Closetted emotions

Michelle Malkin has a problem with what people call "Soft America." "Soft America" is one of those things I actually dislike for the most part myself, simply because of how boring and sappy it all is. Lewis Black made fun of "Soft America" when it interfered with the Olympics: "The Americans are showing the world we like to cry alot. NBC is constantly interrupting the sports with sob stories about how somebody overcame cancer/a broken leg/a dead pet/a brown thumb to finally make it as an Olympian. Who cares?" (Paraphrase, obviously). This, IMO, along with many other criticisms of "Soft America" are completely valid, as even most of the dark comedies are wussified by the ending (see Death to Smoochie).

Michelle Malkin's most recent criticism of "Soft America" is a new phenomenon of cuddling parties. Washington Post had an article about cuddling parties (where Mrs. Malkin heard about them), and I'll do a small summary because it is a lengthy article. Two people who are self-proclaimed sex experts (the main guy is a former bartender) have decided to hold parties where guests arrive paying $30, $20 if you do it with a friend, in order to cuddle with a stranger. They change into PJs (no nudity allowed) and just hug and even set cuddle limitations. No sex is allowed, so you can't really have any expectations of that going around. People have this, according to the holders, because people are "touch-deprived."

Mrs. Malkin has a problem with this, as she thinks it is completely immature and self-indulgent. She considers cuddling groping, but makes no mention of the subtext that the most groping people do is a back or foot massage, according to the article. Replacing "Cuddle" with "Grope" also gives way to sexual feelings, given the proper form of the two definitions. The side of these people she doesn't see is that they are probably hard-edged people when not in an apartment. One is an exotic dancer, which means that generally it would be no problem for her to pick up guys at a bar, but it doesn't mean the guys won't be sleasy/skeasy/gross. Here, she doesn't have to worry about drool marks on her dress as her date picks up his jaw from the floor long enough to make lewd, inappropriate comments.

Most of the people at these parties are probably the same, given that it seemed to be a very high girl to guy ratio. The one skeaze factor I will admit is that the male thrower of these events probably knew this, but he still isn't having sex at these parties. This is merely because of the scientifically proven fact that women are much more prone to touch than men. Alot of the people who are there probably are single with some desire for a mate, but either a confidence problem (husky male), an attitude problem, or a generaly sense of dating malaise blocks these people from having a serious relationship. And, so, they want to feel needed and hugged and what-have-you, if only for a couple of hours. The rest of the time, they are probably self-sufficient people. In fact, I was generally surprised that there was an engaged couple at the party, and I think they are the only couple I will think is almost self-indulgent. But, then, they were not looking for hook-ups either.

As a result, I challenge Mrs. Malkin not to hug, kiss, fuck, or otherwise cuddle/"grope" her husband (or anybody else, including her children) for 3 months. No pecks on the cheek. Don't sleep in the same bed, or if you do, do it a la The Brady Bunch where you have your own side of the bed and it is a seemingly platonic relationship. Try it for three months, then come back and tell me that these people are self-indulgent in a 9/10 (pre-9/11 for the slower ones) mentality. ;-)

Me, I think this points to cracks in society that have long since been evident. A general lack of personal interaction, a desire for everybody to be emotionally and physically self-sufficient. And, as animals and human beings, this is virtually impossible. But, is it worth a try?

Protesting the legality of permits to protest

Hey from Seattle,
I thought I would write a little bit before heading away to Burning Man. Michael Badnarik, current Libertarian Presidential Candidate, is leading a protest in New York on Sunday. He is asking George W. Bush to apologize to the Libertarians. On top of this, Badnarik is not getting permits to protest, saying that permits are limitations of the First Amendment (which I tend to believe, the need for protest permits have always been a sucky idea, the best protests don't have permits). You gotta love Libertarians, that's why I am one.

Everybody should attend for me, because protests are fun, probably more so when they are Libertarian.

------------------------------------------
Badnarik's letter

NEW YORK -- While some political groups continue to 'negotiate' with the City of New York for permits to protest next week's Republican National Convention, Libertarians -- including a presidential candidate -- are preparing to open up a whole new can of worms in the Big Apple.

"If you ask for permission to protest, you deserve to be told no," says Manhattan Libertarian Party chair Jim Lesczynski. "The First Amendment guarantees our right to peaceably assemble -- and we're going to do so" on Central Park's Great Lawn at noon on August 29th. The city has denied permits to groups which have applied for permission to gather in the park, attempting to move them to more distant, and less visible, locations.

"There's an old saying -- it's easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission," said Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate, during a campaign strategy teleconference. "I've got permission. By definition, where I am standing is a free speech zone. We don't need permission to protest, but George W. Bush needs forgiveness for his mistakes. We're gathering to offer him that forgiveness ... if he's willing to ask us for it."

Among those mistakes, says Badnarik, 50, of Austin, Texas, are the war in Iraq, the PATRIOT ACT -- and the whole concept of "free speech zones" for protesters. "America itself -- the whole country -- is a 'free speech zone,'" he says. "That's what the First Amendment means, or it means nothing. We're going to find out which in Central Park. We're going to find out whether President Bush and Mayor Bloomberg believe in America or not."

While Badnarik is considered a long shot for the presidency, polling shows him determining the election's outcome in a number of "battleground" states, including closely watched New Mexico, where his support stands at 5%.

The Manhattan LP has a longstanding reputation in New York and in the Libertarian Party as an "in your face" activist group. Previous Manhattan LP initiatives have included "Guns for Tots," in which Libertarians handed out toy guns to the city's schoolchildren to protest a proposed ban, and the "Great Cigarette Giveaway," which provided New Yorkers with free smokes to counter the city's massive 2002 cigarette tax increase.

Badnarik is also expected to debate Green Party presidential nominee David Cobb during his visit to the city. The Libertarian Party is America's third largest political party, with more than 600 Libertarians serving in elected and appointed office at the local, state and federal levels.

Once again, coming on the tails of my last graphic, I am still going to vote for Michael Badnarik.

Another instance: Prscription drug issues. Instead of banning drug company advertisements (ala Edwards), he wants to de-regulate some of the drug companies, which have been in place since the '60s.



Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President

How true are these?

(from Ask Buff)


Bumper sticker available for Purchase from Cafe Press


from Tim at Movementarian

Culture and its balance

Death in Gaza (2004)
dir: James Miller

The movie opens with the numbing fact that director James Miller died in 2003 while shooting this movie. He had planned for a pair of films, but only got to shoot enough to fill one. Death in Gaza is the first half of the now-non-existant pair of movies featuring children in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, focusing on Palestinian children in Rafah. The other half was to focus on the Israeli children. One can never know what the pair would be like, given that Miller is dead, and any other attempt would be flawed by a different set of idea(l)s.

One of the first images one sees is also of a car bombing which the Israelis conducted on one of the terrorist organizers. This isn't the truely disturbing part, but the footage that follows is. One sees the adults and children picking up brains, body parts,and blood from the victim, and trying to save as much of it as possible.

This is the disturbing foundation for what is to be an extremely surreal and disturbing movie analyzing the conflict from a determinedly neutral point. It shows the paramilitaries (the film hates to use terrorist, probably because of the biased implication) and their active recruitment of children. It focuses on Ahmed, a 12 year old, who is caught up in the war not by choice, but by fate. He was merely born into this. The paramilitaries actively recruit Ahmed to become a martyr, one of the highest honors to these people, ultimately to be used in a more political sense. But, the filmmakers don't hesitate to point out the contradictions of the paramilitaries. There is a scene, almost touching, when Ahmed is hanging with the group, and is shown as a brother. They pose him with a rocket launcher. It reminded me of the touching scenes you see in ghetto movies like Juice or New Jack City where an older male gives a young boy a gun to hold, half the time the boy's mother comes in bitching up a storm. BUT, by the end of the scene, the one holding Ahmed says, while Ahmed is in the room, that the interviewer shouldn't worry about the responsibility of Ahmed's age, as there are thousands more children like him.

I'll pause to give you value for that sentence.

The film also shows a very small girl who states that she once saw the sea before the Israelis put a wall up, and now she can't see it anymore. I would say the girl is about 7. She then states that she hates the Israelis, and that they are sons of dogs (probably a literal translation of an Arabic curseword). She comments how they come in with tanks and fire on everything.

The teachers also teach that the Israelis stole the land they procured in the 1967 war (and they probably also teach that the land was stolen in 1948 as well). There is so much anti-Semetic bias running through the teachings, one almost says that anti-semitism is ingrained in the culture.

But, then the film shows a different side. Tanks fire at kids because they throw rocks at bulldozers. At most, the rocks could be dynamite in a soda can, which would never do damage to the bulldozers, nor their drivers. In one of the most surreal moments, we see the bulldozers and tanks as almost inhuman self-contained objects coming in to Rajah. As we watch this, we wonder what this does to the Palestinian mind especially as they grow up in the state. Are the children more susceptible to the brainwashing by the elders because the Israelis bulldoze houses and shoot at unarmed children, who are just throwing rocks at whom they believe to be their oppressors? What does the constant state of Israeli bulldozers, and the destruction they conduct, do to the children and the residents? Does it inspire peace?

The film also shows a 14 year old going to the hospital after being shot by a tank while throwing rocks (I hate to use the word attack) at bulldozers.

The final segment of the film shows the death of James Miller. James Miller, his translator, and Shira Shah, his co-creator, walk out of a house after the bulldozing stops. They are holding a white flag, and have the words TV taped in white to their helmets and bodies. James even shines a flashlight on the white flag. We hear Shira call out in English, "We are British Journalists," just as James is shot in the neck, presumably by an Israeli.

James is turned into a martyr by the extremists (the film doesn't hesitate to pass judgement on them at this point), and is ultimately lost to his family and friends. Ahmed is inspired to drop the paramilitaries and to become a cameraman.

The best part about this film is that you realize that with new generations the starting and ending of the war are no longer legitimate points to start from. They have only been taught what they learn from the bias. They only experience the current state of terror brought on by both sides: the palestinian and the israeli. The new generations are now more inspired by their oppression than by history, and that is where we willbe in a very short amount of time. But, where do you go from there? When there is no start point, how does one get to the end? Especially when one of the sides is not completely government-sponsored, but conducted by militants and renegades rather than a single organized force.

These are the points that Death in Gaza brings up, but it offers no answers. I doubt it would have offered any answers if the Israeli film had been finished. It was intended merely an insight into the foundations of the anger and hatred pervading both cultures, but we only get insight into one side: the Palestinian side. Its cause is shown, as well as its irrationality. And that's what makes this an important movie.

A+

(currently being shown on the HBOs)

DOMA Upheld

Yesterday, a federal judge of Washington (the state of) ruled that DOMA was still valid with federal courts. National Review has the technical ruling (a 30 page pdf) and an article about it.

Judge Snyder was ruling over a bankruptcy case, which was filed by Lee and Ann C. Kandu, a lesbian couple maried in British Columbia. They filed jointly for bankruptcy, shortly after being married, in October 2003. This led into an investigation, and it went to court, with improper joint filing as the main reason.

The first thing that should be noted, especially in cases like this, is that DOMA was not challenged under the full faith and credit clause (nor could it be, due to a marriage in Canada), but that DOMA was purely unconstitutional. The Kandus then have a list of amendments which seem, to me at least, little more than a blind throw to trying to get it deemed unconstitutional rather than anything else.

The most interesting thing about the court's decision is that it has a sentence in there about the judge's personal opinon. Page 26 states, "This Court's personal view that children raised by same-sex couples enjoy benefits possibly different, but equal, to those raised by opposite-sex couples, is not relevant to the Court's ultimate decision. It is within the province of Congress, not the courts, to weigh the evidence and legislate on such issues, unless it can be established that the legislation is not rationally related to a legitimate government end."

On page 27, he doesn't altogether contradict himself, but Snyder admits that DOMA is not perfect, nor could it be, in that it recognizes marriages by childless couples. He admits that in order for it to be perfect, one would have to inquire about the interest of having children in the near future. Me, I'm all for that actually. I think there should be a time limit between marriage and pregnancy or birth (2 years). Pre-existing children with the married couple only count if the children have devolved from both spouses together. If you don't have a child, the marriage should be annulled, simply on the basis of all the DOMAs in the country. At least until gay marriage has full rights.

In this case, it is interesting because Washington State did not recognize the marriage, nor did the federal courts did not recognize the marriage. The marriage was done in a foreign country, and, as such, it does not bring benefits to the couple. There would be no legitimate reason for the couple to think they could legally jointly do anything at this point. That is to say that I agree with the ruling, but not with the law itself. I hope this case does not become a milestone case in the gay marriage issue, as it was a weak construction, having started last year, and should be properly ignored.

Caption time!

Write a caption for this picture:

Compensation

In thinking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I got to thinking about the Native Americans and what happened there. The situation is very similar. A group of people are ejected from a land due to religious beliefs (or debtors) and take over the land via British rule. The Natives attacked well into the 1800s, which means that we were constantly being attacked somewhere for 200+ years. The Natives also used the means they had, which were mostly renegade, to attack.

The difference is, the Palestinians and Arab people were not so welcoming of the Jewish populations when they started coming over in the late 1800s. They did not like the Jewish population, and decided to try to keep them off their land. But, it was their land until the Brits came around and took over, and then the Zionists started buying the land from the Brits.

But, in this case, who would be right or wrong? Both Zionist and Palestinian records have pointed out that the Palestinians were largely nomadic prior to the British rule. Thus, owning property seems like it may have been a foreign concept to the Palestinians as it was to the Native Americans (maybe less so, as I will admit this is a bit hazy of a fact). But, the Palestinians were the aggressors initially (though they had much the same rules as the Europeans did in the late 1800s).

Luckily, I have no ancestral guilt over what the Americans did to the Indians. My family is 2-4 generations American on all sides. Probably came on the cusp of true American industrialization.

ed's note: Please note that this is just thoughts formulating in my brain tonight, which may or may not lead to a better more thorough post.

Allowances

(image stolen from sukk)

Actually, this has been a hotly debated thing on conservative websites. Many conservatives believe that the liberals try to shout down and otherwise censor other voices. Protests are notorious for doing this, actually. They won't let anybody march in the protest that doesn't have a voice which has the same view.

However, the Republican cronies are much worse when it comes to allowing people hear what they actually have to say. IT has to be filtered through media (or a diligant search can usually find a transcription, but its not the same) if we are to hear what the Republicans have to say, which isn't exactly my cup of tea. As I have mentioned before, there was the case in Grand Rapids I previously mentioned, as well as more recent cases, including Green Bay, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and other locations, including a smaller, non-Bush, event in Wisconsin,

I did find a story where the Kerry campaign also restricted access, which means it is a universal practice, but in it, the Kerry campaign ended with the students gaining admission after promising not to protest, which is perfectly understandable if they are wearing opposing stickers, at University of Miami.

What does this say? I dunno, I just found it interesting.

A big-fat brown-stained middle finger

Fuck you Governor McGreevy. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. For shame, ex-Governor McGreevy. A democrat, against gay marriage, has had an extra-marital affair with a man. He also nationally came out in a highly remarkable speech which simultaneously illuminates what is wrong with homophobic America and confirms homophobic America's greatest fears. It was a disgusting and selfish speech, publicly spewing what should have been kept private.

First, affairs do not affect the government, the way the government functions, nor anything else regarding the government. Contrary to what the Republican believe, sex is not something to be ashamed of. Sexuality is not something to be ashamed of. Having an illicit affair is to be shameful only in private, while in public nobody's the wiser. The problem with America is, as Europtrip puts it, that it is a prudish nation.

Second, homosexuality is not something to be ashamed of. Being gay should not give the other side fodder for bashing you. You are gay, so go with it. If you decide to come out during your SECOND marriage with your SECOND daughter, you might not be completely gay, maybe a bit more on the bi side, don't you think? But, we live in a world of extremes, and if you don't fulfill one side, of course its going to come out as full blown gay. But, that's getting off the subject, since when did homosexuality affect anybody's ability to work? Or to do good work, for that matter?

Third, gays do not need more hetero-acting people getting caught in illicit gay affairs. It doesn't help the community one bit. It allows the homophobes of America to say, "Hey! The Gays are corrupting America. Look at these family men who were once straight and have now been co-opted by the faggot agenda!" Don't tell me I'm exaggerating much either. Can't people just admit they're gay without having affairs? Especially ones that could go into sexual harassment suits?

In the end, Governor McGreevy is an asshole. Being against gay marriage while you're on your second straight marriage, but really you're just showboating for your latent homosexual repression, is not cool. Especially if you're a democrat on top of it. You don't support your community, and I believe the community should not support you. Fuck you, and fuck your speech. Go fuck yourself.

P.S. And you couldn't even fuck a cute guy on the side?? You're a disgrace.

Desperate much?

Here's the most hilarious piece of news writing I have seen in awhile:

Amish to vote Republican.

The author also notes that the "large" Amish population in Michigan helps Bush in this swing state. By large, he means 7,000 (as reported in 2000). *sigh* I wonder if Heaven's Gate was targeted like this.

More news than you can handle!

First stop today: Missouri.
In Tuesdays election, voters chose to support the gay marriage ban in their state constitution. They chose to put in their own FMA, if you will, with 71% of the voters (not population) voting for it. Mind you, this is a conservative state, and there were 29% voting against it already. This shows that my statements that the gay marriage movement has moved a bit fast in many states. If it went slower, more people might be in tune with it eventually. [Every cloud has a silver lining, but this one might be mercury]

Second Stop: Yorba Linda, CA
Here, we have a celebration of the 30th aniversary of Nixon's resignation. (Hey, kids, I cannot make this stuff up). During the celebration, many hald panel discussions of Nixon, and sometimes he was compared to Nixon. Interestingly, Stepher Spruiell at the National Review has extended the comparisons to a national article, and did so. The Republicans are now getting desperate by using what democrats consider to be an evil president against them by comparing their candidate to him. Also, the republicans, at least a decent majority of them, liked Nixon and think he was a good President. The irony of the article ist tha Bush has been similarly compared to Nixon previously for the exact same methods, only by the left, and has been derided for doing so. Sadly, the left didn't have the same base for irony as the right does.

Third stop: New York City and New Jersey
Homeless people everywhere, and only one leader for them: Cheri Honkala. Apparently Cheri has read up on her Nazi history and has created a veritable army of homeless people who are down-on-their-luck and desperate. These people, who have little more than their freedom to lose, according to the article, have become devout followers, minions if you will, of Honkala and her cause. She is currently marching through New Jersey with her band of homeless, and will hit NYC when the RNC comes rolling into town, permit or not. She has finally tapped into a resource which has been long ignored: the desperate people. (ed's note: I have supported Honkala, unwittingly, by seeing Storytelling in theaters and buying it on DVD, as her son, Mark Webber, played Scooby and gives profits to his mother's charity)

Swinging good time

So, unofficially, the results from yesterday's election is in. We have 15 Representatives in Congress for Michigan. Of those 15, 8 elected were democrats and 7 were republicans. Sadly, Thaddeus McCotter was re-elected in my district. This means that I need to get a group in my county willing to flood the McCotter office with letters saying how bad he is, and what we think he needs to change.

This is the justification I have been looking for as to why Michigan is considered a swing state. We had elected Gore in 2000 by 200,000 votes, and we had a semi-strong Nader following here too. Since I have been following politics, we have been a Democrat state, voting Clinton both times, Gore, and I imagine Kerry has a strong following around here. Previously, we apparently had elected Republican since 1972.

Extra! Extra! Michael Moore Lied!

In an astonishing, astounding, and completely flabbergasting turn of events, concrete evidence that Moore manipulates and fabricates facts has emerged.

The Pantagraph was a newspaper which Moore used early in his film regarding the 2000 elections. In the movie, Moore shows a newspaper headline that states something like Latest Recount in Florida shows Gore won. In truth, it wasn't a headline at all, and only appeared in the letters to the editor page...on a different date than the digitized newspaper has it.

Are you as shocked as I am? Because, really, I had not an inkling that Michael Moore was so unscrupulous. I mean, re-editing newspapers?

Vote!

I've got a surprise for you all. Today is a voting day! Go to Publius.org for what you get to vote on.

Lying Liars and the Liars who believe them

From the Drudge Report:

The Speaker of the House wrote in his new book that he will push for the elimination of the IRS and a national sales tax.

So many issues with this, I just found it hilarious. For those of you too dumb to check it:

1. This is just prr-information released from a book being released on Wednesday. I will not reveal the name of the book, nor the author's name (if you know who the Speaker of the House is, or read the article, you'll know) due to the sleaziness factor involved with this sensational revelation.

2. Why is this the first time we've heard of this?

3. Will it ever pass? Well, only the purchases of the wealthy will be taxed, not their income. So, they'll remain wealthy. Perhaps it will pass. And, I see the monkey crawling out of my ass now.

Who believes this shit? It is idealistic, but highly doubtful. It is meant to attract the democrats who are want the taxes to reflect the wealth or the people, and the libertarians who hate government. It would probably also include internet purchase taxes.

The Seduction of Television

Real Time with Bill Maher was on last night. Maher knows how to seduce an audience and make some really good television. Last nights panelists were Michael Moore, Former Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell, and Republican Representative David Drier from California. Real Time also included special guests Ralph Nader and Governor Bill Owen (Republican from Colorado).

I am really starting to detest Moore. He has this snide humor that he presents with almost no facts, and is much more op-ed based. While I think that people should see Fahrenheit 9/11 just to see what the hell the movie is, I don't think Moore should be any sort of spokesman or representative for the liberal side of politics nor the Democratic Party. (I should readily admit here that I haven't watched a single minute of the DNC, thinking that it really would be like having sunshine pumped up my ass with its optimism. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I got that line from Real Time, so its not just me)

Call me anti-American, but the only person who was tolerable in their views was Prime Minister Campbell. Drier and Moore seemed intent on ripping each other to shreds. Maher put fuel on the fire. Nader was Nader (one of the best parts of the show was Maher and Moore [heh, M&M] on their knees begging Nader to pull out and support Kerry). Owen was surprisingly unfair, but what does one expect from a Republican, but so was everybody else.

While I generally enjoy the rabble-rousing nature of this type of program, this one, especially with Moore's inanities, didn't have any progression of ideas from their base elemental core to some sort of release of information. It was just elemental fighting elemental, which makes for some great entertainment, but it is hardly stimulating. Drier kept attacking Fahrenheit 9/11, and made some inane comment that Bush never once fabricated or distorted anything in his political run for office, either time. The Republicans keep harping on the war vote. The Republicans are getting desperate. The Democrats are still saying how urgent everything is. They keep saying that Bush is the most hated President in history (I wonder how Nixon stands up in that comparison...oh, wait, Bush is Nixon reincarnate).

Another hilarious thing Drier said was that Bush was a scientific president, and that he supported space exploration and research of a bunch of diseases. Um hrm, like AIDS and Stem Cell Research? One being an urgent global cause, the other being a very developmental experiment needed to forward or at least dispell the mystery of its nature.

They also kicked off by harping Bush on the Seven Minutes of Goat (which Drier insisted was 5-7 minutes, as if that makes a difference [though, there is video footage of this, why did the report insist on not using the exact time?]). Which, while funny, isn't exactly the most pressing issue at hand. You're saying he's a scared chicken and that's why he's madly attacking everybody and their nation [Afghanistan, Iraq, soon to be Iran]? Perhaps its a plausible idea, but its not exactly the best one.

I am really curious on next week's episode.