Paralysis of the Mind

Between Bush unveiling the Rodney King defense for his wiretapping (we only use it 'cause they're all terrarists!), Alito's smooth sailing to confirmation (no offense to John Kerry, someone who I actually like and appreciate, there ain't gonna be no wedding, there ain't gonna be no filibuster) and the general malaise of the public on a) massive governmental corruption b) ridiculous war in Iraq and, of course, c) Pat Robertson's mindset, it's all just too damn much.

So, today, we're taking a break from heavy topics to talk about something a lot more fun: sex offenders!! Yay!

Anyway, I write this in the burning embers of public rage at a Vermont judge who gave a sex offender 60 days for molesting a 6-year-old several times over the past few years. Yesterday, he reversed course and gave the guy 10 years in prison.

Never mind the obscene miscarriage of justice that the public is now allowed to decide sentences -- but child molestation has become a very touchy issue, and one which offers a very good look at what sort of country America is.

Now, for anyone who's ever been a child, has a child, knows a child or has watched "Spongebob Squarepants," sex offenders are about as chilling a thought as they come. Our puritan foreparents have worked very hard to make sure we're very closeminded and nervous about sex, so that's a hot-button issue. And people who hurt children pretty much piss everyone off. So it's a good mix of angry and REALLY angry.

As such, sex offenders have become the modern-day equivalent of Hester Prynn in The Scarlet Letter. And in many ways, that's comforting. Nobody wants a sex offender living down the street, working in a shop across the street from a school, or, as some in Britain found out, sex offenders were teaching at schools.

The only problem with all of this, of course, is what happens once a sex offender has paid his dues with time in prison. Here in New York state, it now means that low-level offenders have to be listed on a state registry for 20 years, Level 2 offenders for 30 years, and the worst offenders to be listed for the rest of their lives. Being listed on the registry entails having your name and address accessible on the Internet (it's right here if you're curious) -- and for the top level, it means a picture of you, a picture that will be passed around to parents of kids in whatever school district you end up settling into. Plus, you have to check in with the police on a consistent basis or get tossed in jail.

It's hard to say the registry is a bad idea. But once someone is marked, what are they going to do with their lives? A simple background check will bring up their sex offender history in a second, keeping them out of most jobs. Even Wal-Mart -- who typically would hire anyone with a pulse -- will look and disqualify sex offenders without a second thought.

Where does this leave the sex offender who wants to turn his life around? And, most of all, what does this say about our beliefs in our system of justice?

If, as many people believe, jail doesn't cure criminal tendencies, why would we keep sending people there -- and letting them out, eventually? If sex offenders are simply going to do it again (and studies show that a majority of people in this country think so) why not hold them forever?

Prison, obviously, is all about punishment, and not at all about rehabilitation. Most people, at least at this point, don't want rehabilitation at all, or at least are so angry/scared about crime that they don't really care either way so long as criminals aren't a threat.

But prison doesn't help. Long-term prisoners are likely to do it (whatever their crime was) again. Especially people who suffer from what scientists consider a "disease" -- like pedophilia, or drug addiction. And of course, there's our friend DWI, which has one of the highest recidivism rates of any crime. But nobody seems to have the cojones to suggest drunk drivers should be forced to register on a list for the rest of their lives.

Going back to the Vermont judge who gave into public perception and re-sentenced the sex offender, the judge said that the only reason he gave such a short sentence in the first place was that the state wouldn't offer the man treatment while he was in jail. And? Nobody cared about treatment one bit, despite the fact that studies show psychiatric treatment is the only way to help sex offenders live clean lives once they do leave prison.

And it's not just them, either. Prison education programs lead to lower re-offense rates, at least, so says every study done in the past 15 years. And rehab for drug addicts is -- bar none -- the only way to help them get clean.

But as our political minds continue their bend to the right, we're not going to see a plausible combination of rehabilitation and punishment anytime soon. Which running-for-re-election pol is going to proudly announce $12 million for a new addiction rehab center when he could, instead, be announcing a new wing for the state prison?

It all sounds real good, locking the bastards up. But once those "bastards" get out, will they have learned anything? Will anything in their lives have changed? Or will they simply be returned into the same circumstances that led them to a life of crime in the first place?

For sex offenders in this country, the answer is already apparent. In bluest-of-blue New York, there's already some swell to keep sex offenders in a non-prison facility after their prison sentence is up. And judging from who's making the suggestion, the excrable Jim Tedisco you can bet your last dime "rehabilitation" isn't a part of the deal.

And that leads me to believe, once again, that no matter how successful Tedisco or any politician is in locking up sex offenders forever, the real losers will still be the kids who are preyed upon by people who need help as much as they need punishment.

In 1972, Edwin Muskie famously cried during a speech in New Hampshire. Muskie swears, to this day, that the wind was in his eyes, but the public saw the tears and he went from "near-favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination" to "no longer seen in public." You can almost imagine the doctors in white coats with butterfly nets moving in behind Muskie during the speech, and that's pretty much how the public reacted to it.

Because we'll put up with a lot of things in America, but crazy didn't used to be one of 'em. We laughed when Jimmy Carter was attacked by a giant swimming rabbit, we rolled our eyes at the Reagans using astrology, and believe me, Dionne Warwick's reputation is loooong gone.

But being batshit seems to be a much better gig these days. We have a president who hears voices, and it doesn't seem to bother most people. We have Pat Robertson, who routinely says things crazy enough to be locked up for -- and yet nobody has discussed taking his microphone away (not even to mention the people out there who must agree with him). We have Kanye West who says George Bush hates black people when Bush's "special friend" is Condi Rice. Ray Nagin dropped a Funkadelic reference by referring to New Orleans as "Chocolate City" -- and then decided God was pissed at America and black people. There's a large subset of America's population that wants to help Israel only because they think it'll help bring on the Rapture.

And don't even get me started on Dr. Phil.

Point is, we've either come so far on the liberalish mindset of "I'm OK, You're OK" that we're cool with accepting wacko ideas from public figures, or else there are enough pockets of agreement in this country that these crazy ideas have traction.

I'm not sure which is worse. Accepting all viewpoints is a dangerous idea; considering the amount of racism that exists in the world, I continue to think there are plenty of ideas that nobody in their right mind ought to accept.

On the other hand, I'm downright terrified to think of how many people really think God is talking to our president -- and how many of those think that's just peachy.

You know who else heard voices? Son of Sam. And instead of starting far-off wars and cutting taxes, he put his energy into killing dark-haired women in New York. Not a plausible comparison, you say? I see a connection; a voice in your head is a voice in your head. To me, it doesn't matter if it's God, the Devil, aliens or William Shatner -- you're headed to the deep end if you're hearing voices you can't control in your head, and you need help, not political power (or a knife).

Or maybe Dubya doesn't hear voices in his head, and he just said it to placate the masses. Which, then, brings up the teensy matter of how unbelievably crazy the masses are. Or it doesn't. Because how can you define crazy when most people don't seem to recognize it?

I mean, honestly, how can we take Rapturites seriously? And WHY should we take these people seriously? I'm exhausted of hearing people who decide to radically change their lives because of a book, be it the Bible, the Left Behind series, Dr. Phil's diet plans, O'Reilly for Kids or Harry Potter. If Voldemort's not coming back, neither is your high school weight by following Dr. Phil's plan, OK?

And there's nothing in the world, other than words, to prove anything about any religion. And it's fine to believe, but once someone takes that step off the rational platform, it's insanity -- just as much as Dr. Phil worship would be, just as much as Son of Sam was, every bit as much as the hearing voices crowd are.

The time has come to stop being accepting of lunatics. Someone, somewhere needs to put his or her foot down and say, "Enough." To take Robertson's mic away. To gently drag Nagin off the podium. To tell Bush how crazy he sounds. To put a stop to this "intelligent design" nonsense. To resore a sense of reason back to a land where the mysticism of God is very close to taking over. To be a firm hand against smarter salesmen who swear the snake oil isn't just snake oil, it's GOD'S snake oil and this batch will definitely work.

And it isn't going to be easy. The crazies run this country. An unspoken plank in the neoconservative movement is the strengthing of Israel because there's no Rapture without a strong Israel. That has become a legitimate part of our foreign policy. That should bother everyone, especially the Israelis (who bask in the support of the Rapturite crowd).

But we can't wait around for the rest of our lives to find out if religion wins the war and stifles reason. Because by then, crazy will be the norm, and the resonable among us will no longer be running the asylum, we'll be the patients.

I do not like green eggs and Sam (Alito).

There's a lot of good reasons to not like Alito. Obviously, his chief boosters are the sort of corrupt nutcases responsible for such favorites as "Tax Cuts We Couldn't Afford" and "The War in Iraq" and "We Don't Know Where Bin Laden Is." And that looks bad, even if they nominate the first gay justice in Supreme Court history.

But look, when you're as popular as Sam Alito is, you can't always choose which of your bosses is going to notice your work. Sometimes, the old dingbat that nobody likes is going to give you a promotion that you deserve; other times it'll be from the handsome, younger boss who everyone likes. Christine Todd Whitman said Alito was OK, and that'll have to be good enough for me.

My main problem with Alito is not that I think he'll be far-right (obviously he will be) or that I think he'll crush abortion rights (he will; as quickly as possible, too) or that, frankly, I think he has a judicial agenda (seriously, who was he kidding?), but it's entirely down to the fact that he's a bad liar and, like most of the Republicans backing him, doesn't think he can do anything wrong.

And that's downright dangerous, in a judge.

For example, take Alito's statements about the case he presided over that involved Vanguard, a mutual fund company. Now, Alito owns funds with the company, and he told the Senate that if a case involving the company came up, he would recuse himself.

But he didn't. According to a letter he wrote to the chief judge of the 3rd circuit court, he said he WOULD step aside if asked, but did not mention his Senate promise. During his testimony, Alito said it was a computer glitch. Then an "oversight." Then a matter of "initial service" -- as if making a pledge to the Senate was voided once someone had served long enough.

That's not good enough, though. As news organizations are fond of sliding in at the end of Alito testimony stories: "No Democrat suggested that Alito benefited financially from the Vanguard case." But considering the funds he holds with Vanguard are worth between $400,000 to a million bucks, who cares if he got richer or not? The point is the principle of the matter.

And speaking of principals, Alito joined the Concerned Alumni of Princeton after his graduation, and bragged about it on a resume in the '80s. No big, except the innocous sounding CAP was actually a front of alumni who were bemoaning the fact that Princeton had gone from all-white-male to mixed admission. Their magazine, "Prospect," printed such gems as:

"People nowadays just don't seem to know their place. Everywhere one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and hispanic, the physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children."

Good stuff, right? And again, Alito took the easy way out of "I don't really remember everything that was said" and "I wasn't that closely connected" but again, these things aren't the point. If I joined the KKK, I wouldn't later expect to receive sympathy if I said I didn't remember it, or wasn't closely connected to the group.

Again, Alito shows his lack of principles, especially in the light of the work he had done by balancing his caseload as a lawyer with some liberalesque clients. Like John Roberts, Alito had his eyes on a high-placed judgeship since he'd finished law school -- yet was perfectly willing to claim membership in a group that was (really, is) racist and sexist, to curry favor in 1985. (As a point, I note that the racist Dinesh D'Souza was the editor of the magazine at that point in time. D'Souza remains a rabidly racist right-wing polemicist.)

Now, these are fairly small things. And perhaps, Alito really didn't remember his Senate promise, and perhaps it was a friend of a friend that convinced him to join CAP. But someone who so painstakingly formed his career with an eye toward the future, it's awfully hard to believe that these things just slipped his mind.

Furthermore, Alito took the easy way out of both questions. He could have taken responsibility for either; apologized for lying to the Senate, apologized to all of the people who felt threatened by CAP during the '80s. But there was no responsibility present during those hearings, and there was a rather apalling lack of principles. And, in the end, isn't responsibility and principle what a judge is all about? Especially a Supreme Court justice?

The Democrats apparently don't think so. The Republicans wouldn't recognize a principle if it slept with their mistresses. And Ralph Nader remains safely far away from any real power. (Whew.)

All of which leads me to belive that Alito will be a Justice in the near future. Whether or not justice will be meted out by Alito, well, I'm not holding my breath. After all, who will he be to tell someone to take responsibilty for their actions when he can't do it himself?

I'm not afraid of being blown up by a terrorist.

This is partly because I don't live inside the Sears Tower, but it's mostly because I have enough sense to realize that I'm much more likely to be beaten to death by a street-performing mime wielding a cudgel.

George W. Bush, though, is terrified of being blown up by a terrorist. He talks about al-Qaida as though it were an insurmountable opponent, a war machine with no limits, a vast network of death-dealers that would make the hardest Nazi criminal smile. And the people who love Bush feed off that. They're willing to burn the Constitution itself if it means keeping those horrible villians off our shores for just another day.

It's time to call a spade a spade, and it's time to realize that these people aren't strong, they're weak -- so weak from fear that they don't even realize how ridiculous their fear is.

When 9/11 happened, it was so violent, so shocking, that the rationality button in the back of many brains simply clicked off. We, as a nation, lied stunned, acting for all the world as though nobody had ever been terrorized before. And we hadn't, of course, and it showed.

But that button never clicked back on. Assisted by George "Oceans can no longer protect us" Bush and Dick "The ongoing threat to our nation" Cheney and Condi "Mushroom cloud" Rice and Colin "Aluminum tubes -- wink wink you know what that means, right?" Powell, people were scared shitless into sucking down nonsense. We made a case to the world that Iraq had nuclear weapons because they had aluminum tubes.

I wish I was kidding.

Reagan called the Soviet Union the "Evil Empire" and people ate it up. Despite the fact that less than a decade later that empire would lie in ruins and be nearly bankrupt, he was at least pushing the buttons of another superpower. To hear Bush speak of al-Qaida is a nasty shock. He refers to this age as one of "unprecendented danger." This is more dangerous that having an unknown number of nuclear warheads pointed at America? These people are more dangerous than Nazis? Heck, these people are more determined to shatter our Union than the confederacy?

And people love it, because Bush is talking so tough. But he isn't talking tough. He's preaching fear. He's selling scared. Or maybe he's afraid too, because fighting these terrorists has become the number one goal of this administration.

Think about that. What's a higher priority to these people than, say, grabbing Osama bin Laden, or al-Zarqawi, or whomever else is left from those funky playing cards everyone was so enamoured with a few years ago? It's an easy answer: there's NOTHING bigger than this to them. Bush was supposed to be a fiscal conservative, backed by very rich fiscal conservatives, but look out: that deficit is higher than ever. But will that stop him from demanding billions or trillions for fighting terror?

And that's fear, at its nakedest. When John Kerry referred to treating terrorism as a nuisance, he was almost crucified in right-wing circles. Backing away in the face of fire, he ask the question that really could have done something: Why IS fighting terrorism the top priority of the United States?

Less than 3,000 people died on 9/11. The number of people killed by heart disease since then is far, far higher. Same for cancer. So it isn't simply the total of the dead. Nor could it possibly be the actual power of al-Qaida. China has nuclear weapons; they have many more people than we do and they're as close to a competitor in the world markets as we have. Iran -- it seems -- either has or is close to an atomic bomb. Pakistan and India have the bomb. South Korea probably has several. We think al-Qaida MIGHT be able to get one, but of course, they have no air force so it would have to be hand-delivered. And so on.

Were the images from 9/11 horrifying? Definitely. But watching the miners' saga unfold this week didn't make me afraid of dying in a mine, any more than seeing the local tragedy of 20 elderly people die on a tourboat make me think I was going to drown in the lake. But somehow, planes into a building have made people terrified of greater and more grandiose doses of terror.

And so here we stand, a few days into 2006, putting terrorists at the top of our national list for no reasonable reason other than they're more scary than other things to worry about. It's high time someone stood up to those "tough-talking" Republicans and called them what they REALLY are: scaredy-cats. And everyone who supports them are just scared little sheep, joining up with the herd.

You want to take on a great evil? Battle racism. Eager to fight a shadowy foe? Kick a few bucks in for cancer research. Want to make the world a safer place? Don't run red lights and don't speed. And if you want to be afraid of something, fear Mother Nature -- who in 2005 killed a hell of a lot more people than al-Qaida ever has.

Terrorism's point is to spread terror. And instead of rational, calm heads making decisions, we've been thrown into a new world where terror is everywhere. We might win battles, but until we can calmly talk about being afraid, we've lost the war.

It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times.

Yes, 2005 devolved into a solid morass of nonsense, crass and hype. Sorta like 2004, but without the charm. We had comebacks, fadeaways, train wrecks, annointments, appointments and more reality TV than anyone can shake a stick at. With that, it's easy to say, "Hey, there's nothing good here, let's move along."

But that would be too easy, a short list featuring the 3 good things in pop culture over the past year. So, instead, lets carp about the bad and ugly:

Best and worst appearance of the year: Dick Clark
Some people found it funny and I guess under the influence it was in a horrible way, but it was also touching, and just a little sad. He didn't look totally different; he sounded sorta the same, but worse... and just really gave it his best try. He's earned the right by now, but I hope for his sake he improves for next year or gives up the chair. Then again, if it means "Seacrest, OUT" for 20 years, maybe he needs to hang onto his position like grim death.

Least-deserved comeback of the year: Mariah Carey
Yes, apparently her album was JUST FANTASTIC (I mean, have the Grammys ever been wrong before? I certainly can't think of a time). And, oh, her voice is just SO WONDERFUL... and hey, good for her for not doing whatever it was she was doing originally that made her look like a looney tune... but imagine if Miss Carey weren't rich and famous. Think she'd get a second chance then? As usual, our "forgiving" nature allows us to let famous people off the hook while more-deserving folks either end up fired and on welfare, or in jail for their little meltdowns. Must be nice to have an endless stream of second chances.

Train wreck of the year: Danny Bonaduce
I don't get it. Here's a guy with problems who's had a reasonable amount of success in his life. And instead of doing his best to try and cope with his issues, he invites cameras to shred his life apart. And shred they did. You really think your life is gonna look good once the producers have edited your tape? Yikes. Anyway, a new drink was invented, and I can say from personal experience it tastes extra sweet. But still, why invite the public to your personal train wreck? It boggles me as much as people who post their innermost thoughts and feelings for the world to see.

The "Please, it hurts, make it go away" Award: Gwen Stefani
I don't care what is next. Bubbly techno-pop? Formulaic goth rock? Folk music? Whatever is next, it needs to come soon. This semi-hip-hop-boy-or-girl-power-cheese-pop crap needs to go away. "Hollaback Girl" is just embarrassing, both for Stefani (does anyone else remember how enjoyable "Tragic Kingdom" was?) and for anyone who got into that song while not drunk at a club. I'm willing to be fair, if you were dancing and had 3 or 4 Bonaduces... but otherwise, yick. And I saw recently that it was the #1 downloaded song of 2005. Eek.

The "Don't take your kids to this" Kids Movie of the Year: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
As a Harry Potter dork, I rounded up my fiance and a pal and we went the first night to a heavily crowded theater. What I didn't count on (especially going to a 10 p.m. show) was the fact that there would be kids there -- young kids, aged 8 or younger. Uh, did y'all READ that book? The one where someone dies and scary Voldemort comes back using Potter's blood for fuel? There were a few white faces after that movie, you can bet. And I'm sure plenty of nightmares, too. It was a good movie, probably the best yet of the series, but it earned its PG-13 rating.

The "Why do I know all the lyrics to this song" Award: "Since You've Been Gone"
Hum a few bars of this to anyone who listens to the radio (no fair counting the NPR dorks out there) and within minutes, they'll have this little ditty stuck in their head. It just isn't fair, and as such, I love to torment my co-workers with it whenever possible. You're thinking of it in your head right now, right? HA! I get what I want!

The "Did he just say that?" Award: Kanye West
Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is typically the correct one. Therefore, the easy answer is that George Bush is an incompetent boob, and Hurricane Katrina simply showed why. But West took it to a new level, thus creating the immortal Mike Myers Face. Hey, Kanye's entitled to his opinion, and if I were poor and black I'd probably be right behind him. But people are stupid and skittish, and if West's comments even caused ONE person not to donate, Kanye ought to be ashamed of himself.

Biggest TV disappointment of the year: Moral Orel
When [adult swim] starts promoing the hell out of something, that's usually a good reason to watch it. Anyone who has brought me the joy of Brak, Aqua Teen and Sealab 2021 has earned my attention. But wow, I caught "Moral Orel: The Best Christmas Ever" and I wanted my money back, even though it was free. It was 12 minutes of tedium, which isn't a lot, but geez, there is such a thing as playing something TOO straight, know what I mean?

The tone-deaf to the extreme Award: Sony music
The music industry is mostly rotten, but Sony really took it to a new level this year. First, they put their grubby little minds together to come up with a way to "protect" their music on CDs; all it did was get their asses sued for going hilariously too far in their protections. Unremovable spyware? Backdoor IP access? Jeez guys, if you're that concerned why don't you get out of the music business? But as it turns out, they don't just NOT know how to produce stuff, they can't market it properly either. Because fake graffiti-like ads go over REAL well in the inner-city. Nice job, guys.

The "Oh boy, that's gonna suck soon" Award: ESPN getting NASCAR
Lots of people like football, and ESPN covers football the way I wish other news outlets covered, y'know, the news. Hours and hours of coverage for the hardcore. I like football, but it isn't my favorite sport, so I can only take so much. But I can't stand NASCAR; most people I've ever met who watch ESPN with any consistency don't care for NASCAR, either. So are we going to see that level of coverage? I can only assume the answer is yes, because racin' might be even more popular than ole football. And that's gonna start sucking hard, circa 2007. If Fox Sports could find two pennies to rub together, now would be the time to put in a bid on a sport to cover the hell out of ... well, my breath shan't be held.

The "Going to the well too often" Award: VH1
"I love the 80s" was a fantastic idea, well-executed, and easy to watch more than once. Obviously, the 70s and 90s, followed suit. Then we had "I love the 80s: Strikes Back" which was pushing it a bit. And then we had "I love the 80s: 3-D" which pretty much threw Baby Jessica down the well. And these shows spawned "Best Week Ever" which threw a pit bull into the well to maul Jessica and then brought on the inevitable "Chat Soup" nee "The Soup" comeback, which had VH1 setting explosives around the well to destroy it. In small doses, this doesn't suck. When half of your prime-time lineup IS this, it sucks really hard. Those guys from The Modern Humorist really need to get out more.

Blog of the year: Echidne of the Snakes
She's angry, she's an unrepentant feminist, and, uh, she's angry. And I read her every day. Which is more then I can say about any other blog. The problem with the big blogs is that they're too big -- too many people running around with too many conflicting opinions. I'm not going to nominate a right-wing blog, because most of them are terrifying (check out a Free Republic thread sometime and see how many comments it takes to make your stomach turn), and that leaves someone small, who still gives the personal touch. So click on the damn link.

2005 as the year of the blog: Totally overated
Anyone who wrote this about 2005 should probably get back on the meds. Blogs do very little other than coalsece people with like minds into one spot. There's a big opportunity for them to do more (and watch carefully this year with the Congressional elections) but at the moment, we've very VERY early in the game. And furthermore, blogs really came of age in 2004 -- leave it to the stodgy media to be a year late to the party. So whatever, lets see where this rocket ship is gonna take us all in '06.

And so, I bid farewell to 2005's bad pop culture. People will miss you in time for VH1's "I love the Naughts" special in 2010.