New Game: Drink when your President makes you ashamed!

Tonight is the State of the Union address, wherein President Bush will say the words "terror," "evil," and, "freedom," over and over again until someone shoves a nail up their nose and punctures their brain simply to end the grating sensation all that nonsense makes when it rubs up against the rational mind of an informed citizen. That is the constitutionally mandated method of determining when to stop the speech. I, however, will not be watching it, for the first time since about 1995. (One thing I will say, is that Bush is much better than Clinton at making a concise speech that hits his policy points in a simple and direct manner...Clinton SOTUs famously went on for hours and hours, this is probably because Clinton was a much better policy President if a less adept being-on-TV President). Though God knows that I'll read all the coverage tomorrow.
Quite frankly, I can't take it. I just can't anymore. It's not that they're bad speeches (though they are) it's that the simple platitudes are both unworthy of the great stage that is the SOTU and that the assertions are so obviously faulty. Seriously, I assume politicians are lying to me, what is upsetting is when they do it so brazenly that it demonstrates contempt. He'll be (by all reports) rolling out ideas about HSAs (Health Savings Accounts) that workers will deposit money in, tax-free, for future heath care costs, instead of company plans or governement healthcare. The rationale is that then they'll make better market choices (because, as you know, when dying of cancer, you like to comparison shop for the cheapest treatment), and that a market system will reduce the inefficiencies of the current system. The problem is that it's the market elements that make healthcare expensive and hard to get now. Imagine if there were no Social Security, no pensions, just your savings account for retirement? Yeah, that would be bleak...in fact it was bleak back when that was how it worked, that's why we changed it. This will decrease coverage and increase the cost of healthcare. No one disputes that--the advocates of HSAs don't dispute that. (More about HSAs and the market here, and here, you might have to scroll a bit). But Bush will say the opposite.
Dahlia Lithwick wrote a column on Slate.com about Bush's odd behavior: he's not advoicating a policy and asking you to go along with it, he's just doing what he wants to do and telling you to go along with it for your own good. He's not saying what he's doing is good, he's saying that because it's him that's doing it, it's good.
So I can't take it. It's actually painful for me. He's so obviously lying, stupid, or both. You know that feeling you get when you're watching a movie and the hero is about to ask out the pretty girl and you know that he's going to get turned down hard but he's gonna do it because he believes so you just can't watch because you are embarrased for the hero? That's how I feel when I watch the President make a speech, it's like there's no way you can say that much bullshit with a straight face unless you are completely clueless, so I'm embarrased for the Prez. I'm going to get some beers and watch Richard Dawkins' documentary: The Root of All Evil. It's about how religion is ruining the world; written, produced, and narrated by Richard Dawkins, Oxford evolutionary biologist and prolific author of such books as "The Self Gene." I dont' necessarily agree with Dawkins on all of this, but it seems like the least Bush-y thing I could possibly watch. Some might say porno, but I feel like there are too many parallels.

Read more

Oh, Brangelina, I know you just wanted to help, but we need to talk...

This is Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. They are both very famous actors and very, very pretty. More famous and better looking than you are or ever will be. It doesn't hurt that they, unlike many of their Hollywood bretheren actually make some pretty good movies from time to time. I like both of them, they don't seem to suck too much. Here's the problem. Do you know where they are in this picture? Dining amongst the fabulous at Le Cirque? Looking over dailies on their newest movie? Hell, are they waiting to get picked up at the airport after jetting off for a romantic get away? No, they are in Davos, Switzerland at the World Economic Forum. Every year academics, policy makers, CEOs, and other global muckity-mucks congregate in this alpine resort to hash out the issues of the day and exchange ideas about the direction the world should take in the coming year. They scmooze, they booze, they attend conferences. This is as close to conspiracy theory like Tri-Lateral commission stuff as actually ever happens in the real world. But in recent years, celebreties have been showing up. It started with Richard Gere tagging along with the Dalai Lama, then pretty soon Sharon Stone (who while, by accounts is very, very smart, is also batshit insane) is asking questions at the AIDS crisis panel. Now we get Brad and Angelina (or Brangelina as they have been dubbed). Sitting around and looking all serious.
I am perfectly willing to believe that they are serious and well informed, and I'm perfectly aware of the fact that Angelina has, admirably, used her celebrity largely to do good works. But this trend bothers me. Celebrity causes are all well and good...I mean would you tell a plumber that he can't hold any political opinions just 'cause he's a plumber? No, then neither should you tell an actor the same thing. Bono seems to be serious about his stuff too, not just a dilletante. But what worries me is when celebrities start parlaying their star power into policy clout. Should Brangelina totally speak out against land mines and do good will tours for the UN, if only to raise awairness? Hell yes they should. Let's start making some reasonable engagement with the world a prerequisition to world-wide celebrity. That will start thining the herds of sickly cattle not ready for market: I'm looking at you Hilton sisters. But should celebrities actually demand to be heard over the voices of the serious government, univeristy and NGO people that have devoted their lives to an intricate understanding and commitment to the issue at hand? No. If Angelina Jolie want's to be that, then she's really gonna have to stop making movies because you can't do both. Just like the plumber should be allowed to speak his mind about whatever he wants, I don't actually want him deciding healthcare policy; I mean, damn, I don't want half the people deciding healthcare policy to be deciding healthcare policy.
Otherwise you end up with some of the less, uh, serious (i.e, outright rediculous) spectacles like Sean Penn going to Iraq and writing his silly columns back to the San Francisco Chronicle (who's editor used to be married to Sharon Stone). Do me and Sean Penn probably share a similar basic outlook (negative) on the Iraq war? Yeah. But do either of us really know shit about it? Nope. This is one of the many reasons that major newspapers have yet to offer me a column on Iraq.
And dont' think that the bad-guys in all of this--the one's who started the Iraq for dumb-ass ideological reasons, and the one's that go to Davos to be seen themselves, but never listen to any of the serious policy proposals because they're too busy bathing in piles of money wrung from the desicated bodies of puppies and orphans--don't think that they don't love it when The Brangelinas and Sean Penns (Seans Penn?) stick their perfect widdle noses into this stuff, because it distracts from the serious work of de-fucking the planet. Henry Kissenger get's a big fat smile on his face everytime he sees Sharon Stone at one of these things, because he knows the cameras are on her (and because he's a lech and she's hot) and not him, and the discussion of why the US doesn't join the International Criminal Court will be put off another day (and coincidentally, Henry Kissenger will not be halled away to Holland for the secret bombing of Cambodia).
Look, it takes a bit of an ego to be a famous actor. You have to have that sense of self to really sell the part, right? That's not the worst thing in the world, to be so self confident that you will do a bunch of interesting shit in front of millions of people. That confidence is one of the things that makes us all stare at them with our free time. But when Brad Pitt shows up to Davos, the story becomes Brad Pitt, and it's no longer starving children in Thailand, or the youth of Iran. That is really crappy outcome, so I'm going to need celebrities to stay the hell away from Iraq, and Davos, and such. Again, goodwill tours? Great idea, because then the celebrity status is working for the cause (this actually was Princess Diana's particular genius). But until the celebrities accept a fellowship, or do some graduate work, or maye just take a few years off to unobtrusively volunteer, we are all going to need celebrities to shut the fuck up. And maybe give a million dollars to charity.

Read more

Kaiser Sose: or and Open Letter to God, The Father, The Almighty, God of Gods, and King of Kings, the One Who is "I AM"

In "The Usual Suspects" Keven Spacey's character say that he believes in God, but he's afraid of Kaiser Sose [who is him: which is to say, Kevin Spacey's character].
Well, I believe in God, and I'm afraid of Kaiser Sose [or at least, myself], but I think that God is just a dick. Looking back over the Old Testament and the New, all I can see if God's Son apologizing for Him. And well that he should do it, because the Lord of Hosts does nothing but fuck His People in the ass. There was the covenant of Abraham, sanctified with the potential sacrifice of his son, Isaac. What the fuck is that? To solidify His sacred Covenant with His people, who He delivered out of bondage unto the land of Canaan, He demands the end of their line and the loss of their hope? That, my friends, is the act of douchebag. Sure, He spares Isaac, but He still needs blood in the form of the original scape-goat. What kind of effed up semetic blood cult does He who is "I Am" need? Burning bushes and requiring animal flesh? And yet "Let us now praise famous men and our fathers who begat us," (Sirach 44:1) Oh, friends, the Lord of Jacob and Isaac and the Law of Moses and our fathers is the true God of Nations, but just know before you give Him your praise (which is rightfully His alone, for there is no god but God and he has His prophets) that He sucks. He will ring you like a rag until the last drop of your blood and faith is His alone, so what kind of God, through Whom All Things Are Made, are we subject to. Sure, He so loved the world that he sent his only Son to die for our sins who is The Lord, enternally begotten of the Father, by the power of the Holy Spirit, He died for our sins. But he had to provide that Holy and Pascal sacrifice because He fucking owed us. Millenia of worship ended in tears and His representatives on earth have done nothing but preserved that misery.
I want to clarify that I believe in the One God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth. I have read Job and know that I that "I multiplieth words without knowledge. For Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding?" Yes I've read the 32nd chapter unto the ending of Job, and all the books in the Book.
But I am also a lawyer as well as Catholic Christian and if the Lord of Hosts hath made a covenenat with the men and women of Israel and Christ is the new Bride of the the Church, were, then, is our end? I ask only for the provision of the poor and the widow. Did not the Lord say on earth: "For I was hungered and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you took me in; naked and you clothed me; sick and you comforted me; in prison and you visted me." (Matt 25: 35-6)?
Sure, I believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. But only so I can meet the Big Guy and give Him a punch on the mouth. Hunter S. Thompson didn't die, he went God hunting, and he brought his elephant gun, because that Bastard has been asking for it, and when the good doctor bags Him, we'll all have a mighty cookout with the choir of angels and saints.

Read more

Who's House? Ben's House!

Who's got his name on all three founding documents of American independence (DoI, Constitution, treaty of recognition with Britain)? Who had many illigitimate children, one of whom became Royal Governor of New Jersey? Who got the gout because of his love of fine wines, and flirted with young comtesse's well into his 70's (much to their general delight)? Who became an icon of both the American and French Revolutions? Benjamin Franklin, dude. Today is his 300th birthday. You know that man gets all the honeys upstairs.

Read more

Things I have learned and relearned on vacation.

It's been a while, but I just want to say that Fat Tire beer is the best beer ever. I will hear no dissent. And don't give me shit like, "Well, I've had a Guiness in Dublin," or any other such douchebaggery. Because all I hear is, "Well, I'm such a dick I can't even let a guy enjoy his favorite beer without bringing up some circumstantial bullshit that doesn't help said guy when he just want's a pint around the corner and not on some godforsaken cloudy island in the North Atlantic."
The following have been gleaned from a few books I got for Christmas.
Pliny the Elder was a gullible bastard (dog headed people in India, apparently, were considered reasonable additions to his Natural History), and even he didn't think you should go around treating god like a reasonable subject for civic debate or public education.
Also, nationalism as an alternative to imperialism (e.g. post-WWI) is a good idea that is often poorly executed (e.g. post-WWI [I highly recommend A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin]); nationalism as the philosophy behind imperialism (e.g. Japan in 1930s and Manifest Destiny here at home) tends to lead to tears (e.g. Japan in 1945 and has anyone heard from the Naraganset in a couple of centuries? Also, black people would like a word with you about the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th Centuries).

Read more