3 Rules of the Car

Ok, departing from politics for a moment, here's one from pop-culture: The movie Transporter 2 is a cheesey action flick with everything: lots of kicks, fast cars and atleast one demented lingerie model. I like it.

I don't typically base my worldview on kung-fu action heroes (well, not since I was in high school), however, the protagonist of Transporter 2, played by Jason Stratham, lives by three rules of the car. I find them particularly helpful. Not only have I adopted them, but I've taught them to my daughter and her friend who frequently travels with us. Of course, I have never been chased by drug dealers or spies (I was, however, flipped off by an angry trucker once). I have never flown my car from one building to another. In the movie, Stratham's character drives an audi. I drive a Honda Civic (Not exactly the car of an action hero). Nevertheless, the premise is the same.

The three rules are these:
1. Always greet the driver upon entering the car. Message: Be polite and respectful.
2. Respect the car. Message: Behave when in the car and be mindful of cars when in the parking lot or crossing the street.
3. Always wear your seat belt. Message: Isn't it obvious?

Where for art thou, Prometheus

We all know about that guy Prometheus. He got busted by the gods for bringing the secret of fire to mankind. As punishment, he was chained to a rock and was made to suffer an eagle plucking out his liver everyday. Of course, being a Titan (a kind of Greek guy who didn’t have to worry about sagging, bagging, balding, wrinkles or any kind of aging) his liver would, of course, grow back everynight so that when the eagle came again, there would be something for it to eat.

The problem with Prometheus, as I’m sure we all know, is that he deliberately upset the moral order that the gods had constructed and imposed on mankind. The gods were seriously pissed off about this.

When man got fire, (it’s an expression: I do not mean to exclude women) man began a quest that would eventually lead to Jeffersonian Democracy in which each man, woman and god – everybeing would get only one vote (Except of course, corporations – they get to have something called a lobbyist which is more powerful than a vote).

It’s not such a stretch to suggest that Prometheus’ fire is a metaphor for wisdom, education, etc. As a-God-willing-soon-to-be-educator, I have to say, I’ve thought some and read some about education. Here’s what I’ve discovered: Education is not just about knowledge and wisdom. It’s about socialization. The idea of education, as it has evolved by the dawn of the 21rst century, is about teaching people to fit in.

Post graduate, professional degrees teach students not only how to do which ever profession (stockbroker, teacher, clergy, lawyer, whatever), or how to think like someone from that profession, but how to fit into the particular professional pecking system.

On the other hand, even kindergarteners learn how to be proper kindergarteners what ever that means (according to the dictates of the culture).

If you don’t believe me, just look at NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND. Every kid is taught that they can not get past high school – they can’t have a chance at a real life - unless they pass a graduation test. That is, unless they learn to match the proper response to the proper question in the proper fashion.

More, the sense of political independence or self reliance that seemed so important to the Founding Fathers during the struggle for national identity has given way to political correctness – the “curtesy” of regulating or monitoring one’s own tongue in order to fit in. Political dissidents, indeed political discussions of any kind, are discredited or discouraged.

According to John Taylor Gatto, author of The Underground History of American Education, we teach our kids not to be independent thinkers, but to be managable thinkers.

Gatto writes: “The Civil War demonstrated to industrialists and financiers how a standardized population trained to follow orders could be made to function as a reliable money tree; even more, how the common population could be stripped of its power to cause political trouble.”

He suggests that the economic, political, and technological strength of the United States comes from teaching our kids docility: “If we educated better, we could not sustain the corporate national wealth by tearing down personal sovereignty, morality, and family life. It’s a trade off.”

Of course, it would be easy to argue that morality and family life, for example, are to be prized components of American strength, not traded ones. Of course. But I have to finish the book to get that far.

In the meanwhile, look at how the Christian right has twisted the message of the Gospels from social generosity and brotherly love to championing political advantage and social Darwinism.

Hackett packs it up.

To the editor (The Cincinnati Enquirer ran this on their op-ed page, 2/25):

I was sorry to hear that local Democratic contender, Marine and Iraq veteran Paul Hackett has packed his bags and left politics.

Mr. Hackett narrowly lost the race for Ohio 2nd district in 2004. More recently, he was dissed by the Dems for the 2006 US Senate primaries in favor of someone named Sherrod Brown. Who? Apparently Mr. Hackett has had enough and Southwest Ohio Dems are sorrier for it.

I am sorry to see him go. I would have expected Mr. Hackett to have a bright future in politics. And, frankly, I am disapointed that the Dems didn't watch his six.

Mr. Hackett, a neighbor, represented a momentary breath of fresh air in national politics. He's a veteran - something you do not often see in Washington. He's clearly not just another Beltway Insider. Did I mention he's a Marine?

I could easily imagine him pairing up with Illinois Senator Barak Obama for a future campaign for higher office.

Oh well. We lose.
Brian L. Meyers

The Bush Style Manual

An editorial by Michael Janofsky in the Sunday, February 19, New York Times appeared as such:

Washington - One of the perquisites of being president is the ability to have the author of a book you enjoyed pop into the White House for a chat.

Over the years, a number of writers have visited President Bush, including Natan Sharansky, Bernard Lewis and John Lewis Gaddis. And while the meetings are usually private, they rarely ruffle feathers.

Now, one has.

In his new book about Mr. Bush, "Rebel in Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush," Fred Barnes recalls a visit to the White House last year by Michael Crichton, whose 2004 best-selling novel, "State of Fear," suggests that global warming is an unproven theory and an overstated threat.

It's good to see that the New York Times has adopted the Bush Style Manual: When you don't know a word, make one up (and G'tmo anyone who argues). Sorry, but the BS Manual does not make one look intellexical. Janofsky needs either a better copy editor or a better pair of glasses.

As far as the sentiment goes, however, I suppose Janofsky gets one thing right: Crichton joins Bush as the last two men in America who both doubt global warming and are more interested in fiction than fact.

The president on drugs (again).

Ok. Let me get this straight: George Bush believes that the security of American ports can be safetly handled by a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.

The security of American ports has been handled by the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., Britain's largest port operator. That company is on the block to be sold to DP World, a company from the United Arab Emirates, according to a February 18 story in Bloomberg News.

Bush et al. have this to say: "It's ok to have a foreign country look after our security because any country which does so would have to abide by US Law." Aside from the fact that Bush himself doesn't care about US law - the logic is completely wrong.

Bush apparently believes that the FISA statutes don't apply to HIM. He can spy on anybody who disagrees with him. Dick Cheney apparently thinks that it's ok to re-write the National Security Secrets Act in 2006 so it would NOT be illegal for someone in HIS office to out Valerie Plame as a CIA operative to the press in the summer of 2003.

Nevertheless, Bush says that any honest, law abiding company operating in our country would obey the law of the United States - even if they are more closely allied to countries who hate US and want to do us harm. Ok.

But the main point is this: Forget about the Arab countries for a moment (many of them have reason to hate us - thank you, Mr. President). Why is the security of our ports handled by ANY foreign country? Even the UK? If you are going to buy that, then let's just have Mexico patrolling our borders to keep illegal Mexicans out. Let's have inmates from Lucasville Prison be in charge of the prison gates. Let's just have a coke addict conduct the war on drugs. Oh, and let's have Al Qaida run the war on terror.

Dip dunk president. Get the bell out of Washington and go back to your little white lines.

Screw FISA. Screw US.

FEBRUARY 17, 2006 - The US Senate decided yesterday that there will apparently be no probe into the president's extra-legal spying on American citizens. Instead, Sen. Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has unilaterally chosed to squelch any inquiry by his committee into Bush's actions.

The issue here is really not about spying. It's about an American president clearly ignoring the rule of law.

According to a New York Times editorial, today, Roberts said instead of an inquiry into the president's actions, he is now working with the president to change the very laws the president is accused of breaking.

Huh. That WOULD be a great excuse for a crook - get caught breaking the law, then change the law so that your actions (retroactively) are legal.

Does nobody in the HOUSE have the balls to call the president to account? Is Bush to be allowed to circumvent the rule of law when it pleases him?

I've said it before: SAVE THE REICHSTAG - Impeach the bastard.

God love me, I missed Valentines Day again

Technically, I still have another twenty minutes to express my undying fealty to eros.

I still have a few minutes to run out and find a new romance. It's not too late. There's still time to be all gushy and lovely chocolates and blushing giggles and all that. Sure there is, if you can find someone who is cute enough at midnight and vomity drunk enough to buy it.

One of my friends, a real pal, suggested that tonight is the best night of the year to "hunt" romance - better, even, than New Years - because any young lady out alone tonight is likely to be desperately receptive to attention. Of course, what the hell does my friend know, he's at home with his wife (perhaps, where he should be).

Instead, today I delivered an emotionally ambiguous note of thanks to my ex-wife and a freakishly goofy, hand-drawn, be-my-valentine to my little girl.

That was good. As for that eros thing: Wait for it... WAIT for it... Damn. Missed it.

To Ceaser, his coins and all that crap.

I was going to write some screed about the Danish cartoons depicting the Moslem prophet, however, it's too depressing to contemplate. It begins to appear to me that this is just another case of politics hyjacking the sensibilities of honest, religious people - in a similar vein as Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed, whose documented manipulation of Christian conservatives to sucker Indian tribes is beyond reprehensible.

Of course, the Mullahs aren't that innocent either. Iran, for example, always seems so ready and eager to declare their fatwas and condemn authors and others who offend their sensibilities, yet they never seem to refrain making the most heinous remarks about Israel or Jews. Nor do they ever seem to feel too guilty about inciting and recruiting Palestinian homicide bombers. Quid pro quo: They just don't get the concept.

In anycase, I remain a big fan of First Amendment Freedoms (yes, how American-centric of me, I know). I remain quite comfortable with the boundaries, as I understand them, of dangerous langauge and incitement.

Nevertheless, I am lead to believe that perhaps anywhere religious observance meets politics, the result is ugly according to anyone's sacred texts. To Ceasar his coins and all that crap.

Help a mom in the Mini Marathon

My friend, Carrie, sent me the following email. She's needs help raising some money for a really good cause. I would like to pass it along to all my faithful, loyal, fellow caffeine fiends. I'm gonna help out. You should too:

Hi Everyone!

I will be walking in the Humana Heart Mini-Marathan (March 26) with Good Samaritan Hospital's team. These are the great nurses from the labor and delivery ward who helped to deliver all three of my boys. This particular time they helped me through a difficult postpartum period that could have resulted in a stroke. As many of you know my father died from fluid filling the sack around his heart. So, it is to honor him and help the great people at Good Samaritan that I will be walking. (One of the nurses has a little girl who was born at Good Sam who had issues with her heart. You can click on my team information on the website to read more.)

You can help me reach my goal by making a donation online. Click on the link below and you will be taken to my personal donation page where you can make a secure online credit card donation. The American Heart Association's online fundraising website has a minimum donation amount of $25.00. If you prefer to donate less, you can do so by sending a check directly to me. We would also love to have you come walk with us! If anyone is interested let me know and I will send you information on how to sign up for our team!

Your donation will help fight our nation’s No. 1 and No. 3 killers—heart disease and stroke. You are making a difference. Thank you for your support. Feel free to pass this on to anyone you think might be interested in donating or want to walk with us!


Follow Follow This Link to visit my personal web page and help me in my efforts to support AHA - OVA Cincinnati, OH Heart Mini-Marathon"

Funny question?

To the editor:

My little one came home from kindergarten today and asked me this: "Is George Bush still the president?"

I said, "Yes, Sweety, but you know daddy doesn't like him much." That was all it took. I knew what was coming next. I didn't know how to answer it: "Why?"

Well, how do you explain George Bush to a five-year-old kid? How do you explain a man who likes to be known as “the wartime president”? There may have been no WMDs in Iraq, but Bush didn't care about that. Instead, he declared: "Damn the torpedoes - full speed ahead!"

How do you explain to a kid that an American president publicly advocates and defends disapearing people without due process, torture and spying on American citizens all in the name of state security?

How do you explain that the president expects to be above the law?

How do you explain that the president seems to get most excited about spending hundreds of billions of dollars killing people in a far away land but apparently couldn't care less about the suffering of his own citizens at home? Come on, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Don't patronize our intelligence (Your intelligence may be faulty, but ours is just fine, thanks).

How do you explain Bush's habit of signing new appointments and new legislation into law after hours and on holiday weekends when nobody is around, apparently in hopes that no one will notice?

How do you explain that despite his happy rhetoric, Bush's actions suggest that he is more interested in turning our great nation into a police state beyond the paranoia of George Orwell or Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451"?

How do you explain to a little kid about the overtures of meglomania or suggestions of paranoia inflamed by apparent chronic depression?

"The president just makes bad choices, Sweety."
"Was he a bad person when he was little?"
"He's trying to do the right thing. He's just not very smart." (God, I hope that's the truth.)

Shennanigans

SO, VEEP Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr. has been hung out to dry. The Reeps have sacrificed their gambit in the Wilson-Plame scandal and seem to be hoping that their man in the orange jumpsuit doesn't nix November for them.

That's right. We do have mid-term elections coming this year. That explains a curious little item I saw in the news: Buried in a story in the New York Times, by David Johnston, from Saturday, February 4, 2006, lies notice that Libby's trial, set originally for later this fall, was delayed by Libby's own lawyer. Apparently, Chief Council Theodore V. Wells Jr. will not be available at that time. According to the story, he apparently has a more pressing engagement. More pressing than a trial of national significance? Libby is therefore required to wait (hopefully in jail) until January, 2007, for trial to start.

Of course, upon reading this, I said to myself, "Self, what sane reason could a big-shot defense attorney possibly give his client for delaying trial for four months?"

Maybe, he's trying to keep his client out of the slammer for as long as possible - That makes some sense considering, the Reeps most likely posted bail - from the Texas Reeps Bail-Posting Pac.

But another reason could likely be this: It's the election, stupid. Of course. The election. The story didn't say that. But what self-aggrandizing Reep would want to have the elections marred by a dumb trial, when it all they have to do is delay justice for their man for four months. Oh.

It's to be justice delayed, then, is it.

Of course, the point of the story was this: Libby implicated his former boss, the Reeper-Veep, himself, who apparently has yet to be indicted for crimes against the empire.

Speaking of the Reaper-Veep, some people were pushing the president to enact illegal wiretaps some 30 years ago. According to a story published by the AP on Friday, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush, sr., who was CIA chief at the time, were pushing then President Ford to enact the wire taps against Americans.

The story, written by Margaret Ebrahim, indicated that they lost that round: "Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978, Congress decisively resolved this debate."

Apparently, the Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush Cabal had thought that no one remembers the past. Let's hope THEY are doomed to repeat it.

For these and other stories that don't always make the news, checkout Truthout.org.

First Amendment Left

During the president's SOTU address last night, Cindy Sheehan was arrested and removed from the PEOPLE's House of Representatives. Sheehan, who made news last year as a protestor against the war in Iraq and whose son is both a casualty of that war and a Gold Star recipient, was at the speech as a personal guest of California Representative Lynn Woolsey (D- Petaluma).

In a statement released today, Woolsey said, "Since when is free speech conditional on whether you agree with the President? Cindy Sheehan, who gave her own flesh and blood for this disastrous war, did not violate any rules of the House of Representatives. She merely wore a shirt that highlighted the human cost of the Iraq war and expressed a view different than that of the President. Free speech and the First Amendment exist to protect dissenting statements like Ms. Sheehan's last night." This according to truthout.org.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney made reputations for themselves during the campaign, 2004, for frequently ejecting protestors or people presenting views they felt were disagreeable. That apparently did not cause much of a stir. However, it wholely reprehensible for a woman, indeed, any American to be denied their Civil Rights, or to be denied access to the House of Representatives - the people's house - based on dissenting political views. There is no excuse for it.

The Bush is destroying the Constitution Article by Article. Yes, the one that he swore to uphold. That one. Congress needs to call him to justice. It needs to happen now.

Commodities - you and I

The age of programable TV means that BIG CORP will soon be able to tailor its advertising to reach specific, intended demographics. In otherwords, the advertisements people see on their televisions, IPods, cell phones, Playstations, whatever, will soon be customized to meet their individual specific interests. This according to a story "The Medium of the Century" appearing in a special year-end issue of ADBUSTERS.

So, let's get this straight: 35-year-old white men will see beer and sports car commercials while their female counterparts will see ads for zinfandel and minivans. Recognized conservatives will only see ads for Hummers and Fords. While outed liberals will only see ads for hybrids and Hondas.

We already live in a world where much of what we know about our world comes from what we see on the idiot box. For example, all of the good-guy secret agents already look like Keiffer Sutherland and Jennifer Garner. While people who are concerned about the environment and global warming are depicted looking like Gary Oldman on crack, Alan Rickman sneering, or Peter Lorre pandering. Of course, Keiffer Sutherland would never be dashing depicted as driving a Honda. Economic image dissonance.

But imagine watching prime time and seeing commercials for only things that you happen to have on your Christmas list. Sounds pretty convenient to me. All we would have to do then is go and pick the items up at the store. That way, BIG CORP could buy and sell information about us that is much more exacting than it already is. And much more devastating.

Information about each of us will include not only social security numbers and credit rating, but income level and expected future income level: purchasing power we might be likely to have in the future. Each of us could be bought and sold like so much debt - based on our statistically perceived ability to buy in the future - the future value of each individual. Hence, you are reduced to the disposable dollar amount that you might be able to spend in the future.

Much more devastating would be this: Imagine Fox News started tailoring its political commercials to each home based on the voting records of its inhabitants? We could get Tom Delay-style gerrymandering livingroom by livingroom. Worse yet, what if Fox News or CNN began airing different broadcasts according to the demographic in each living room of people watching? Liberals would only see newsstories of political activists being compared to criminals and reprobates. And conservatives would only see newsstories of political activists being compared to criminals and reprobates. Oh.

Boy, was that close.