I think Newsweek’s Evan Thomas perhaps gets it right when he says, Government Is Not the Problem: we are.

American individualism and entitlement is certainly at its height these days (though, I don’t agree that partisanship is).  “What’s in it for me” has become the mantra of the American taxpayer.  We’ve managed to create a culture in which pundits on both ends of the political horseshoe simultaneously decry the loss of “self-reliance” or “personal responsibility” while demanding that government do more to boost the economy, support small businesses, “fix” healthcare, protect doctors from malpractice suits, stop global warming, et cetera ad infinitum.

For instance, in Vermont, nearly forty percent of kids ages 8–12 have had alcohol in the last month.  That, to me, is pretty insane.  What’s scarier, however, is that the Department of Public Health recognized a need to include the following paragraph in its “Solutions” tab:

Our job as parents is to set clear boundaries and monitor our children—where they go, what they do, how they act and more. This kind of monitoring is not a violation of trust. It should be a regular and expected part of parenting throughout the pre-teen and teen years.

Really?  Parents need to be told this?  By the government?  Well, the statistics certainly bear out that they do.  Talk about a loss of responsibility!  That’s just one example, of course, and I hope it doesn’t lead the comments down too much of a digressive path.

My point is that the government, whether it be local, state, or federal, is our government.  Our Constitution starts “We the People, of the United States of America.”  At the time those words were written, “the People” – at least, those with the right to vote – consisted of white landowners.  Now, the power of “the People” lies in the hands of everyone over the age of 18.

How many times, however, have you heard it said, “Those bums in Washington” or “Politicians: you just can’t trust ‘em”?  As if to say we don’t have the power to get rid of them.

Or, how about, “Well!  Our government is controlled by Big Money, Big Corporations, the Lobbyists.  The little guy doesn’t have a say anymore.”  I’ve got news for you: the little guy doesn’t vote.  There are a number of reasons for that, to be sure.  On the other hand, I would venture that while the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre makes nearly $1 million a year, most of its membership is lower-middle class.  In other words, the little guy is relying on Big Money and Lobbyists to represent his interests, why shouldn’t the rich do the same but without the middleman?  (Don’t think this is limited to the reactionary Right: just look at the Global-Warming Left’s Al Gore.)

I return to my point: 220 years ago, in the words of Lincoln, “[O]ur fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.… It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work … so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us … that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

And that, my friends, is done through community, not individualism.

No related posts.

The Volokh Conspiracy asks those of us who oppose federally sanctioned torture to consider how we’d have reacted had John Yoo been anti-torture.  (Not John Woo.  Thanks to Dan for pointing this out.)

Above the Law informs us that some guy put his law degree up for sale on e-Bay.  The comments he’s received are pretty funny, at least to wannabe lawyers like me.

And, someone has figured out that social change needs marketing.

Related posts:

1. Blogging for Money
2. Torture Harms, Not Helps
3. Torture and Iraq

I felt this explanation of the U.S. health care debate was fairly objective; though, I admit that according to Wikipedia, the publisher leans left.

Regardless, I have a few thoughts on health care:

• private insurance companies seek to maximize profits at employers’ expense;
• employers seek to maximize profits at employees’ expense;
• doctors seek to maximize profits at everyone’s expense;
• government is going broke trying to maximize health care for people who will not or cannot provide insurance for themselves;
• even by a truly conservative estimate, 20 million American citizens cannot afford health insurance, and for between 8 and 14 million American citizens, that is a chronic situation.

I’m reminded of the words of the Gospel (it’s Lent, after all):

I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.

Those words may not mean a lot to most of the looney left, but a good chunk of the neoconservative Christian right who so vehemently oppose anything legislation that might help a brother out will certainly get it.

And to my Jewish friends, a belated Happy Purim.

Related posts:

1. Universal Health Care
2. Maternity Leave
3. Moving to Israel

Baseball hasn’t had much room for women.  That may soon change, however – if only a little, as the Boston Globe reports on a female knuckleballer from Japan.

The knuckleball not needing speed but relying rather on unpredictability, I really think this girl has a chance.  Maybe she’ll replace Wake when he retires?

Related posts:

1. Japanese Culture
2. Red Sox-Yankees, Round Three
3. Vandalism by Editing

I confess: I don’t know who Miss Beverly Hills is, nor do I particularly care.  I find her recent defense of her anti-gay beliefs compelling, however.  Especially illuminating is the pause when she is asked if one can both be Christian and gay.

I think Miss Beverly Hills’ response – or lack thereof – exemplifies the  unthoughtful approach of those who would, in the words of Jesus, cast stones.  Perhaps if there were a little less condemnation of others, a little more introspection, and a lot more positive action, Christianity wouldn’t be “under attack” in this country, as so many of my coreligionists would have us believe.

(And, yeah, I know, I’m casting stones, too.)

Related posts:

1. Bagels
2. Letter from Israel: Sex and Feminism
3. A Tale of Two Calendars

A great gimmick, an interesting ploy, and possibly a good way to make a fortune: Steak for Stock.

I’m not sure what to think, but I have to give credit to Smith & Wollensky’s ad agency for coming up with this one.

A sign of the times, to be sure.  Citibank stock is worth 1/2 portion of creamed spinach.

No related posts.

There’s an old adage that, put politely, says, “You don’t defecate where you eat.” Unfortunately, it seems that many Americans have disregarded this bit of wisdom in their daily lives.

Al Gore may not be everyone’s favorite person (he certainly isn’t mine), but he’s got a point when he says We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change. Still, even if you don’t believe in climate change, why would you want to pollute the very air you must breathe with chemicals that are proven to kill you?

Same with our water supply. In our zeal for deregulation of industry, we have allowed corporations to pollute the waters we drink.

In our love of over-packaged, shelf-stable food, we’re making food toxic.

The list, of course, goes on. And, yes, I am perhaps prone to neo-luddism. But the fact remains:

You shouldn’t defecate where you eat.

No related posts.

A NYTimes.com editorial says that “[i]ncreasingly, courts are ignoring fundamental fairness and overemphasizing rigid rules and technical legal points — in many cases, deadlines of one kind or another — in ways that undermine justice.”  It’s not a statement backed up with facts or figures, but if true, and I think it might be, the Times is right to call out the courts on a disturbing trend.

Why do I think it is likely true? 

Two reasons.

1. Witness the Senate confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor and John Roberts before her.

Senators obsessed about how the prospective Supreme Court justices would treat precedent in deciding politically charged cases involving gun rights, abortion, etc.

John Roberts called himself “an umpire” – something he’s proven to be far from in his Supreme Court jurisprudence.  Sonia Sotomayor repeatedly invoked respect for precedent: the vaunted but hardly rigid principle of stare decisis. As prospective justices, they had no choice but to claim that they would not depart from precedent.  It’s the only answer that would simultaneously get them confirmed while allowing them to avoid revealing their personal views on controversial subjects.

Any judge in a lower federal court is likely to take the same tack even while sitting on a circuit or district court bench.  Nor is this a bad thing: Lower federal courts are likely to narrowly interpret the law so as to avoid overreaching.  After all, who wants to be the judge that gets overturned by the Supreme Court?

2. The Court itself may be leaning towards more mechanical approaches.

This is hard to tell, as the Supreme Court has seen thousands of cases since the inception of our country.  Further, dissents tend to point out the mechanical application of the law, regardless of the faction of the court that is in the majority.

Call this a gut feeling, as it would be a pretty big (if interesting) research project to discover, but it seems that an “ideologically conservative” (and I use that term with caution) court as we supposedly have now is more likely to favor mechanical tests than an “ideologically liberal” court.

If that were true, it would reinforce the caution of the lower courts.

No related posts.

I love my dog.  I think farm animals should be treated humanely and not spend their lives in factory farms.  Still a new Swiss animal rights law carries with it the specter of enforced Jainism.

Where does it end?  Will government some day tell me I can’t eat meat or cheese or squash a mosquito because they are beings with feeling that deserve treatment equal to that of “human animals”?

Lord help us.

Related posts:

1. Human Rights
2. Human Rights
3. Human Rights and the U.N.

I’m passing no judgement on content here.  I’m not even saying I’ve read it; I just love the title: Why Fannie Mae Is Like a Platypus.

No related posts.

Winning the FoxNews award for spinning the truth and conflating issues is Sam’s recent post Redundant Oppressed Men.

Please note that the divorce laws he decries are, as the judge on the first case put it, “old laws.”  They were passed in the “good old days,” when women didn’t have the right to vote, when they didn’t have the same property rights as men, when the only jobs available to unmarried women were in nursing and secretarial work.

In short, they are not modern laws aimed at denigrating men and paternity, but rather old laws that assumed what Sam consistently, if not explicitly, argues for: women chained to the stove.

Indeed, all of the links Sam gives (save for the videos) are not examples of how men are being denigrated or oppressed, but rather of how they are held to social and criminological standards held over from Victorian times.

As for the videos, compare the search results between a Google (with Moderate SafeSearch on) of “girls suck” and one of “boys suck.”  “Boys suck” pages by far engage in behavior that your mother told you was the sign of low self-esteem: denigrating boys.  Like Sam’s chosen videos, these pages betray not a growing hatred of men but a fear that men might be more capable and have more opportunities thanks to an accidents of biology reinforced through culture and society.

“Girls suck” pages, on the other hand, tend toward the sexual degradation of women.  (If you don’t believe me, take a look at the video results.)  Need I say more?

And, Sam argues against a law that would prevent men from coercing their wives into isolation?  From keeping them from helping to support themselves and their families?  How can that possible help society?  How is that a good thing?

Again, Sam, you show yourself to be uncaring and unfeeling towards the plight of women abused by men.

Here are some facts for you (quoted from the American Bar Association):

• [N]early 25% of women and 7.6% of men were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner/acquaintance at some time in their lifetime
• Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States.
• Intimate partner violence made up 20% of all nonfatal violent crime experienced by women in 2001.
• 84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female.
• Wives were more likely than husbands to be killed by their spouses: wives were about half of all spouses in the population in 2002, but 81% of all persons killed by their spouse.

The stats go on, but you get the picture: Women are overwhelmingly the target of domestic abuse.  Small wonder violence against men doesn’t get much attention.

Let’s put this “issue” to bed once and for all: Women deserve equality with men, nothing more, nothing less.

Related posts:

1. Psychological Violence: A Response
2. Psychological Violence
3. Equal Rights — for Men

The Orlando Sentinel’s TV Guy, a newsblogger, notes the TV feeding-frenzy over the recent death of a SeaWorld animal-trainer.  Also see this piece about the depraved heart of an orca in the NY Times.

It’s popular to talk about the news cycle, etc., etc.  Yet, people generally seem fairly uncritical of the central assumption: that the cycle need exist at all.

Real news happens no more often than it did 50 years ago.  Now, however, people insist on having everything “on demand” and “at their fingertips.”  The WWW provides us with that, though.

Several days worth of “the killer killer whale” we do not need.

No related posts.

In a column on the Huffington Post, Leo Hindery, Jr., a former CEO, writes that 100 million people in America are at or below the official poverty line, which itself is an absurd, unrealistic measure.

I agree that poverty eradication should be a, if not the, top priority in this country.  But how?  I, for one, don’t think the government can do this (partly because even Congress’s half-hearted efforts at a health care bill are lambasted as “socialist” by the reactionary right).

If you think it can, I’d like to hear from you.

Related posts:

1. The Poverty Paradox
2. So Much for the Free Market
3. Free Trade Helps America

Sam’s always predicting gloom and doom for the US economy (often while mysteriously touting that of Israel).  So, I thought I’d share STRATFOR’S TOP PREDICTIONS FOR THE NEXT DECADE: China Collapse, Global Labor Shortages, New American Dominance.

Indeed, the US does face some real issues (not actually mentioned by Business Insider’s overview), but this is not the Great Depression.  What many economic indicators show is less reality than a twisted, analytic version of reality.  If you doubt it, I have one question: is perpetual economic growth not tied to population possible?

Related posts:

1. Total Recall
2. Stratfor Updates
3. Pricing and Marketing

I would never try to assert that Facebook doesn’t have the authority to censor whatever they want. They’re a private company, and your privacy is signed over the moment you sign up.

Still, when Facebook starts policing groups that advocate for things, it starts to get a little bit strange. Check out an email sent by Facebook to the admin of the group The Ban of High Fructose Corn Syrup in the US.

No related posts.

Il paraît, selon Bonne Nouvelle ! (un blog de LeMonde.fr), que les grands sociétés du bourse français fleurissent quand ils ont plus de managers féminins.

This one’s for you, Sam: The top 40 companies on the French stock market grew 23.54 percent when they had more than 35 percent female managers; that number decreased to 14.61 percent where there were fewer than 35 percent female managers.

No related posts.

Sinclair Lewis once said, ““When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

In Texas, followers of Pat Robertson have brought that fascism to the public schools and are putting down roots.

Back in the 1800s, Catholics created their own schools to get away from the mainstream Protestantism they felt was being taught in the public schools and the anti-Catholic bias rampant in our young country.

Now, it seems, those of us that believe in a public education free from evangelical Christianity’s ideological sway may have to follow suit.

No related posts.

There are a lot of explanations for this chart from BarackObama.com.  But, regardless of whether you feel it’s accurate or a complete fabrication or somewhere in between, you have to admit it’s a compelling use of statistical graphics.

Related posts:

1. All-Star Rodeo Challenge

En Allemagne, l’avenir des bourgs: énergétiquement indépendant.

Pendant que tout le monde attende action des gouvernements nationaux, les allemands ont pris les affaires en main.

Related posts:

1. Global-Warming Deniers
2. A Second Cold War?
3. Where’s the Vision?

I think the comments on this YouTube clip hit the nail on the head.

All of the excitement of the America’s Cup race has been taken out of it by corporate interest. It’s always been a rich man’s game, but they’ve taken it to a new level, now. And, they’ve brought the sport to its nadir.

No related posts.