Paralysis of the Mind

Been a rare good day for rational thought today.

Firstly, Bill "Dammit Jim, I'm a Doctor" Frist has cleaved off from Dear Leader over stem cells, citing his medical background. Despite the fact that he should have lost his medical license when he looked at 45 minutes of video and declared Terri Schiavo "not brain-dead" and "obviously able to process visual stimulae," Frist apparently knows progress when he sees it. And also, he knows a winning side — polls seem to indicate that a good 70% are in favor of stem cells.

But with most things these days, the 30% of irrationality and fear are a hell of a lot louder. Homosexuals and stem cells continue to have a lot in common — and just maybe, Frist will take a piece of medical evidence and figure out what a lot of us already realize about gays and lesbians in terms of it being a "choice." (That's actually my favorite piece of conservative orthodoxy. Why would anyone reasonably make the choice to be disliked and persecuted? Obviously, to conservatives, being gay must look like a hell of a lot of fun that the lame-o heteros can't have, or something.)

Or maybe not. As it turns out, Frist knows an even more important winning team. Or, as Nelly and I like to say: The polls, the polls, the polls are on fire. Yes, Virginia, that DOES say that Dear Leader has slipped to his lowest point yet. This could make us all want to pick out a random conservative and shake them within an inch of their life and shriek "WHY DID YOU FUCKING VOTE FOR HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE IF YOU DON'T LIKE HIM ANYMORE NOW YOU GODDAMN FOOL"... or, of course, you could just chuckle a bit and throw darts at your Dear Leader poster.

You do, of course, have a Dear Leader poster, yes?

Oh yeah, and the moon will be rising in Rupert this month 'cause Astronomers find 10th planet. Which is pretty damn sweet, and hopefully, a nail in the coffin of astrology. Calculate my horoscope now, Dixon!

Big news from the AP, just moments before deadline tonight.

Leakity-leak from certain well-placed sources say George Pataki isn't going to run for re-election in '06, apparently to focus on his well-meaning but completely useless run for the Presidency.

Good wishes, of course. Takes a certain... ah, how do I say it... utter disregard for how unpopular you really are as a human being to make a run for Preznit. Especially an unpopular three-termer from a notably Blue state. (Pataki's run is only eclipsed in hilarity by frothing psycho Mitt Romney, who comes from -- according to every hick, Southerner, Conservative and rapture-ite, at least -- the worst place in the universe, the hell-hole of Mass-a-God-Bless-You.)

These are the sort of signs that make me think 2008 will be less crazy, perhaps a little less gung-ho. I think I'd be OK with a Pataki presidency, actually. If I turn on my hick-logic, I can honestly say that he has a strong grip of a handshake, which then probably means that I'd enjoy having a beer with him, which then, of course, means he ought to be the Commander-in-Chief, 'cause your poker buddies are definitely the ones you want with their fingers on the button.

Sounds OK to me.

Better logic, though, are the vapors of madness that come when you're about to get someone shoved down your throat who has no outside oversight and who is allowed to work until the icy hand of death removes them.

And all I can say is this: Conservatives can never get rid of abortion. The Right needs fetus-killin' like the nutbars need the idea of a Rapture. Because how else are you going to unite the fools in folly? There's no Bat-signal that can adequately explain the whole "Gosh, we're against killing babies, where do we sign up?" vibe.

I'm pro-abortion. I'm not going to make a complete mockery of my position by suggesting I'm pro-choice; obviously I'm pro-choice about EVERYTHING, like Pepsi and Coke, Red Sox and Yankees, gummy bears and gummy worms. Nor am I going to regale the peanut gallery with the pro-life schtick. Anyone who protests abortion but loves the war is pro-fetus. Anyone who hates abortion and the war and poverty, but eats meat is pro-human.

Point is, though, abortion is a very serious moral issue. And I 100% understand and respect anyone who logically comes to a different conclusion, especially when I don't think I could allow a fetus that was mine to be aborted.

But the problem is that for most people "I don't think I would do that" has turned into "Nobody should do that because I wouldn't" which is an incredibly immoral hopscotch from the original idea. But again, without abortion, whither the fierce rage of the Right?

Now Karl Rove... erm, "Turd Blossom," as Dear Leader calls him, apparently... is a smart cookie. He and his ilk have drummed up lots of completely useless ideas to distract our mindless populace.

Back to Pataki for a moment: When he was first running for Governor, way back when in mid-90s, one of his REALLY BIG IDEAS was to bring the death penalty back to New York state. He won, it was reinstated, exactly 0 people have rode the lightning. You might say "Hey, useless" but no, in fact, it wasn't useless in the least. He still won. No matter that the death penalty was a red herring; victory is everything on the Right. Policy is only the side effect, and one which often never comes.

Better yet, the opposition gets all tied up in abortion mish-mash. They treat it like its the most important possible political football game that has to be won, forgetting about a) the half of the population that can't have babies anyhow and b) every other political idea that isn't completely useless, like say, NOT having arsenic in the drinking water.

But abortion is the all-time Grand Prize winner of useless ideas, and everyone who is important must understand that. OK, the government is cutting Social Security, labor laws, bankruptcy, trying to reinstall aristocratic rule and lies about getting into wars. But tell me, are they against abortion?

That parlor trick of victory is what they've got. I struggle to think of the last cogent policy idea the Right has come up with, but their campaigning has never been stronger or more distracting. The idea seems to be, overall, to underfund the government to the point of its collapse. People, who have absolutely no idea what sort of menace that would cause, cheer because hey, at least they're going to stop baby killing.

Obviously, though, they can't. They can only throw darts at some other-worldly liberal spectre and say that, gee, if only they had the power to overturn Roe v. Wade they would — and no matter how much power they DO have, somehow it'll never be enough. Will people get tired of it? Fat chance; xenophobia's still every bit as strong as it once was, and it's only a matter of time before that comes back strong into political campaigning. And xenophobia's been around since the first ape-man looked at the second ape-man and thought "Kill."

So, yes, I'm terrified at the thought of seeing another white male Christian Conservative in a position of power. But somehow, so long as he's against abortion but does nothing about it, I think he'll fit in just fine.

Maybe he's worth a spot at the poker table, even.

I love the feeling of picking up a new CD. Over the year's I've perfected a method to free the music from it's maddening packaging: Use your nail to tear the plastic along the side the case opens. Rip off the plastic in 2 pieces. Open the case, thus splitting the top sticker in half. The pieces of the sticker then easily pull off. I can do this, no lie, in about 5 seconds.

I like musik.

But, in turn, there's nothing more disappointing than getting that shiny new CD out and finding you don't like it very much. The only thing worse then that is when the CD is by a band/act who you think can't miss.

That's ugly.

I recenly purchased the new CD from Ben Folds, entitled "Songs for Silverman." I'd read a few uncharitable reviews, and my girlfriend — a big fan, herself — had heard some snippets and made the scrunchy-nose-smirk-face about them. But I soldiered on, assuming that the single I'd heard from it ("Landed," which isn't bad) was indicitive of the rest of the album.

And it wasn't.

I'd never make a very good music critic, mainly because my tastes run semi-mainstream and I refuse to hold stupid contrarian opinions for the sake of being "argumentative" or "interesting." (PJ Harvey is not THAT good, okay?) Plus, I always appreciate when people try to make a semi-authentic artistic statement, whether I like it aurally or not. I think I'd end up sounding like Paula Abdul on a regular basis, cheerfully damning with faith praise and pushing forward the one highlight while attempting to ignore the 5,000 bad points.

Nobody wants to slag on their favorite band (or team, person, object, theory) which is why fan criticism so damn interesting. I like to hear leftists slam what's left of the Democratic Party. I enjoy when teeny-boppers criticize Britney Spears. It's positively enchanting to hear Yankees fans bash Joe Torre.

And why? It's because most people find something they like/love and hold on like grim death. Heaven help the person who comes along with a different opinion or love, because the mind isn't big enough to handle it. Just look at our political system for an easy example: Bring up a criticism -- ANY criticism, no matter how small -- and conservatives absolutely freak out. They're calling you, first, a liberal-commie-pinko-retard-anti-American and then, quickly, are stating how incredible their idea is.

I once saw a flame war, between entrenched conservatives and a guy who was anti-political, but was a TV producer. He noted that George W. Bush had worn a tie in one of his TV appearances that caused the moire effect. (Moire is an optical illusion you sometimes see on televisions, through windows and on computer monitors. I can't explain it completely, but it makes an object look kinda shimmery and like it's moving, even though it is not.) He made no political statement either way, other than to say someone should have thought about the tie before Bush went on the air.

Good God, you might have thought he'd written a post about how George W. Bush likes to have sex with underage boys. Suddenly, his message board exploded. "How dare you," thundered one poster:

"... insult the President and his advisers they have better things to do then worry about a tie and if its all your morons can think about no wonder you lose elections."

I was unaware that TV producers had their own political party and/or lost any elections. But I wasn't surprised to read the venom. George W. Bush is not a popular band right now, but his fans are DIE-HARD, baby.

These sort of divisions are silly and pointless. Even political ones; there are conservative/moderate programs I suspect would work okay. And until the nutbars took over this country, Social Security had been held up as one of the best ideas in American political history — even by conservatives.

But that total loss of perspective, that complete fan-boy fervor, is killing any type of middle ground. And from airy high concepts (politics) it filters further down until fathers and sons get into fights over NASCAR drivers they like or don't like. There's no "Hey, my guy's good and your guy can be good too," it's really just a lot easier to hit someone. On the internet, I see bitter fights between Democrats and liberals over a small point, completely ignoring the greater compatability they share. I see Red Sox fans ripping other Red Sox fans, Evangelicals slamming other relgious types for a supposed lack of piety... it's incredible, really. We have moved from a so-called Age of Reason into the Age of Resentment.

And that's too damn bad. Being reasonable is a lot healthier and far more enjoyable lifestyle. So, yeah, the CD was pretty disappointing. Doesn't mean I have to hate anyone else who might have enjoyed it, right? And there's no point in closing myself off to anyone who doesn't agree with me about anything, because who would be left in that pile?

Well, except for Yankees fans. I just can't stand Yankees fans.

So, I finished Harry Potter No. 6 last night.

And, uh... wow.

I've read several reviews of the new book, and pretty much everyone is tripping over themselves to sing high praises. The New York Times reviewer even compared its scope and power to the Lord of the Rings — and for a book about wizards, I doubt there's a better comparison.

But it's wrong, in a way. The better comparison for the series is outside the realm of literary works because, frankly, J.K. Rowling has created something that bigger than any other book in a very long time — possibly only smaller than any of the major holy books (No, L. Ron, I'm sorry, you don't count here).

The Harry Potter series isn't like the Lord of the Rings, it's the Beatles of literary world, with all the intendent comparisons.

Consider: You have the screaming teens. Wide popularity. Squares calling it satanic. And, although its early in the game, I'm pretty sure my kids will be reading Harry Potter to their kids way down the line, just like I can only hope they'll appreciate the Beatles like I do.

But it's so much more. If you'd told me after I'd read the first two books that major characters would be getting offed, I would have been shocked and wouldn't have believed it — in much the same way that I would have a hard time putting "Please Please Me" and the subversive pleasures of Abbey Road together.

Sure enough, though, Rowling stopped pumping out kids books by the fourth installment and is now bringing on the darker fair. What was just clever little wizards figuring out cute little spells about levitating things has turned into a life-and-death struggle with killing spells and torture, jealousy, rage... yet love, springing forth like a weed through the sidewalk. Rowling, in other words, has changed her sound into something much different from when she began. And it's brilliant; she hasn't lost her clever touches, but the story has just become so much bigger and more mature.

The Beatles, too, changed their sound a few times. Most long-term successful bands make a few tweaks in their sound over time, but it's usually cosmetic or lyrical. The Beatles, though went from a pop band to trend-setting rockers — yet kept their audience. There is no other musical comparison; it would be like watching N*Sync pick up instruments and turn into Pearl Jam over an 7-year period. It just does not happen.

Events in motion almost assure that the final book will be even bleaker. And although it seemed almost stupidly obvious at the beginning of the series that the good guys would win and then everyone could go home happy, it's hard to imagine a full-on happy ending now. And that's great, because so rarely do happy endings arrive in life. A character or not, Harry seems real enough to his fans to warrant a messy, but realistic ending. So too went the Beatles, who never did have the chance to reunite after John died.

But life's like that, and it makes perfect sense that anyone creative enough to enchant songs or characters that could be loved by millions would instinctively know that the happy ending we crave couldn't -- better yet, shouldn't -- come true. And that's where we stand, one last time, playing the waiting game.

(Does borders.com have pre-order up for Book 7 yet?)

Okay.

Y'all just calm down a little bit.

Look, WE know Karl Rove outed Valerie Plame. We know full well Lil Scotty McClellan has been lying about this since day one. Yes, I'm well aware Bush proudly declared he'd fire the leaker. Oh, I'm totally on top of the fact that Rove could very easily have gotten Miss Plame killed. Yep, I know it's illegal. Sure enough, I know he's a criminal.

But what apparently nobody else understands quite well enough is the fact that Karl Rove's cabal is like cancer. We all know what cancer does, and sometimes we're quick enough to stop it from being fatal. Well check it — we lost our chance with Rove. Rove has metastized, growing from a little Nixon-era 'ratfucker' to a celebrated power-broker who owns, outright, the Republican party, reactionaries, evangelicals, idiots, Southerners and the rich and powerful. Folks, tally that up; we've got more cancer cells than healthy ones.

So all this scandal-mongering, this waif-like fainting at the horrors of Karl Rove is ridiculous. He's a rolling wall of criminality and dirty tricks. We're better off standing in front of a tsunami and asking it politely to please stop heading toward shore.

We all need to pick up a few lessons about picking our fights. Rove isn't elected. Yes, he's the power behind the throne, but you can't pick who Presidents are going to listen to — I mean, is Karl Rove REALLY worse than, say, Jeanne Dixon the astrologer? Let's lower taxes, the moon is rising in Saturn...

I'd love to say "Once the people understand this, they'll get really pissed" but it isn't true. It hasn't been true yet with ANY Republican moves in the last 30 years, except one. Sorry H-Dub, but raising taxes stretches the patience of even the most reactionary Liberal-hater America can churn out.

We're a little past chemo at this point. Getting rid of Rove isn't going to slow corporate domination of all facets of life. It wouldn't dent the avalanche of blind ideology preached as fact. It certainly won't console a family who's lost a son or daughter in this meaningless war.

Cheery thought, I know.

Instead, we need to link arms and dig a few lines in the sand over what we might be able to save. Social Security is the battle I want to fight. I wouldn't mind a good scrap over bringing the troops home (indeed, the Pentagon today went on record saying it was 'likely' -- but I fear more because Bush's got his eyes on Iran rather than an actual peace). I'd love to see some backbone on the Supreme Court opening(s).

These are the battles worth fighting. Rove may have put Valerie Plame in danger, but the mass of his disease is putting everything Americans cherish in danger. I'd love to see him brought to justice over his outrageous act, but I'd much rather see the conservative movement escorted out of town before we lose what's left of America.

Until then, we'll just keep getting knocked off our horse, after we endlessly raise our lance for another advance on a windmill.

37 dead, hundreds wounded.

It's human nature to look at the events of Iraq and just become numb to the overwhelming violence and daily deaths that happen there. I don't know why that's our nature; I really wish we were programmed a little differently.

But change the scene a little bit and it's big news. Today it was London. Last year it was Madrid. Every day, it seems it's Iraq. Which one of these grabs the big ink?

It's terrible, of course, to hear about pieces of London being blown up. London is easily one of the 10 coolest places to be on any given day in the world; I had been on each of the tube lines where the bombs were. But it's terrible to hear about ANYWHERE being blown up, isn't it? Where is the outpouring of sympathy to the Iraqis who get blown up outside their homes? Who run into a suicide bomber while grabbing a falafel, or sitting in a restaurant?

That's apparently OK, that's totally back page news because it's expected — worse yet, it's downright common. And that's our disgusting "new normal" as I heard it termed on CNN (but wish they were F-O-X instead) tonight.

Apparently, the new normal means it is okay for Iraqis to get slaughtered wholesale without anyone giving a damn. Believe we did the right thing or not: It's hard to point at Iraq and suggest things are better. Not worse necessarily, but there's absolutely no way any non-ideologue could suggest Iraq is better.

And the new normal means that we both accept that we're the good guys in the "War on Terror" and deny the possibility that the tactics we've tried, coupled with the tactics they've tried, make every last one of us a soldier. There is no civilian in a terror attack; we're all on the front lines now.

This scares the crap out of us (a win for the nebulous "them" on the other side) and reassures us that we're right to fight (a win for those in power). The fact that it's a zero sum game where nobody wins and most people closely involved die as well, you're welcome to figure out who wins there.

Each attack makes it less and less likely that the sides will be able to accept the other's existence. And the attacks will only step up the devastation: Today it's Afghanistan and Iraq balanced by 9/11 and Madrid's and London's bombings. But tomorrow it might be Saudi Arabia and Jordan. And the balance on that could very easily be a dirty bomb in Denver or a nuclear strike in Tokyo.

We had our chance to respect the Islamic nations. They had their chance to respect us. But now we kill them, with our country's tacit approval (via the results of the last election) — and they're equally willing to kill us, with the Arab world's tacit approval (via the money and recuits that flow into Iraq and Pakistan for al-Qaida's use).

I can only hope that something snaps before either side does something unforgivable. But in this time of new normal, I'm not exactly counting on the better angels of human nature to save us. Look at what's happened after we were wounded once: Our government started a war with absolutely zero justification, is careening toward a future of christofascism and happily sheds explicit freedoms for hazy safety. And our provincial, reactionary citizenry? We LOVE the troops and feel just safe enough that we can ignore the rest of the world again, just like before 9/11.

We could have looked at ourselves, our leadership, our foreign policy, our interactions with other nations. We could have been self-critical and thoughtful about who we should or shouldn't support. We could have even been critical on other nations (Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran) that were actually troubled.

But all I can think of are the shirtless guys parading up and down the street on Sept. 12, 2001, carrying a banner that read "Nuke 'Em All" and "Kill the Towelheads." Lately, all I've heard our politicians talking about reasonably was how badly we should punish sex offenders. And all our President, Yosemite Sam, can say is "Freedom" or "Terror" because in his brain, there's only room for one or the other at a time.

All I know is that if it's us versus them, I want to be out of the game.

Hilarity.

It's all I can think of as I watch the ants scurrying in the wake of the Sandra Day O'Connor resignation. (For short, we'll be referring to her as Sunny D for the rest of the blog entry.)

You have the Republicans screaming their heads off that they need a new judge by tomorrow at 5 p.m. or else the very world, the LAND OF THE FREE WILL BE THREATENED AND PROBABLY DESTROYED IF YOU DO NOT SAY OKAY TO OUR FIRST PICK TO REPLACE SUNNY D.

That's pretty funny. But funnier is the Demoncrat's sunny disposition toward the whole process. They keep saying things like "If President Bush nominates a hard-line conservative" or "If President Bush nominates someone far to the right"... yes, hello, this is Earth with a collect call for the center-leftists. If Bush doesn't nominate someone to the right of Jabba the Hutt, I'll be shocked. (For the record, Jabba was a reactionary small business owner who believed strongly in long prison sentences -- preferrably in carbonite -- and the death penalty.)

"Phat" Willy Rehnquist was supposed to be the guy stepping down. He's got cancer, he's 174 years young... and he was a reactionary racist who was perfectly replaceable by Dear Leader. Heck, you could have slipped in Anne Coulter and I would have cheerfully accepted it — she's only a little worse than he's been. He made a nice Sith Lord to his understudies, "Pubes" Thomas and Antonin "Concentrated Evil" Scalia. (Stay with me here. We're closing in on a 9-for-9 sweep on SCOTUS nicknames. You don't want to miss this.)

With O'Connor moving along, though, that's trouble. Justices "Rick" Stevens and David "The Game" Souter just aren't enough to roll abortion rights in the long-term. Think happy thoughts, though. It typically takes a case several years to get to the highest court, so that means fetus-killin' is fair game until at least 2009.

And what about Ruth Bader "Ginsface Killah" Ginsburg going to do on the bench now? She'll have no choice but to listen to Pubes tell inappropriate jokes about Anita Hill and sex with donkies. No longer can she and Sunny D swap secrets over a coke in the commisary... no more slumber parties, discussing the finer points of 19th Century case law in between pillow fights. And no more making up funny nicknames for court newbie Stephen Breyer. They called him "Punky Brewster"... they called him "Chinese Finger Trap" (although mainly because he once got his fingers stuck in one for several days until a very annoyed Scalia sliced it in half with a sword)... they won't get a chance to laugh at his below-average intellect and his half-witted opinions any longer.

Oh yeah, and she's prolly pretty worried about that whole "separation of church and state" thing too.

Finally we come to Anthony "Jimbo" Kennedy. For 10 years he's had the make on O'Connor, and right before he was going to take that last step... she's gone. He's so annoyed that he's preparing an opinion for when the court decides to strike down the 1st, 5th and 23rd Amendments (The Twenty-Third only because he's an Orioles fan), Roe v. Wade, Brown vs. Board of Education, Furhman vs. Georgia and, one suspects, Bush vs. Gore, but only to institute the death penalty for Gore for being a bore.

Yes, we'll miss Sunny D and her laughably crazy idea of considering the issue and voting with her head rather than her ideology. And you can bet the next justice of the Supreme Court won't be as insane: I'm sure whatever Hispanic Bush throws in will be plenty ready to put their neck on the line and vote however Pubes does — sort of like how Pubes drives Scalia nuts by always following what he does.

Yes, you'd better get on your knees and pray. Panic is on the way.