affected by the Deep water Horizon spill. “We must ensure that individuals and businesses are compensated now, but also put in place mechanisms to assist them with rebuilding and restoration efforts as the Gulf continues to recover from this disaster.” He also requested the dispersal of fines collected by the EPA under the Clean Water Act, “Finally, as we continue with the recovery efforts along the Gulf Coast, Congress needs to swiftly address the allocation of the Clean Water Act fines from the BP oil spill. The entire Gulf Coast faces an enormous ecological and economic disaster – with an estimated impact of as much as $3 billion in Alabama alone. Under the Act, BP could be liable for penalties up to $20 billion.”

We applaud Senator Shelby for his efforts on behalf of the people of Alabama. We are, unfortunately, also very confused. Isn’t Senator Shelby a Republican? EPA, Litigation, Government regulations and fines….

Newt Gingrich is calling for the dismantling of the EPA, with its regulations and fines, to be replaced by what he calls The Environmental Solutions Agency, which would apparently just sort of make suggestions. Now that’s Republican, always against the “needless government regulations” as they call them. Newt would have the oil industry, as well as others, deregulated just as they will be needing regulation most. Deregulation hasn’t seemed to work very well as of late. But that’s Republican.

Several freshman GOP members of Congress are turning down health care coverage as a protest against the health care law. Now that’s republican. Doesn’t make sense, but that’s Republican.

Republicans say “let the market decide.” They want to get rid of a person’s right of legal redress against…well, whoever their lobbyists represent. They want to let the banks be completely deregulated. Everything but your underwear drawer, your phone calls or your body is off limits. That’s Republican. This is the reason for our confusion.

Senator Shelby, did we hear you correctly?

Shelby Cosponsors Bill to Repeal Healthcare Law

2011-01-27T05:33:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON, DC Wednesday, January 26, 2011 -- U.S. Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) today cosponsored legislation known as the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act, which seeks to repeal the health care reform law that was signed into law last year.

“America has the best health care in the world," Says Shelby, "Obamacare will destroy the quality of care and lead to rationing of it."

Respectfully, Senator Shelby, we must disagree. According the the World Health Organization, America doesn't actually have the best health care system in the World. We're actually ranked number 37. The WHO's who's who of countries with better health care than the US is divided up among more Left leaning countries and wealthy smaller countries. The Left leaning countries, of course, have comprehensive plans based on the needs of the people. The smaller, wealthy countries consist, mostly of oil producing countries whose per-capita income far exceeds ours.

As far as rationing. it seems the current model, that which the health care law has only just begun to repair, does far more rationing than the new law will, through the income gap and the current Wall Street induced unemployment. In fact the new law is designed, specifically to get ALL Americans covered by health insurance.

Repealing the new law seems like an unfortunate, politically motivated waste of time and money. Over 670,000 people in the state of Alabama are uninsured (source).The new law will, given time, insure them all. Before moving forward with the repeal of the health care law, let us see your plan in full. How are you going to guarantee a better plan for the American people? How will you be able to repair the system better than what you call "Obamacare" and help Americans get the services they need?

With all due respect, there has never been a Republican plan to fix the health care problem in our country. In fact, there has been nothing but misguided, politically based opposition, justified by an inaccurate interpretation of the constitutional limits of the Federal Government. This approach has served only a select few, content on maintaining the status-quo, their profit margins, and those paranoid about the role of government. Whereas the new health care law actually benefits the medical field, the American people, and the insurance companies. The only possible opposition is through the use of fear and fomenting an irrational distrust of government. In which case we should disband, first, the military, then the post office, the FBI, Homeland Security, then work our way down to the local police and fire departments. I believe this might be the goal of the GOP in fact.

We encourage you to use our good, old fashioned Alabama horse sense. Which in this case means the course that makes sense, the pragmatic course. Don't spend taxpayer dollars to overturn a law that can help so many. President Obama has welcomed reform, where it is warranted, he has welcomed compromise. Be reasonable.

2011-01-25T05:58:00.001-08:00

It's easy to see why right wingers are so misinformed.
Just let Rush tell you what to think.

Go North Young Man

2011-01-22T07:33:00.000-08:00

Recently, Fox News opinionater, Sean Hannity suggested we reinvade Iraq because they didn’t appreciate us. They didn’t greet us with flowers, like the liberators we are. He suggested we should just take the oil and use it to pay ourselves for the trouble we went through invading Iraq.

Mr. Hannity took some heat for this statement, the left wing blogosphere lighting up like the Fourth of July. People claimed this was outrageous. How dare he suggest such a thing? They seem to forget that this is what President Cheney and Vice President Rumsfeld promised to begin with.

The Left lit into him. At this, I take umbrage. Not only did I just want an excuse to use that word, perhaps the basis for this entire piece, but also to back up Mr. Hannity in his insightful stance.

I support the general approach, take what you want because you feel you deserve it. The future belongs to the bold, those willing to seize opportunities for their own benefit, seize, take control, dominate! If I have any complaint about this idea it is the target. Sure Iraq owes us for all our attentions, from the blockades and no fly zones, to the recent invasion. The question is not do they owe us. Do we really owe them? Our attentions are worth something. We have made that clear. And the Iraqis don’t appreciate it. We should reserve our attentions for someone who might better understand. Someone, let’s say, who speaks the same language.

That’s why I’m suggesting Canada.

They have oil. They’re close. And, by God, they owe us. We’ve been down here protecting them from Mexico for ages, and providing jobs for their actors, comedians, and singers. We’ve been buying up their cheap medicines and blessing them with our tourism. And in return we’ve gotten overpriced maple syrup and bacon that isn’t bacon. We’ve gotten a snobby attitude aboot how friendly they are and how crude and rough we are. I think we should show them. Let’s make them respect us. Let’s take what we want.

Why should we travel halfway around the world to reinvade Iraq? Been there…Done that! Canada has oil, lots of it. And thanks to global climate change, it will be like the mid-west, like home. We can go up there and show them how to make bacon. They are more like us. They still have a Queen. We can liberate them from her. She might go into hiding and we’ll never be able to catch her. We will, therefore, never have to leave.

Mr. Hannity. I invite you to join my cause. This is the greatest country on Earth. And if that doesn’t mean we can do whatever we want then I don’t know what does. I understand your sentiments. You’re hurt. You know the Iraqis just don’t get how happy they should be we came. But quit wasting your time. Let it go. My advice, for the future of our Manifest Destiny… Go North Young Man.

Just think about it.

Fickle

2011-01-18T05:25:00.000-08:00

How can we expect our representatives to know what to do when we are so fickle?

In a recent poll released by the AP the number of Americans who favor stronger healthcare laws is now 43 percent, with those in favor of repeal now at 26 percent. Only 10 percent want a healthcare law which does less than the current law.

You work for a company for twenty years, you pay your insurance every year, every month, every day, expecting you'll be covered. Some policy gets changed, some plant moves overseas chasing cheap labor, then you're laid off. Since there has NEVER been a consistent strategy to level the playing field with our foreign competitors, the jobs aren't coming back. So "laid off" simply means "unemployed." You have to be smart enough to follow this scenario out. There are a number of directions this could go, most of them bad.

The most important issue in regard to healthcare is education. Yes... education and information are both so damaged in our country by the current political propaganda war and the Right's constant attempts to dismantle our education system, in favor of privatization, that we have a crisis of misunderstanding. The American people are so misinformed that they have no chance to make the right decisions. The misinformation battle has lead to a national schizophrenia which expresses itself in both our foreign and domestic policies. But what do we expect our leaders to do?

We, the American people, only respond with knee jerk reactions and would rather be obsessed with "Brangelina" or who is dancing with the stars, than concern ourselves with how many soldiers and civilians are dieing in Afghanistan or if our neighbors are losing their house because of bankruptcy or skyrocketing health care expenses. If anything happens which even mildly upsets our TV buzz we switch the channel. Or those that are obsessed with, and only watch the news, have hooked in so completely to the propaganda machine of their choice that all they hear is the shouting. TV has become our new national drug, it just depends on what kind of trip you're on. Why, because most Americans have forgotten how to read, or, for some, never leaned how. Reading allows a person to study information free from the manipulations of the talking heads.

Why reading helps the Liberal agenda: As with the healthcare bill, when people take the time to consider what the actual issues are, and reflect on them, the majority will side more with the truth, with the intelligent choice. Given time, facts like evolution, global climate change, peak oil, become accepted and ingrained in the social mindset. People realize them as the truths they are because they have had time to reflect and ponder, and see through the Right's disinformation campaign. This is why reading about an issue is so important. Although it might seem to take more time than being "fed" the information by a talking head, it actually speeds up our social evolution. Only through mass dissemination of the truth with time for people to absorb it can we correct the misdirection of our social awareness.

As with most issues, ideas about healthcare are evolving. They do not seem to be evolving in the wrong direction in the social mindset. People do not want to see their neighbors starving or dieing on the street. They do not want to see people lose their houses or their jobs (but closing the door and turning on your screen needs to stop being the preferred method for avoiding that sight). They want to unite and pull together. They have just not been allowed access to truthful information or advised on how to get this information. The good news is, over time the information seems to be sinking in. The bad news is, too many people are allowed to suffer and die while the American people slowly move in the proper direction.

Meme of the Year

2011-01-17T04:06:00.000-08:00

Hands down, Antoine Dodson.

Defense of Deism

2010-12-14T07:09:00.000-08:00

Basically, Deism is the belief that there is a sentient force, God, which, at least, created the Universe. After creation, Deists are allowed to follow their own interpretations of the Universe, to attempt to understand God’s will and plan, and if there even is a “plan,” using reason as their guide, as opposed to superstition, fear and ancient religious texts. Also, Deists believe that other religions, “revealed” religions, are man made and do not represent the will of God so much as the ideas of people.

Given the varying sects within all religions, the basic divisions, it’s clear that there is no absolute, “God ordained” religion. Why do so many people argue about “the word of God,” argue and kill over it, while each sect believes God somehow loves them, or backs them more than any other? This is obviously indicative of a basic flaw in our human concept of religion. We believe we need to justify our beliefs with some artifact or text which somehow received the official seal of God. Once made, this claim requires ultimate blind adherence, even when obvious facts contradict it. This leads to unavoidable schism, within religions, between religions and between the believers and truth itself. Because if the words you follow are “God ordained” how can they contain mistakes. So if one word is questioned, then the entire precept that “God’s” word must be followed collapses. So the deception must be maintained to avoid religious extinction.

Deists, with an adherence to rational thought, and rejection of “revealed” religions, do not face this need for deception, as their beliefs in a higher power do not necessarily contradict reality. Science and the quest for knowledge is more out of respect and wonder at God’s creation, less a need to alter facts to justify one’s “official seal from God.” Deists are allowed to realize different ideas and stories about God down through the ages were just that, stories, ideas, lessons, etc. In the same way stories can be told about the Sun, stories can be told about God. Stories of the Sun might be incorrect, but this doesn’t negate the existence of the Sun. It is a way we can connect and relate to the Sun. The same goes for God, and stories about God. These stories represent human ideas, and a beauty and creativity reflecting the human desire to understand their creator.

These same stories when used to bludgeon the human mind into belief lead to an effect opposite their intent. Those not inclined to succumb to force or coercion in the forming of their beliefs automatically balk at the misrepresentation of man’s imperfect knowledge of God’s creation, preferring to believe nothing rather than believing in obvious untruth. Thus, minds that might be allowed to embrace their relationship with God and seek out the more mystical aspects of creation are, instead, turned away from God. Atheists and Agnostics, when confronted with blind belief will tend toward the healthy reaction of rejection. Likewise, believers within the religious community, when confronted with the obvious truths presented by science, will conversely be required to reject these truths to maintain their “faith.”

The decentralized nature of Deism allows for security of principle through dispersal of will. Across the Globe people have embraced the idea that the Universe either had or might possibly have had a creator. The open nature of the concept allows for the strength of differing ideas and the flourishing of the potential of our God given brainpower. We may seek out the truth and God at the same time using all the faculties of our wits combined. Incapable of removing his own ego, thoughts, social and cultural ideas and fallibility, Man should not set himself up as the voice of God. We should remain open to the truth and the possibilities before us, that God does exist and can withstand the challenges of reality. We can know that God, as the creator of all things will eventually be revealed through the course of reason and quest for truth, as opposed to the backward thinking, close minded clenchings of literalists.

-By Bill Sims

Merry Christmas and Quit Your Bitching

2010-12-05T06:51:00.000-08:00

Yes, that’s right merry Christmas. From the liberal news organization, The Birmingham Free Press. It is our official stance that you have a merry Christmas. We do not mind saying merry Christmas and in fact will say merry Christmas as many times as we want. We feel that there are a group of Americans who claim to be followers of The Prince of Peace and yet find any excuse to be hateful and argumentative.

It is our opinion that the holiday season, oh my God, I mean your God, I mean which God? I mean, I said holiday instead of Christmas…Christmas season …I can’t think for all the yelling and judgment in my head, the constant bitter condemnation. I really don’t want to hear all the arguing during Yule tide, I mean the holiday season, I mean if there is one time of year that we could all set aside our differences and be at peace with one another this would be it.

I hear constantly how people should not judge Sarah Palin or her followers based on the few people that yell racial epithets at rallies, or carry monkeys around with Obama written on them. And the good natured liberals oblige, judging not. The good natured liberals know that it makes no sense to judge an entire group by the merits, or lack of merits of the few outspoken and loudest photograph magnets. So even if any Liberals condemn anyone for saying merry Christmas, which I haven’t heard, it does not represent an entire group of people. Listen to the bile coming out of the Right blogosphere, the words of hatred and distortion are manifest. While I can find few examples of individuals against saying merry Christmas, there are scores upon scores of individuals claiming there is a war on Christmas. This has been completely fabricated. If some stores have a policy where they are trying to be respectful and not say merry Christmas...well, there's your "market deciding" I guess. They are not being warlike and confrontational. Whereas, to Right Wingers everything is war. War on this...war on that. Judge a tree by its fruits.

Why then, is there an issue about saying "holiday season?" Does wishing someone happiness even though they are of a different religion equal being anti-Christmas? I never in my life worried about saying merry Christmas to anyone until the conservative propaganda machine began claiming there was a problem. I think it is absolutely ridiculous and rude to purposefully wish a practicing Jew merry Christmas to prove a point about anything, unless you know them well enough and you're making a joke. Because it is a joke, the whole issue is a joke. And I miss Christmas times past when people tried to act on their better nature and do good for others. When the arguing stopped for a brief part of the year and we drank eggnog and didn’t hyper analyze every single word. This is not due to a few retailers and their policies. This is due to a multitude of Right Wing pundits and bloggers intent on causing problems, raising ire and raising the blood pressure of those easily led into war.

We at The Birmingham Free Press are peace loving. Our policy is Freedom with a capital "F," Love with a capital "L." We're about Happiness and Light and Goodness... with capitals.

So Merry Christmas! Happy Holidays! Find your Strength in Cheer and in Joy! And for "God's" sake, have Fun people!

Illusion- Disillusionment-- Faith? What your preacher's wife may not have told you

2010-12-04T10:20:00.001-08:00

I remember the first time the church fell off the pedestal for me.... I was 21 and newly married. As if being 21 and newly married wasn't difficult enough, I had married a youth minister and suddenly become responsible for twenty to thirty kids. I was starry eyed and determined to be the most perfect "help meet" for my husband as I loved and guided a group of teenage girls into avoiding the same mistakes I had made as a teenager.

My husband, raised inside the proverbial glass box as a preacher's kid, was much more realistic than I. But, of course, I had spent my life peering in the glass box from the outside. Growing up, my preacher and his wife had somehow found following God, completely, well, at least tolerable. To me, life inside the glass box didn't at all seem enjoyable. After all, who has ever enjoyed swimming in blue jeans? Not to mention the list of words that couldn't be said was entirely too long… Did you know that saying "gosh" is actually a precursor to saying "God" and taking the Lord's name in vain? And is no doubt a slippery slope to having the mouth of a sailor?

Still, at the time, as stale and un-admirable as their lives were, their devotion to the life they thought they should live was at least worthy of respect. So, the times when I would run into the preacher and his wife out in town, I would eagerly pull at my skimpy, three-inches-above-my-knee-shorts in an attempt to gain every inch of church-girl-modesty possible (out of respect for them of course). Who would ever have imagined then that I would one day be the proud owner of my own glass box?

I had tried everything I could think of to break things off with my then-fiancé. Mainly because I couldn't imagine a life having to wear pantyhose even though I would be wearing skirts that reached my ankles. But as love often does, it had its way, and I found myself becoming a minister's wife, determined to bring the church into the 20th century with a nice pair of capri pants and a stylish and nicely pressed, capped sleeve shirt. It wasn't long before I realized that pantyhose were the least of my problems.

After only two weeks of marriage, two weeks into my new role, we were invited to the preacher's house for dinner. I was well versed in the expectations of a preacher's wife in throwing dinner parties. But using the word party in conjunction with preacher's wife, in this case, is irony in its purest form. Regardless, the invitation was no surprise at all.

I was flabbergasted to find our meeting wasn't a full evening of singing Kum-ba-ya, head bowed, no clapping of course. There was plenty of time set aside for reverent formalities. I knew I had dishonored my husband, unfortunately, when everyone quieted and stared at me as I stole a croûton from my salad before we said the prayer. But the moment was brief, moving quickly to the prayer, thus preserving my soul, as much as possible, after my great sin. Then I proceeded to learn a truth my heart was not yet ready to learn. Although eating before the prayer was a cause for confession on Sunday morning, nonchalantly discussing "church politics" with the assumption that God dislikes the same people in our church as we did, was clearly acceptable.

I remember my husband's surprise as I cried the whole way home that night; one, my pride was hurt because I was clearly, unaware of “minister's wife etiquette.” two, and more so, because of the secret behind the illusion that I believed had been revealed. I was newly walking in reality within my own glass box, with full knowledge that there was nowhere on earth to go to catch a glimpse of Heaven, or so I believed that night. I remember, even more clearly, my surprise at my husband's surprise, and the realization from his reaction that what I had just experienced was well within the norm of the happenings of the church. I clearly had bitten off way more than I could chew.

I would like to say this was only an isolated incident in our time of ministry, and that other than that, it has been all rainbows and butterflies. But this particular incident is actually mild compared to some we've experienced. There were many times I would have walked away totally, could I have gotten away with it. This is not to say that in our time in ministry, we haven't met wonderful followers of Jesus. Or, that the people in that house that night weren't those followers. And, there have been wonderful glorious moments when we have gathered as a church to lovingly care for someone in need that I have, no doubt, felt as if I was catching a glimpse of Heaven. The truth is, the church is made up of humans. Humans, even those who proclaim to follow Jesus, are fallible. And in our fallen state, we often misrepresent Jesus. And so this disillusionment that I've experienced with the church often leads me to a crossroad. A crossroad where I once again choose to either walk away because of a broken people, or to press along toward, as my husband says, "making God's dream for the world a reality" as He uses us and molds us and one day makes us whole. As I'm faced with the choice, again and again, I know that there is only one way that provides any hope at all. So today, I choose to leave my fingerprint smudges on my glass box and ask that God helps me to see others with the grace that He sees me..

Blessings,

Dana

2010-11-24T19:30:00.000-08:00

Panama Canal Gets a Boob Job

If that made you look it says something about us both. But how freakin’ boring does it sound to say Panama Canal Gets Breast Augmentation? Of course, then it’s all downhill from there.

It’s actually an interesting story. Not, perhaps, the way I’ll tell it. But if you’ll suspend your judgment and just pretend everything I’m saying is somehow magically fascinating then you’ll be fascinated…See? Smile and you’ll be happy, that sort of thing.

Let’s see…Read this part quickly and I might be able to hang on to you… Nigh on 100 year ago, back in a simpler time, there was some diggin’. I guess it goes back farther than that, to two French attempts that ended in disease and failure. The United States took over the Panama Canal project in 1904, and completed it in 1914. Here is an interesting perception of the US from that time, surprising given the opinion of the US throughout the World today:

“It is to the lasting credit of the Americans that they have turned a pest-hole into one of the healthiest places on the continent. The mosquito has been banished, yellow fever is now unheard of, and the death-rate of the Isthmus is lower than that of the average American city. Not only has the health of the men making the canal been cared for, but a revolution has been effected in the sanitary arrangements of the cities and towns of the Isthmus. This is an accomplishment more creditable to the American Government than any mere engineering feat could be. A civilised state could show its greatness in no better manner than by taking this wide and humane view of its responsibilities.”

-"The Magellan Times", 8-VII-1914

Yes, we were cool back then. A real get up and go spirit. The canal afforded us the opportunity to increase trade and for our navy to more easily and effectively patrol both sides of our continent. It proved invaluable during WWII. Yes it was a tad bit empirialistic. But if you’re going to be a bitch, be a bitch with style. It really was the friendliest face of empirialism ever known.

Well, time passed, this, that and the other thing happened. People got angry because we parked our military in the middle of their country and took all the money from the canal…we had to give it back. We still get to use it. But we just can’t own it. Thanks Jimmy Carter for being all moral and ethical.

OK…I feel like I’m losing you. I’m trying to avoid as many of the boring facts and dates as possible: Like 1977 when Carter signed the treaty with Panamanian President Omar Torrijos, agreeing to give back the canal by the year 2000, Or the invasion of Panama to oust the dangerous dictator Manuel Noriega who apparently declared war against the United States and was always invading other countries like he invaded uh…hmmm…like…and…well… somebody said he was dangerous that’s good enough for me. After all, we were all of a sudden tired of paying him to be our ally and letting him sell dope. And who knew him better than the former head of the CIA who signed his checks. Thanks George Sr.

Now, I ask you, where is the style in that?

I bet, assuming you’ve read this far, you’re wondering “why is this fella’telling me all this stuff about some old ditch in Panama?” No, it has nothing to do with Van Halen.

I know I should be talking about the royal wedding more. I know I should be worried about North Korea, because John Bolton assures us we need to bomb Iran to stop North Korea…did I say that right? Yes, that was it. But for those who have already left us and our little story, they’re about to miss the exciting part. Well…at least slightly thrilling…or if neither of those, at least it’s important... and relevant.

You see, the Panama Canal was a game changer, in more ways than one. It was, whatever your political views as to correctness, an indicator of the United States’ hemispherical superiority (I’m assuming you know what I mean by that). It represented the unified approach of American business, its social and its political interests, while at it’s inception providing us with a positive image in the World. It profited us in almost every way and paid for itself many, many, many times over.

But time marches on. Now it comes to pass that shipping has changed dramatically, populations have grown and China is quickly becoming the fastest growing market on the whole planet. They are competing with us in trade overseas, and here on our own shores. They are seeking out partnerships with countries, competing with us for petroleum and stealing our valuable shoe making jobs (now that joke would have been funny, in a rude sort of way, about ten years ago. But now they’re making more than just tennis shoes and firecrackers). Even though a good many of the products that are made in China have come under fire for safety reasons, creative property theft, patent infringement and more, they are selling boatloads, yes, boatloads. Now that brings us to the canal.

Americans consume…we thirst and hunger and devour the Earth. We want more and more and more. The size of the ships heading out from Asia has grown. They can’t fit through the Panama Canal anymore. So here comes the boob job. It actually isn’t a boob job at all, of course. But it’s a make over at least. The Panama Canal is being increased in size to let the big ships through (do an Internet search if you’re interested in the details, too many to hit here). So goods that normally would have been dropped at a port in California can now “steam” right on over to the East Coast and cut out the West Coast railroads. Hmmm. Now that could be a game changer. And just as we are looking to upgrade our railroads and thinking high speed commuter trains, there comes an industry shift. It doesn’t necessarily mean the West Coast railroads will drop out of the game. They have foreseen the change and are trying to strike deals to lower their rates and keep their business. But East Coast railroads, trucking companies and ports are gearing up to receive the possible increase in traffic. No one can say for sure what might happen.

Then, being the Liberal tree hugger that I am, I have to bring up the Northwest Passage, the shipping route above Canada which, up until the effects of global warming, froze and became impassable in the winter months. That might seem like a benefit of global warming. Obviously I’m not allowed to say there are any benefits though, because ultimately global warming will cause so many serious problems we can’t praise it. I will just assume you’re intelligent enough to know that. Although these waterways are increasingly passable they give rise to other issues. Canada claims the waters to be Canadian, while America claims them to be international. What are you going to do? It’s all part of an uncertainty in near future trading that will change things. Some people will argue that it has to be great for the American consumer because it will mean cheaper goods. We’ve been hearing that for a while. How’s that working for everyone?

As for Alabama, we won’t see much change directly. The port of Mobile has already grown rapidly and Mobile Bay can’t handle the size ships we’re talking about anyway. Indirectly, as our economy heats up, who can say? The Chinese sell their goods faster and cheaper, then Chinese consumers have more money to spend on cars, then the Chinese secure more agreements with petroleum rich countries, then we go to the Conoco down the street and pay an extra couple of dollars for gas because of supply and demand, and speculators.

Things are changing. Our leaders lack the strategic foresight and vision of leaders past. So what do we do? The American consumers can do what they do so well. Bitch! We can’t help it. It’s part of our heritage. The best we can do about that is, if we’re going to be a bitch, for God’s sake, let’s be a bitch with style.

Public Health is a Public Issue: On the Healthcare Debate

2010-11-21T18:32:00.000-08:00

The nature of modern society in so many different ways has given Americans much more freedom and control. Of course, it has brought new challenges as well.

Imagine walking down the street on your way back from your lunch break. Suddenly you hear your name and see an old acquaintance from college coming your way. You shake hands and ask how he’s been. He explains that he just returned from Asia where he was working on an exciting new project. After a few minutes of catching up you say your farewells and start to walk away. From behind you, you hear him sneeze. These encounters happen all the time. People travel so much more quickly from place to place than has ever been possible before. And along with them comes all the rest of their experience, from bed bugs to flu bugs.

We are required to spend so much up close time with other people on a day to day basis that there is no way to avoid every bug or potential contagion. It isn’t possible for people to just stay home and avoid the world. And it shouldn’t have to be. Contagious diseases are a part of life and probably will be for a long time, if not forever. But as a society we have the means to deal with them and have pulled together many times in the past to do so. In fact, generations past would surely balk at the lost potential of not securing the health of the general populace since we have the means.

Now say you’re coming out of work and a man approaches you asking you to take a survey. You oblige, finish and head off for a few beers with friends before going home. The man giving the survey happens to work contract labor and carries no health insurance. He also has TB. It could be any number of diseases endemic to any society. The problem is that he is still walking around, untreated, because he does not have the means to acquire health insurance. He could go to the Health Department and get treated. But he doesn’t feel bad, does not even know he has TB. And he was very friendly by the way.

We have to go into public. We have to deal with each other. Life has to go on. Modern society dictates certain necessities of interaction that we are powerless to avoid.

If the right pathogen creeps out of the right jungle mutates just the right way and hops on the right flight…Bam…there you go! And it happens all the time. So these are important questions to ask when considering whether or not the government should or should not have any say in health care. A well maintained health care system which allows the general populace to control their own health issues better seems more like an ounce of prevention compared to the tons of cost by not proactively addressing public health. The Republicans never brought this up when in charge. Hopefully now, as they return to power, they will be forced to do something. Or at the least, do nothing to hurt the solutions put in place by the Democratic Congress.

Just a link- http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/default.aspxess.

Why I'm a gun toting, strict Constitutionalist, Liberal.

2010-11-04T18:29:00.000-07:00

It's important to put your cards on the table. Unfortunately in the information game that's why Liberals lose out so often. There is no concerted, organized effort to rival the right wing propaganda machine as it exists today. By openly and honestly expressing ourselves and hoping for a fair exchange of ideas Liberals open themselves up for constant defeat. It can't be helped in most cases. We value freedom and Democracy, along with a respect for the modern ideals of fairness and equal rights that cannot rival the single minded, strategic onslaught of the far Right machine. This machine shamelessly harnesses what should be noble and virtuous attributes of American values by distortion, manipulation and misdirection.

A constant and concerted misinformation campaign pours out minute by minute by Right-wing media outlets with the obvious flagship being Fox News. It's not fair to say conservative values don't run deep in America. On the contrary, many Liberals hold certain conservative values close to their heart. Given the inherent openness to ideas and commitment to freedom of thought cherished by Liberals, they are "allowed" to embrace many differing ideas. Nor is it fair to say that Conservatives, by design, must be closed to diversity. It just seems like, more often than not they have to deny this until they "get caught".

Several points must be addressed to understand the truth about Liberal philosophy.

Point 1- What is a Liberal?

Liberal: (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")^[1] is the belief in the importance of individual liberty and equal rights.^[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the separation of church and state. These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century. (from Wikipedia)

Point 2-Do Liberals respect the Constitution?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (from Article VI or The Constitution of The United States of America.)

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment clearly provides that States are by necessity bound to the same laws with regard to personal freedom as laid out by Federal law. Attempting to protect children from prayers which might not represent them in schools where they are forced to go by law, by the government, is clearly in line with the intent of the Establishment Clause and a perfectly righteous cause.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Right-wing propaganda machine would have people believe that Liberals want to take away their guns. Direct your attention to the words "well regulated". The idea that preventing the sale of assault rifles or registering weapons is unconstitutional is unfounded.

Read the Constitution carefully. It clearly lays out the powers and the limits of government. The debate over certain aspects of the recent Health Care bill raises certain questions about the constitutionality of certain Liberal ideas. Is it over-reaching to consider the protections of public health when debating the Health Care Bill? Can public health, as set by precedent from past decisions, be an area for government involvement? Is there anything in the Constitution that expressly prohibits federal requirement of health care purchase by individuals? Since corporations are entities granted existence and regulated by the government, can we set out to control them and regulate their power?

If we could get back to honest debate...which is clearly not the situation these days, we could let the democratic process flourish and continue to move forward, leading the World in ideas, not just economically and militarily. This is why I'm a gun toting Liberal, strict Constitutionalist. I do not agree with all the ideas of the current flock of Democrats. I would love to stand up to much of what they are pushing. But the alternatives of now are unacceptable. The blind followers of Fox news and the Right-wing propaganda machine have devolved the political landscape for years with inflammatory rhetoric and untruths. Even for those who agree with some of the goals of the new Conservatives it's unfortunate that they are allowing the ends to justify the means.