Recently in rant Category
Stupid little buggers.
I went to take pictures at the Anonymous protest, yesterday. Anonymous -- if you're unaware -- is a protest movement against the Church of Scientology. The movement's organizers cloak themselves in anonymity to "protect" themselves from the Scientologist's well-documented harassment of any critics. So the protests are generally a lot of people in masks (see: Anonymous) waving signs outside any branch or office of this "Church".
The general things that the protesters are upset about include Scientology's secrecy, their financial focus, questionable physical and mental health practices, their tax-exempt status as a church, and their harassment of former members any just about anyone trying to find out any details about them.
But I had a vaguely bad feeling when I was reading a bit on the local Anonymous chapter's website, here in DC, on Friday night. They were specifically telling their 'members' to be doubtful about anyone who showed up that wasn't part of the protest. Anyone who stopped nearby, or anyone who asked questions, or talked to them in any way, was supposed to be viewed with distrust, since they could be a scientologist "mole". And sure enough, within about two minutes of arriving, and taking pictures from a nearby meridian in the street, (right next to the traffic cop assigned to keep order), I had people looking at me suspiciously. There were plenty of people pointing at me, soon enough. And lots of pictures and video footage including me, eventually. A few of the braver souls eventually yelled across the street that I should have been more subtle... I was too obvious a plant.
A plant for what? I wasn't talking to them. I wasn't getting in their way. I wasn't trying to disseminate my own message. Assume the worst... that I was L Ron Hubbard reincarnate... then what harm was I still causing to them? Are protesters there to be seen or not? Is there any value to being rude to people asking questions, as I watched them do to a couple others, just because they aren't part of your protest? Isn't that why you're there? You will never convince someone who's already hard-line for a cause. You're whole purpose in protest is to convince the people in the middle, who aren't firmly decided. To ignore them, or even chase them off, is just shooting yourself in the foot.
But... also not particularly shocking. The majority of the protesters were -- by appearance -- black block-ers. The people who go to ANY protest, in all black, wearing masks and imagining themselves to be the hard-core true-believers. My biggest problem with the black block, besides the fact that most of them are just obnoxious little pricks who protest because that's what "you're supposed to do", is that they always do it with their face covered. Attending a public protest with your face covered is meaningless. You protest because you want to stand up and say that no matter what the risk, I personally support this cause. To do so in a mask removes any personal commitment, making you a useless twat.
And of all the things to be pissed about -- to choose scientology says just as much about you as it does about them. They absolutely have some questionable practices. And I have a real problem with anyone who isn't open to questions. But in just about every major religion you'll find all the same basic issues as you do in Scientology. They all expect money... (tithing would have you give 10% of your income to the church). Mormons are just as secretive about their buildings and papers. Jehova's Witnesses have difficult and questionable restrictions on medical practices. I don't believe the scale at which the Scientologists do these same practices warrants this special attention. And on the chart of fucked-up institutions and practices that humanity inflicts upon itself, they don't even make the Top 100.
In the end, I don't care what they yelled at me. And if they want to film me, it just adds on to all the tourists' shots I probably already show up in ever summer. And attacking me just for taking pictures of people acting strangely on the streets of one of the main tourist locations in the country makes them no different than the cop who stopped me a week after September 11, 2001 for taking a picture of an empty street. I'm sure the black block will love that comparison.
I saw an article a couple weeks ago, about the 'new' HPV vaccine. And there was a blurb in the very last paragraph that really bothered me. But it felt like just that: a little incendiary bit with little actual factual support designed to inflame the passions and inflate the subscriber base for a few days.
But no. Weeks later and the little bit is taking over the story.
The HPV vaccine, in case you haven't heard, is a vaccine against the human papilloma virus. HPV is responsible for 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts. (There are over 40 types of HPV. The vaccine addresses 4 of them). The numbers are staggering. At least 50 percent of sexually active people in the US get HPV at some time in their lives. For a more detailed description, check out BWHI's program on HPV.
So we have a vaccine against at least a small portion of cancers. Cancer is the great monster that lurks in the dark. And we have one more small stone we can now throw at it. Having been declared safe by all the big alphabet-soup government agencies, many school districts and states are considering adding the vaccination to their list of required shots for girls for school attendance.
But the problem is that there's people protesting the recommended requirement. And more than anyone, I'm fine with dissent and disagreement. Protest the testing methods they used. Protest that there's not enough long-term knowledge of it's effects or efficiency. I might even help you protest that the government should not be dictating what you do with your own body. Protest that required vaccines are actually government mind-control drugs, if it makes you feel better. But no... the protest that is taking over this story is by conservative *cough*ignorant*cough*, family-values *cough*orwellian*cough* organizations, claiming that this vaccine will encourage sexual activity in minors.
Oh.
Mah.
Gawd.
Oh my gawd. Oh my gawd. Oh my gawd. I could ignore the horrible state of what we call sexual education in this country, that involves a lot of enforced ignorance and very little education. I could ignore the fact that anyone could believe a vaccination is going to encourage any little child to go out and get freaky. I could ignore the fact that someone could believe it takes ANYTHING to make a teenager horny. I could almost ignore the fact that they feel hiding any issue from someone is ever better than addressing it. But I can not ignore the fact that even if you could subscribe to all of the above ideas, you're willing to let someone suffer and die from horrendous diseases, all in the name of God and moral values. Where is the moral righteousness in preventable death?
If you're gonna put a form on your web page that checks to see what people are entering in the fields, and won't let them move on to the next field unless they complete the first one properly, then...
...give the user feedback as to what they're doing wrong so they can fix it!
Or... you know.... tell them how to do it right in the first place.
Otherwise, they may spend valuable time cursing you, trying multiple web browsers, and calling you, all to figure out why the hell they can't use your form.
So on my way into court for jury duty today, I had a thought that's occurred to me before. And strangely enough, it was again addressed in the book I was reading in the Juror's Lounge while waiting to be called--The Federalist Papers:
Why are people born in this country automatically subject to citizenship and all the requirements that come with it?
Even my church, which promises salvation and grape juice to anyone who asks, requires that you go through confirmation classes and a ceremony in order to become an official member. But in the U.S., anyone born here is automatically a citizen and required to do things like register for the draft and serve on juries and such.
I'm not saying it's a bad deal, because there's certainly some cool things that you get in exchange, like a common defense and free flags in the newspaper every spring. But why is it automatic. I'm less concerned with wether or not everyone deserves it, than I am with why it is actually forced on people. I've actually known people who went to the trouble of renouncing their citizenship. (Wonder how their life has gotten over the last few years?)
Even Hamilton, arguing for a stronger Federal government in The Federalist Papers, cites the lack of popular support in establishing the original Articles of Confederation as one of their weaknesses. He asks why people should be subject to the rule of a document they never got to vote on.
Shouldn't it either be much easier to renounce your citizenship, (and yes, all the benefits that come with it), or like a church, shouldn't you be included automatically up to a certain age, at which point you must make an educated decision as to wether you wish to remain officially associated with the entity? Or possibly something like Robert Heinlein suggests in Starship Troopers, where you can live a fairly normal life and even be successful. But if you wished to have any say in government, you had to provide some civil or military service to that government, to show your dedication to the body.
I don't think that there should necessarily be citizenship tests for people born into this society. We've proven generally bad at coming up with simple, fair tests. But attend a class that talks about all you're getting and all that will be required of you, and at the end of it, you have an interview where you state your choice.
*shrug*
I am…
…really disturbed.
There's a bad series of events rising. The news of the past week has been depressing enough. But reading the paper today casts a pall over everything.
Article One: Supreme Court Chief Justice Reinquist died last night. This man held on with tooth and nail, to his dying breath, to outlive the current administration. He must have been crushed after last year's elections. It would explain all his trips to the hospital this year. Once you know you can no longer make it, or that you've done all you can, you will die off rather quickly.
He's been dead for less than 24 hours, and the story has already become his replacement. The Shrub is expected to quickly name a nominee. Nothing will surprise me this time. I was sure last time, that it would have to be a hispanic person, or specifically a woman. Anything, really, but an old white man. Enter Roberts: Aspiring Old White Man. No, he hasn't been confirmed yet. But he will be. No legislator has the cahonés any more to take a stand on a single issue.
Article Two: The Marines have been ordered into New Orleans to maintain order. Is that even legal? The National Guard is one thing. Unless federalized, as President Kennedy did, the Guard is called out by Governors. How does sending in the Marines, a federal force, to a domestic location to act as a police force not violate the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878?
Regardless of the legalities, it's ominous and enlightening in its own right. Most Americans I have talked with have a belief that their government will "take care of things" when the going gets rough. After all... the whole point of civilization is to protect the weak and the young. But time and again, these last few years, we've seen how woefully unprepared our federal and state governments are to handle anything more unplanned than a new tax law. And when taken off guard by some event, be it man-made or the assault of nature, we as a people have shown neither the intelligence nor imagination to find truly reasonable and feasible solutions to these concerns. Like an angry child, we attack the thing that just scared us, with no thought towards the unknown. And terror, from any source, is by definition, the incitement of fear through the use of the unknown or unexpected.
The government isn't all stupid. They know people believe in them, like a child looking up to their all-knowing parent. But this most recent hurricane laid bare the inadequacy of the current federal government to even inspire its people, much less actually protect them. The governments responses have been woefully late and perpetually defensive, as has become common practice. We really heard nothing until people starting asking where they were.
They panic, after saying that they're just now learning of the true scale of the horrors along the gulf coast. They've already started blaming local authorities for not sending federal government accurate information. (How exactly does the Mayor of Biloxi report in, when his town no longer exists?) So is it an organizational failure? Besides the obviousness of a response of "send everything you possibly can" to a disaster of this scale,I have never seen an organizational failure that didn't originate from the top down. And I've never met a good leader who didn't take the blow themselves when their subordinates fucked up. So the local authorities didn't check in often enough? How about all the news reports coming out of the area? How about your national guardsmen? How about your FEMA workers? How about reports from the Red Cross? Nice to see our Director of Homeland Security was scooped by Al Jazeera. Did they think the order to evacuate New Orleans was not a bad sign?
I don't lay blame for all the people suffering, on the federal government. I lay blame for an inadequate federal government, on the federal government. For the people sitting in the sun on the highway for 3 days; for the people having to dig their way out through their roofs; for the people desperate for aid an assistance; I lay the blame primarily on those people. I don't wish suffering on any person. And there are, without a doubt, people who were physically unable to respond the the warnings and danger around them. But what is wrong with these people who are just sitting there saying "save me before I die"?! As I said... if your legs don't work, or you're trapped on an island, then it is an incredible tragedy. But otherwise... why are you sitting there? Your house is gone. You've run out of food and/or water? What on earth makes you sit there and wait for someone to pick you up, rather than to start walking north? People in Sudan are being bombed, and raped, and slaughtered. So what did they do? Entire towns stood up and started walking, and didn't stop until they got to a new country.
It's all a horrible parody, I sometimes think. The "strong" American people, so dependent on being told what to do, when to do it, how to do it. And we're proud of this. Not like those third world countries. Other countries have people dying for the freedom to make their own decisions. We now have people dying in the streets for nothing more than their blind faith in the government.
For the last few days, I've been thinking about feral cities, in relation to New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast. I don't know that the people in this country have the ability, on the large scale necessary, to take responsibility for their own lives, anymore.
Yeah... I know I lost my focus somewhere in here. But these are just a few little things that have been bugging the holy fuck out of me.
From Randi Rhodes, a terrible radio host, who stumbled on a few good ideas for news media:
First, Congress must act to adopt standards for labeling a broadcast as NEWS. There is a right to a free press expressly guaranteed to each and every one of us, and yet there are no standards for corporations who brand themselves as news providers. We had standards for sitcom families and their sleeping arrangements. We have language standards for radio stations, but no news standards that define what journalistic principles must be present in order to brand as news.
If I may insert a note here: Wether you know it or not, this has actually gone to court. In an unlawful termination case against Fox, the court eventually ruled that there is no requirement that the news be true.
Second, I think we need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine which served this country well from 1949 through 1987. It simply guarantees competing viewpoints on issues of public importance. There's never been and Equal Time requirement as is widely believed. We viewed station licensees to be "public trustees" and therefore, they had an obligation to present different viewpoints on issues of public importance. License holders were also required to actively seek out stories of interest to the public and air programs addressing those issues.
Thirdly, finally and most importantly, we need to protect our journalists. They must be free to report and never be penalized with lost access to the people they cover or with retribution from partisan employers. Journalists have died covering Afghanistan and Iraq in numbers that surpass the numbers of lost journalists in Viet Nam. And that is saying a lot. Coverage of Viet Nam went on in earnest for 12 years. Yet in just 2 and a half years there have been more journalists killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Dunno if I agree with number 3. How the hell do you "protect journalists'. If anything, I would prefer journalists had less to do with American soldiers and such. I think if you're going to travel into a war-torn area to talk to and take pictures of lots of people, then you better fucking well be prepared for the consequences.
next
Google owns Blogger, right? And Google has a half decent translation service for web pages. So why don't they add a "translate this page" link to the blogspot header on Blogspot-hosted pages?
next
brought to you by the Washington Post and several administration officials who wouldn't know ethics from a hole in their backside:
"The White House said Wednesday that changes in government reports on global warming by a former oil industry lobbyist were part of a normal review and did not violate a pledge to rely on sound science."
next
On the party in power refusing to give credentials to people who didn't support them in the last election, to attend a telecommunications conference in central America:
The White House admits as much: "We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that," says White House spokesman Trent Duffy. Those barred from the trip include employees of Qualcomm and Nokia, two of the largest telecom firms operating in the U.S., as well as Ibiquity, a digital-radio-technology company in Columbia, Md. One nixed participant, who has been to many of these telecom meetings and who wants to remain anonymous, gave just $250 to the Democratic Party. Says Nokia vice president Bill Plummer: "We do not view sending experts to international meetings on telecom issues to be a partisan matter. We would welcome clarification from the White House."
— TIME.com: Any Kerry Supporters On The Line? May. 02, 2005
So we're so concerned that certified experts in telecommunications be supportive of the administration — not the country, but the administration — that we won't let them talk to other people about... you know... telecommunications.
More and more there's a disconnect between the US and the world. I mean... literally. I'm constantly being reminded of the scene in Channel Zero where the protagonist, after being exiled from the US, discusses with a foreign reporter the difference in realities, between what you see from within the united states, and what you see from the outside. An all pervasive control of reality, at the borders.
next
There's something wrong with running hot dog and Perdue chicken commercials on Animal Planet.
next
And only two years after I first brought it up, the FBI finally arrested the Pentagon employee who was passing secrets to Israel. If you can't find a way to get out of the country to somewhere without an extradition treaty in two years... well you probably deserve what's coming to you.
next
Anyway... if I may paraphrase an email I recently sent Lea:
"Me? Now? I work. I work a lot. And, you know, then I work more. Working for myself, I have worse hours and longer days than I did with other jobs. But I don't hate it. I ended up hating my last job, with passion. When I climbed in the elevator every morning, it felt a little more claustrophobic each day. So while I may panic now about a schedule, and am never sure where the next job is coming from... I feel like every day is lived in a wide-open space. (I take the stairs a lot.). And hey... the next job keeps coming."
My sister is frequently too self-righteous and pig-headed for her own good.
I called to offer her a free computer last night, since I knew of a cache of them being given away. Her immediate response was to rail against Macintoshes. There's no way she would ever want one. She doesn't know anything about them. Her husband is an 'expert' in Windows, because he is always repairing his mother's Windows machine. And apparently I am a bad, vain person for offering her one, because not everyone "can be a computer genius".
Several thoughts:
- Last Christmas, I watched her husband, the 'expert', take several hours, with the help of his cousins and uncles, figuring out how to download pictures from a digital camera.
- So according to my sister, a Windows machine like her mother-in-law's is better, because it's more common. Despite the fact that her husband, as she said, is over there constantly fixing it?
- Apparently I've learned much in recent years, because the last time I gave her a Macintosh, she got rid of it because she refused to believe me when I told her she could get online with it. Now, though, I'm a computer genius.
- Best of all... I never offered her a Macintosh. I offered her a computer. There are a couple Windows machines in the cache being given away.
You think your life is over. Well look around. You're not the only one.
-- Visqueen
You're allllllllllllllllllllll going to hell. And you're dragging the rest of us with you.
You put the fucking Shrub back in office. Even if you accept every single conspiracy theory, that still means wayyyy too many of you voted for this ... thing. He and his administration lie and mislead as a matter of course. In the last 2 weeks of the election alone there were at least a half-dozen major lies brought to light. When challenged, their only tactic has been to ruin the life and reputation of their accuser. Every major law or legal initiative they have championed has involved the reduction or elimination of some freedom, choice, or action. They have spent obscene amounts of money in creating the largest government bureaucracy since FDR. They've ignored their military commanders and committed troops to places no one wanted them. They took America from being the center of pity and warm feelings after 9/11, to being nearly universally dismissed and reviled.
They're bad leaders. Their bad commanders. They're bad republicans. And they're bad men.
And you fucking voted for them.
"Let's take the War on Terrorism. This is a very powerful phrase, to the degree that it’s offensive for anyone to say they don’t support it. But it’s also dumb, because nobody knows what it actually means. Clearly, we are not about to rid the world of terrorism, because you can’t defeat an "ism". Terrorism will be with us for as long as desperate, insane people exist; the best we can do is to mitigate the damage such people can do, and try not to encourage them.
-- Max Barry
Barry is admittedly a good writer. (I recommend his Jennifer Government). But he comes so close to making an important point, and then veers off to the road MORE taken.
This "war"--the War on Terrorism--is not the modern homage to the metaphorical War on Drugs. While there was very real fighting and dying in coca fields and on city streets, there was just as much education, propaganda, and outreach. But this war, once again declared by the White House, has nothing to do with anything except wholesale slaughter of anyone who doesn't live up to Western morals. And this is going to do nothing but instigate a even greater spread of Terror and terrorism.
Terrorism comes from people who are scared. It comes from people who are suffering. And it comes from people who are desperate. It often involves people sacrificing themselves because they no longer see another option. And no invention of man creates these circumstances so well as actual war.
The Palestinians are perhaps the most obvious example of this. The international community, through their silence and refusal to intercede, has granted Israel unlimited license to literally destroy these people's homes, businesses, crops, and lives. We're not talking the occasional attacks mentioned on CNN. This is an every-day occurrence. Without warning, Israel has repeatedly cut off access to their jobs for tens of thousands of Palestinians. Without jobs, and without crops, how do you even eat? American slaves were treated better than this. It's no longer shocking that people -- homeless people, hungry people, people with dead family members -- are willing to turn themselves into walking devices of vengeance (and hence, terror). Good or bad, this is a message. Terrorism is always a message.
Everywhere people are desperate and oppressed, terrorism will break out. My own country's history celebrates many acts of terror our citizens have committed. The Boston Tea Party. The Raid on Harpers Ferry. Timothy McViegh was never labeled a Christian Terrorist. Apparently, if you're American, and desperately want to make a point, you're free to act without fear of bringing down retribution upon your entire group of people.
You can fight the people who are committing acts of terrorism. But you cannot physically assault the cause of terrorism. It is not a man in a robe in a cave somewhere. It is not an aging military dictator, governing on a whim. Killing those people is like taking a throat lozenge. It makes you feel better, but it doesn't make you any safer, any better, or any less in trouble.
If we're going to 'fight terrorism', we have to wipe out the things that scare people. We have to wipe out hunger. We have to wipe out diseases like Malaria and AIDS which are ravaging populations worldwide. We have to deal with resource scarcity. We have to deal with land scarcity. These attacks and invasions will only stretch the tensions even further, and lead to more desperate acts; many by people who formerly were satisfied with or accepting of the status-quo.
This War on Terrorism is not an attempt to stop terror. This is a "War of Opportunity to Get Rid of People and Places We Find Offensive".
