A question of Authority, libertarians and conservatives

Alot of folks assume conservatism and libertarianism are more or less the same creature, not so and at times they do make strange bedfellows. If I could distill one of the key differences it is this: conservatives are vastly more pro-authority than libertarians although to be sure there are different flavors, genres you could call it of libertarianism. Conservatives generally respect authority far more than libertarians because social and political stability is at the foundation and cornerstone and practically inspires and permeates all conservative thought which is why they were and still are against the hippie upheaval of the Sixties and feel the Vietnam War should have been fought on to ultimate victory. At heart it's really not about the wisdom of the war but about respecting institutions like the military and if you get drafted suck it up like a man and do your duty. Hit the nigger on the head and they'll come up with excuses for the cops. The AZ immigration law, the con 'tude is it's 'bout time, we're gonna kick some alien ass with the new law. Authority itself is problematic for me even though I recognize it is necessary and practically runs through the whole of our existence, how could it not? I've a visceral reaction to it like the boss making your schedule, it's mostly what he or she needs. Now it may be necessary for the workplace to run this way in order to function but at heart authority is a control issue. Think about how many ways your life is not your own. You have to put off your daily run or trip to the pier because somebody else, Authority finds the workplace a far more important place for you to be than you do. Maybe it's good, maybe it ain't but it's still all about authority, control. So how much authority do we need and how much is over the top? Driving drunk is and should be a crime, buckling up should be up to you and when cops are expected to uphold even nonessential laws they in effect symbolize the Power of the State. Think of the sheer power that comes with authority, the power of the few over the many, it's awesome in fact. Anarcho-libertarianism would seem to reject all authority so where do you fall on the spectrum?:)

Porn in Brooklyn, just don't light up

Apparently it is now OK to view porn on public library computers in any of the 200+ branches in New York City if you're a grown A-dult. "Customers (?) can watch whatever they want on the computer" said Brooklyn Public Library spokeswoman Malika Granville. "In deference to the First Amendment protecting freedom of speech the New York Public Library cannot prevent patrons from accessing adult content that is legal" said New York Public Library spokeswoman Angela Montefinise. The libraries provide for extensions on the sides of the computers for privacy, no mention if they provide spackle buckets too. Libraries that only get federal funding have to install filters on the public computers to block content that is illegal like obscenity (?) and child porn. Maybe someday we'll get around to actually nailing down the definition of obscenity but if a barely 18 girl with braces and a couple of zits is circle-jerking three guys and it's straight down the hatch and she's blowing bubbles does that qualify? I give great preference to the First Amendment in most cases but this is kind of skeevy. You already got your societal castoffs playing card games by themselves, your homeless set, druggies, young dorky stalkers, older men who form a kind of male bonding club and spend all day at the library because their wives don't want 'em around the house. Do we really want to downgrade the clientele even further? I feel like an immigrant in my own country. As my friend once said New York City is violently weird:)

The Royal Flush

Imagine if Donald Trump's lavish lifestyle were funded by the American taxpayer, Warren Buffet's sons were Princes and Oprah Winfrey were the Queen. American Royalty. Well that in a nut is the situation in the United Kingdom and you can't bitch and moan about tax cuts to the wealthy here and then get all misty-eyed about the celestial nuptials this Friday over there. Contradiction in terms, at least our well-to-do have earned their riches the honest ones anyway. Kate lost alot of weight, stress? William already has a receding hairline and I get the sense he's bored looking for things to do else why trek up the Arctic and have a dog outside your tent at night in case a polar bear is lurking? The roots of my conservatism are more primeval and explains my distaste for the Royal Welfare. It's not that I'm pro-work, not at all. Kyle Smith recently wrote a piece about why we love the rat race, I don't think so Kyle but if I have to suffer, if I have to work then so do the rest of you, princes and paupers alike. Get off your Royal Ass and get a job! They seem like nice enough kids though:)

The World's Biggest Egotists

Now it's good to have a healthy sense of self-esteem but these outsized egos are out of all proportion to their actual contributions (can you Supersize that?), I mean none of them have cured Cancer. They see themselves as so integral to the Progress of Civilization, so pivotal to the Race of Man, well here's a partial list by no means exhaustive: Hugh Hefner - actually let's throw in Charlie Sheen here too since together they form a kind of hybrid creature called Don't You Wanna Be Like ME? which even if you thought that would you say it? Now Hef sees himself as a kind of cultural icon/hero who helped Society break off from the iron shackles of sexual repression (the World didn't enjoy Sex until He came along) but the culture would have gone whichever way with or without his help. They say Charlie Sheen is actually a crystal methhead in which case he's a goner, just sayin'. Glenn Beck - makes the list only for pro-forma reasons, so many people think he should be there although I'm not sure how many egotists (or is that egoists?) talk about their past alcoholism and how they messed up their lives. For me Bill O'Reilly looks like he has the bigger ego the type that would give the deli clerk a hard time ("I said THINNNNN!!!"). Then there's Keith Olbermann - never got those lists of his, THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD. One week it was Rush Limbaugh. You don't have to like the guy, I really don't care but Worst Person on the Third Planet from the Sun Keith? that'd probably be Moammar Khadafy with Robert Mugabe running a close second. Barack Obama of course with his messianic complex. Has a bug up his ass about the rich, he sees it more as the problem of wealth and it's been bothering him his whole life but you're somehow an extremist if you don't see him as a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist. His Saviorhood has been somewhat tarnished by his rather dismal performance in office thus far but as a Kool-Aid drinker at work told me the other day give him some time, he only got his feet wet. Donald Trump - probably heads anybody's list but I'd still vote for the guy, actually I'd vote for Ryan Seacrest if he ran against Obama. Diddy (past names Puff Daddy, real name Sean Combs) - actually most rap stars but YOU made it that way, all those white suburban kids who somehow gravitated away from Rock over the years. Once arrested on a gun charge they become semi-respectabalized as time goes by, look for Fitty to be doing Eugene O'Neill on Broadway. Egotism is like a weird drug trip and to me never made any sense. I mean I've done so many dickheaded things in my life it'd be hard to be that way. Doesn't seem like the natural state this overinflated self-deified condition but that's just me. The Lady Gaga - Here's how it works. In Madonna's case she was like a monkey swinging from the trees, she discovered Morality and now she's swinging from the trees again. Look for Gaga to have a moral arc somewhere in the middle, settle down, have a couple kids and then go back in the jungle again. Gaga's talents which I will concede are eclipsed by her antics and I like what my friend said once. We were in a Target store looking at the magazines and we seemed to be in the young adult section, Miley Cyrus on the cover over here, the pale guy from Twilight over there, Avril Lavigne, whoever and he takes one look at them and says to me they're all full of shit:)

Would you vote for Donald Trump?

He's tapping all the right buttons. Wants to bring jobs back to America, has been stroking the seniors over Medicare and has even told Pat Robertson on the Christian Broadcasting Network that he's done a conversion and is now pro-life. Sounds serious about reducing our debt and deficit but on foreign policy looks a little weak, kind of bullshitting his way through. I look at it this way, if he doesn't work out we can always fire him. If it came down to Trump vs. Obama would I vote for the guy? brief and to the point, YES.

I know what they're doing

Meet the Parents (2000) Meet the Fockers (2004) Little Fockers (2010) Mother Fockers (2012)

Did Glenn Beck get too hot too fast?

His syndicated radio show on WWOR has been yanked here in New York and the Fox News no longer has his show. The usual explanations have some validity of course, a show needs sponsors to survive and Mal thinks his new religious side turned off alot of people. I know he's a Mormon but Mal will have to fill me in on his latest spiritual quirk as I'm not up to speed. Now the classic liberal, more a dinosaur these days that belongs in a museum used to say things like "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it" but today they behave as if censorship and suppression of speech they find offensive is a more important value and way to go which to me makes no sense since the stuff just goes underground anyway where it just bubbles and percolates, simmers so may as well address it seems to me. For my own taste I always found Beck entertaining and informative but somewhat confusing, his thread. One day he's practically saying we're on the verge of uncovering some monstrous conspiracy with Obama at the apex, plans have been drawn up to put political dissidents in concentration camps and a couple days later he's putting down those parents who are suspicious of the government vaccinating their children against Swine Flu. I have to agree with soapie though, he only goes so far. It's like a half-finished dramatic movie with no resolution or overarching theme and he doesn't connect the dots the way Alex Jones does. For me I'm seeing more and more of Life as a vast control issue, people who want to control others but that's just me. He doesn't seem to put Things in an ultimate framework the way Jones does, what I call the Matrix of Politics. The real offense is not that he's offensive but he's afraid of saying certain things, leads you on and then pulls back. I'd say Alex Jones gives certain matters more weight than Glenn Beck let's put it that way and take any thread at random from my own blog and there are interconnecting themes and that's by design, it's the way to go and you have to tie it all together in the end instead of meandering sputterings but free speech? sure the guy should still be on the air:)

The overweening government of Yonkers and its ticket blitz

There have been severe budget cuts in Yonkers of late, that's nothing new but seems the city under the mayorship of Republican and self-described pro-life conservative Phil Amicone have hit upon a solution. Wasn't gonna do another blog about this so soon since I got my very first traffic camera ticket issued on March the 4th for allegedly not coming to a complete stop going northbound on Nepperhan Ave. in order to make a right onto Odell but I got another nice thing in the mail just yesterday for allegedly doing the exact same thing on March the 16th. The letterhead reads like it did before: City of Yonkers Red Light Traffic Safety Program PO Box 22091 Tempe AZ 85285-2091. That's some intercity racket these cities and municipalities have going on and then there's the website where you can view actual video footage of your moving violation at http://www.ViolationInfo.com/ and they even give you your very own PIN # for this. That's an invasion of Privacy right there, Big Brother would be proud. Fine again is 50 bucks with no points attached to your license and I'm leading up to a very larger point at the end which the soapster should be able to appreciate (he must be rubbing off on me). There really should be an audit from a totally outside independent agency of these things (actually they really shouldn't exist these red light cam programs in the first place as they are unconstitutional but be that as it may) and then we can find out Things like who's involved? who's collecting the money? who knows who? can they target people they don't like? etc. etc. Yonkers is legendary for its corruption, there have been problems in its police and fire departments down through the years and you'd think they'd want to change the image of the City of Gracious Living so why not investigate everything to make sure everything is on the up-and-up? The older reader may remember the Parking Violations Bureau scandal down in New York City during the Koch Administration and for any PVB to be collecting such vast sums of money the need for massive oversight should be obvious. The red light cams at Nepperhan and Odell might also prove bad for business down the road. There's a popular and major shopping area here anchored by an A&P and Walgreen's and I would think the merchants would want to fight this as I'm sure many consumers in the area have already had their tickets doled out in the mail and are thinking of taking their business elsewhere. Now the Overriding Theme where the personal becomes political: I am no longer voting for someone who calls himself a conservative Republican, throw in pro-life too if you want if that person like Mayor Amicone does not really believe in the tenets of limited government and acts that way. Yonkers' Red Light Traffic Safety Program is happening under his watch, he has to have knowledge of it and this is no way to close budget gaps. It's not the Tea Party way and he can find work elsewhere after his mayoralty is over. Last I checked it's the consent of the governed:)

Obama and the birthers

I think he's just messin' with 'em. He probably has his birth certificate in his back pocket but if they wanna think I'm a spearchucker from Kenya so be it. Trump is kinda reviving the whole birther thing with his quasi-bid for president. He was rapping with Meredith Vieira this morning, always entertaining. The other thing is Obama honoring Sharpton and his National Action Network in Harlem the other day does not and will not appeal to the White Voter next time around, just seeing Sharpton's face in the paper gets my Dad upset. That YouTube video of that kid screaming he wants to be governor of New Jersey, NOT funny. Annoying, irritating in a white suburban kind of way and please don't give it the time of day. There's a 300+ pound black NYC Councilman who wants to ban toys from McDonald's Happy Meals. You see here's the thing, people who pass too many laws don't think they're passing too many laws and that's the root of the problem. I was doing some research on feral cats the other day and came across "Glendale CA woman evicted from apartment for feeding feral cats". Dunno why but animals seem to be a polarizing topic for alot of folks, people seem to either love 'em or hate 'em. Andrea Peyser of the New York Post, she's a great writer otherwise and don't know why but she's firmly in the latter category. So we gotta cover everything in the Law these days, stray cats, Happy Meals, pissing in the woods ("no human excreta may be deposited within 500 feet of any marsh, spring or watercourse...," see I still remember my fishing license handbook after all these years). I think what Trump is saying is we got a feral president, probably eats caterpillars and digs ball bugs from the barks of trees when he's not putting plates in his mouth:)

The Ivory Coasters

Why not throw a dart at a board and help the Ivorians? Almost one million people in the Ivory Coast in southern Africa are now refugees and are fleeing in droves especially from the main city of Abidjan. There has been a four month power struggle going on between the incumbent leader Laurent Gbagbo and his opposition rival Alassane Ouattara due to the disputed election of last November but Ouattara is internationally recognized as having won. Gbagbo has refused to go saying the election was rigged and the U.N. has accused pro-Gbagbo forces of shelling pro-Ouattara areas. Things are on the verge of an all-out civil war and many health centers no longer operate because staff have left and they lack basic drugs and medical supplies. There's a 12,000 strong U.N. peacekeeping force with calls to strengthen that and here's what French President Nicolas Sarkozy had to say: "At a minimum there should be no heavy weapons in Abidjan. We're talking about helicopters, mortars that could shoot on the population. It should be declared illegal by the international community." France has already drafted a U.N. resolution dealing with this. The way I see it to be constantly intervening and never intervening are two extremes, false options as Obama rightly noted in his address to the nation the other night regarding Libya. We've never been overly interested in the African continent imo, it's all the Middle East 24/7 and that consumes the better part of each succeeding president's foreign policy efforts. Africa's a tragic continent always relegated to the Third World, so much potential and yet so many dictators and bad apples throughout its history. As a sidenote I used to work with a young woman from Malawi, brought back pouches of Malawi gin one day. Not bad:)

If it's a covert operation why are we talking about it?

Caught Chuck Todd this morning on Today in between making the coffee and feeding the cat and generally getting ready for work. Word on the street, CIA operatives on the ground in Libya getting a feel for the rebels with the whole aim of arming them the better to overthrow the Mad Dog. Congress would have fairly tight control with the funding and the whole thing affords the White House legal deniability. Now I can just picture Khadafy eating his palm dates in the morning with a cup of goat milk, a little couscous or tabbouleh on the side going over the early edition of the Ole Gray Lady. What's this a map with who doing what? how many U.S. G-men? they're talkin' smack with who? what kind of weapons, state of the art? turns on the Today show and gets filled in on the rest from Mr. Todd of what Obama's gonna do -- who what where when and how. Again why are we talking about it? why am I even blogging about it? They say the Italian media don't say shit, they talk about the Jersey Shore. Maybe there's a value in pop ephemera after all. Somebody please hit the Sheen Button!!!:)

The arc of the commentary regarding Obama and Libya

Early on when the uprising in Libya began and the rebels took some cities but then Khadafy's forces were closing in the criticism then was Obama wasn't doing enough, dithering, taking too long to decide to try to stop a massacre. Hillary was seen as the real powerbroker behind the scenes who eventually persuaded the boss to do something. She was seen as being stronger than him, probably would've been a better president and I remember a New York Post editorial or two saying c'mon Obama let's get with an official Libyan policy already or was that just my imagination? Now their editorials tend to be more critical and questioning of the Libyan situation or is that just my imagination too? So that was the arc of the commentary early on (c'mon, admit it) and now that he has an official Libyan policy and is acting on it the arc of the commentary has now changed to why Libya? what is our national interest there? do we intervene militarily everywhere where dictators oppress their people? and related questions and subissues. I'm sorry but where I come from that's known as a mindfuck. In this case criticizing him early on for not doing something and not having a coherent Libyan policy in place but then the same people criticizing him when he finally does take action with some kind of Obama Doctrine taking shape. I take it these same people would say Bill Clinton did the right thing in not doing more in preventing the Rwandan genocide. There's something in that ancient classic The Art of War by Sun Tzu about the virtue of changing positions, you see it in the workplace alot. Apparently the Rwandan non-intervention is the model to follow since the whole thing hinges on our national interest anyway. So one day Obama is criticized for not putting the U.S. front and center in a leadership role in dealing with Khadafy and practically two days later criticized for putting the U.S. there at all. One can make the case that Obama initially launched those missiles due heavily in part to the earlier criticism of his apparent indifference to the crisis and is now explaining himself in front of the nation and not too well either I might add due in large part to the criticism that came later but that's what the mindfuck does, gets you to act in mutually contradictory ways due to the influence of the critics who change their views on an almost daily basis as events unfold and you're left to fend for yourself and your critics write another column or publish another blog. I try to aim for consistency here and can't fault the president for his humanitarian instincts, a humanitarianism that is apparently irrelevant if it isn't tied in with our national security interests:)

At the risk of being upstaged by world events

In terms of blogging material I had nothing today (Libya/Tsunami, been there done that) so I went home before and opened up my mailbag, a daily ritual I hate btw ("URGENT - Open at Once", well can I take a dump first? cat might be hungry) and got one of those Gotcha! pictures in full color and couple of different angles too detailing exactly where I made an illegal right hand turn by not making a complete stop during the red phase of some traffic light even though otherwise you could make a Right on Red there at the intersection of Odell and Nepperhan Ave. The return address on the stub said City of Yonkers Red Light Traffic Safety Program PO Box 742503 Cincinnati OH 45274-2503 (didn't know the city of Cincinnati and the big YO had a connection, hmmm) and the amount of the infraction was 50 bucks. Now I said quite recently that I probably never would blog about a traffic ticket, not the merits of one anyway as you'll always get the dutiful right-winger from the Law Enforcement wing of the party and overall Good Citizen who points out "but Z you deserved that ticket, could've hit some 14-year old Catholic schoolgirl coming home from school" (visions of the bookbag flying) but there was something in the letter...they gave me my own PIN # and a web address where I can view a VIDEO of my moving violation online. Must everything be online these days??? Yeah I know only I can access it but it's weird and creepy in a vague way. Well if my vid can be online so can my commentary. Now I was always in my bones against these traffic light cams as being somehow a violation of Something although I never felt the spirit move me to blog about it (there are always more important things you know) and always felt these tiny encroachments on our liberty and/or privacy would someday amount to some big cumulative nightmare on the spirit of our freedom but the prob here is if you complain let's say that in a couple years you won't be able to get an incandescent light bulb because our friend Bush signed a law doing away with them in favor of the compact fluorescent you risk sounding like Charlie Sheen in a militia uniform so at the risk of sounding hyperdramatical at what point in time can we say (and apply your own special pet peeve here) this and no more? makes me trepidatious. Can we conversate?:)

Oh so Bush gets to go to war first

I sense a trend developing although conservative commentary is still young on the matter and that is a growing conservative criticism of Obama over our actions in Libya. Savage last night said why are we there yada yada kind of the usual reverse liberal criticisms of Bush's adventures in Iraq. Political fault lines -- when Bush went to war>good, when Obama goes to war>bad. Neocons are the only consistent bunch of the group, apparently they never met a war they didn't like. I get the sense that John McCain always wants to go to war. Liberals apparently never see a war as being morally justified even if the standard being used is helping an oppressed and persecuted people which to me is a kind of a liberal paradox or conundrum since they're against those people being oppressed and persecuted in the first place just not helping them out via war (alternative, singing Kumbaya?). Sure it doesn't help that Obama and members of his administration are saying contradictory things. Now the president says it's official U.S. policy that Khadafy must go and that Ham guy, that commander over there says he can see him remaining in power and even though he's not a member of Team Obama let's throw in that British defense minister who pretty much has come out for assassinating Khadafy. It'd be nice if everyone were on the same page and I've been meaning to say a word or two about assassinations as it applies to foreign leaders. Reagan signed an Executive Order against this and I've read at least one conservative commentator say all Obama has to do is rescind this order with the stroke of a pen and I guess then the CIA can then go in with a poison cigar like they tried to do with Castro or maybe they can put a black mamba or box jelly in his tub where he cavorts with that sensuous nurse. It's all mind-numbingly stupid commentary as once you allow certain albeit extremely narrow exceptions for assassinating foreign leaders, heads of state (e.g. the guy's a monster and eats people or he raped a caravan of nuns) then what do you say years down the road when someone advocates assassination using the rationale Prime Minister XYZ is bad for the global economy or is just an all-around sucky guy who's bringing us down because he makes his population make baseballs for well below any decent standard of living wages? You see it's like this, once you allow moral exceptions or put it another way, the law against murder is ironclad, you can't just off your spouse because he or she cheated on you with the UPS guy but that's a moral philosophy course for another day. Now if they hit Khadafy's tent where he entertains folk, well they might deem it some type of military installation because he has a toy helicopter in there and a DVD copy of Hogan's Heroes so there be a very fine line ya know? I've one word to soapie though,

LOCKERBIE

Not that there's anything wrong with it

On the eve of the allied air assault against Libya Moammar Khadafy had this to say in a personal letter to Obama: "I have said to you before that even if Libya and the United States enter into war, God forbid, you will always remain my son and I have all the love for you as a son." This echoes what he had previously said some time back in a long and rambling and incoherent speech to the UN body in a kind of sonnet: "we are content and happy if Obama can stay forever as a President of United States of America." Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez had warm greetings for Obama at the Summit of the Americas back in the day, they hugged or high-fived or fist-bumped or something and Chavez gave him a book. Raul Castro, brother of Fidel once said "Obama seems like a good man" and wished him luck. They say they can tell.

I must be giving off the wrong vibe or something:)

Obama, in over his head

After a quick browsing through the latest events in Libya I get the impression in some ways that French president Nicolas Sarkozy is the president Obama should have been. France seems to be taking the lead in enforcing a UN Security Council resolution for a ceasefire and French jets were seen flying over the rebel-held city of Benghazi in eastern Libya. According to the latest reports a plane was shot down over the outskirts of Benghazi to the cheers of rebels (in the newswire I read it simply said plane although judging from the reaction it must have been Libya's). Sure there are arguments against a no-fly zone ranging from it is for all intents and purposes an act of war, our troops are already stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan and enforcing a no-fly would have the effect of making Khadafy a hero in the Arab world (huh, from villain to hero in one fell swoop?) but I can no longer subscribe to the paleo-conservative/libertarian position of non-interventionism in such tragic cases. Khadafy and his ministers are pretty much telling the U.S., Britain and France to mind their own business and if in the paleocon mind this has some validity I would ask if the same could have applied to Hitler. The Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings went well for the Mideastern rebels but in this case seems they need that extra push from the international community. It is a moral thing we are finally doing, it's heartening and let's not forget for those libertarian non-interventionists out there we still have those four New York Times journalists missing in Libya which I know the Randian party line would probably go along the tune of that never would have happened unless......Well now at least Obama gets spared his version of Bill Clinton's Rwanda even though it's not so much he took the lead but got pulled along. God so much going on in the world the last few weeks!

Fun with numbers

Since I'm on vacation and online traffic is usually slow when I have all the time in the world I decided to play around with some numbers just now. Some time back in a discussion of dieting that guy from Idaho made the point that medically recommended ideal weights seem overly harsh and I thought he was exaggerating at the time until I just googled "ideal weight" and entered my personal information on a couple of websites for a personal ideal weight calculation (you should too to see what I mean). There are many many websites devoted to this and many formulas but they seemed to have a common enough range. OK so I'm at 200 now, doctor is pleased and thanks to Muscle Milk for many happy returns but get this >> Bearing in mind that I'm 6'2" the first site I visited spit this out: my recommended weight range is between 155 and 194 lbs.!!! with my ideal healthy weight being 174. The second place crunched out these numbers and this was supposed to be a more reasonable site not taking everything doctors say as gospel: medical recommendation 148-195 lbs. and ideal weight 190. Now it's not the 190's that get me, that doesn't seem too rad for a guy of 6'2" and big-boned although I don't plan on that but those other ranges I'd be anorexic at those #'s. Ya gotta question this stuff and I'm lucky I have a doctor who heavily gravitates towards the upper numbers. Also for self-defense purposes I strongly favor those higher figures. Just thought I'd have some fun today so crunch in those numbers for yourself and see what you come up with. Last point, if these are the formulas in use to determine we have a fatty/obesity epidemic in this country then the numbers are highly skewed (a political agenda?). The Medical Arts are a crock if they say your personal role model should be Twiggy. You know somewhere in these ranges you have to enjoy life too ya know:)

Things I hate about Twitter

For starters tweeting sounds vaguely gay but that's not the point. Twitter is the stupidest thing on the Internet,

vapid celebrity xyz: "I just took a dump" (later picked up by "E.T." and "Access Hollywood" and talked about during your favorite drive-time morning show the next day when they should be playing music. Scott 'n' Todd, whassup?)

Twitter is the Ego run amok. We're all mini-Sheens now. Young guy at work told me about his Facebook page (Twitter/Facebook, same thing), check it out. Thanx I'll try not to. Now most bloggers have a massive ego that goes beyond healthy (Twitter/Facebook/Blogging, same deal) and the thing with Sheen, I couldn't cap it at first but he has Lucifer Syndrome. "I am the greatest. I fell like lightning from the Sky, I will set up my own Kingdom" and other drug-induced, existentially distorted bullshit). Whatever was gleaned of value in that 20/20 interview he is now reduced to some roving asshole, Dad must be sooooo proud. They say his upcoming city to city comedy tour sold out in a matter of minutes. These are probably, I'm only hazarding a guess here the same folks who wiped out all those potassium iodide tablets from the shelves because some molecule of Strontium-90 or Caesium-137 might float over the East Coast (it's not that they're chem majors but they seem to have an uncanny ability to pick up important info before you do kind of through osmosis, otherwise they're watching Married with Children). Oh well there's always kelp (for now). I remember during one of our major snowstorms this past winter and this was right before the first flakes fell but it got so busy so early I couldn't even set up the showcase, first time that's happened. It was retarded busy and I don't think this culture could make it through the Apocalypse but you can be sure as hell they would have to tweet about it (the combo blogger/tweeter/facebooker: "The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter just broke free and is now hurtling towards the Earth. HOLY SHIT!!!"). I was in Dick's Sporting Goods the other day with my friend, the new one they built in the Danbury Fair Mall and they got these things by Camelbak in the bike section. Basically what it is is it looks like some kind of backpack deal but the idea is you put water in it and there's a tube that goes in your mouth and you suck the water out (as Carlin once pointed out this society seems to feel the need for constant hydration). Then if you buy that you have to buy the cleaning kit that goes along with it of course. My friend seemed interested but that's how they suck you in I said. Now unless you plan on being stranded in the Alaskan wilderness a bottle of BB's overpriced tap water should suffice for your immediate needs when you're simply bicycling, hiking or just jerking off in the woods. Jobs, my friend said every job we've had in our lives has scum in it and you begin to wonder are people really this way? Shellshocked by Life. Nature is acting different too these days. Saw a pigeon the other day soaring, must've thought he was a hawk. The Archie Bunker Talking Alarm Clock: "Get the hell up, geeeez." I have to go home later and bang the crumbs out of my toaster oven, should I tweet about it?:)

Thoughts on radiation/cancer and the Japanese nuclear crisis

With a possibility of a looming Japanese nuclear meltdown I had this thought that I'm gonna throw out there with the complete foreknowledge that this thread will be easily proven wrong by the more learned medical folks here but this blog is more in the style of thinking out loud and so there is something I can't wrap my head around exactly. With the evacuations in certain sectors of Japan and the threat of some type of radioactive cloud drifting towards the West Coast with the Surgeon General telling us to take precautions (I don't know what this means) here it is: we use radiation to treat cancer. In one instance radiation is obviously bad for you and in the other it's the preferred mode of treatment combined with chemo. Now I know Saty will say it's the amounts or some such thing, we don't exactly nuke cancer patients but just the same many of them do look like Auschwitz survivors but this is to be expected whereas in other instances we're told in no uncertain terms to evacuate. I saw a few nights back on a news program how they are now trying to attack cancer cells in the brain with electromagnetism. It was Katie Couric's show and the initial results were promising and they showed one brave soul with his wife and he has been undergoing this experimental treatment for some time now but the reporter stressed that this treatment has to be combined with the more traditional chemo/radiation regimen and my question is why if the electromagnetism is doing a great job on its own? So why in one situation do we run away from radiation and in another embrace it? I thought it was always bad all the time but anyway there you have it:)

Political correctness kills

I have to repeat it although it's an obvious truth, Islam is problematic. The majority of Muslims are not terrorists but the majority of terrorists are Muslims. Radical Muslims are not the whole of Islam but they are a substantial minority and substantial minorities can cause problems. Today is the first day of Congressman Peter King's hearings on homegrown radicals, you may have heard this Congressional investigation is controversial and Peter King has been called all kinds of names and well, let me just say again, Islam is problematic. I think it's a matter of emphases, everyone knows there are Muslim terrorists in the world but the liberal crowd wants to stress the peaceableness of most Muslims (not hard to understand) whereas conservatives are troubled by we don't really know who's who, who's the good guy and who's the bad guy. Seems to me though the good Muslims may want to take back their religion first before they complain and I know I'll hear the usual points by soapster, Satyavati and surely Shaw but my whole thing is the situation is complicated so why can't we understand that?