The Mafia in the Music Industry

So running up to the midterm elections, I'm wondering why we even bother ending elections, because it seems that politicians start running for office again earlier and earlier, leaving a smaller and smaller window of time during which anyone feels comfortable doing real work. Take for example the most recent bill passed by the Senate: the "compromise" between the President and his rivals...Republicans. Wait, what? Anyway, he wanted to be able to define what "torture" was and hold "enemy combatants" without trials. John McCain and friends said "NO!" and came up with a bill to challenge him by...allowing him to define what "interogation" techniques are allowed and setting up military courts to try combatants without congressional oversight or a right of habeas corpus. Totally different than what the President wanted. He must be fuming..."Damn John McCain, ruining everything" he must say as he twirls his mustache.

I'm surprised they were able to get this passed, what with those cut-and-run Democrats trying to add on crazy amendments...like one that would guarantee the Constitutional right of Habeus Corpus and one that would give Congress (the people who passed this bill) oversight over C.I.A. interrogations. Who'd want those things? Oh, and the other amendment that luckily they didn't pass would have required the State Department to inform other countries of what interrogation techniques we thought were permissable on captured American soldiers. Thank god that didn't pass, because then otherwise our soldiers might have been treated humanely and other countries might have found out what types of interrogation techniques we might possibly be using. It's really better if all captured soldiers everywhere are kept hidden, without rights or oversight, and that we don't tell people what we do with them or what they tell us. It just makes sense.

Why is this a waste of time? Well, it's so broad and seemingly in violation of the Constitution and various international treaties that many of the Republicans who voted for it commented that the Supreme Court will almost definitely overturn it, adding that they wished they weren't rushing this before midterms so that they could do it right because they're going to have to do it again once the Supreme Court knocks it down. So, the House and Senate have passed a bill that even they are pretty sure will never become law just so they can say they are doing something to combat terrorism and to make Democrats (and one or two Republicans) look like they are coddling terrorists by giving them things like "trials" and "humane treatment". We can't be bothered being ethical when we have information to get, through means that would make that information insubmissable in an American court but not in a secret tribunal.
At times like this, I just want to put on Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" and wipe my tears with an American flag.

I Feel Safer Already

A classified intelligence report concludes that the Iraq war has worsened the terrorist threat to the United States, something that I could have told them, if only they had thought to ask. The newly revealed document is the first formal report on global trends in terrorism by the National Intelligence Estimate, which is put out by the National Intelligence Council. This, also coming during the same week when U.S. casualties in Iraq have reached the point of being double the casualties of 9/11 which precipitated this whole thing (and dozens of times more if you include the Iraqi civilian deaths, but who cares about them, right?).

So now we have professionals in the intelligence community telling us what we already knew, that we've only been creating more resentment and fueling terrorist action and recruitment. As for how our nation building is going, the Associated Press reported today that some U.S. soldiers working in Shiite neighborhoods say the Iraqi troops are among the worst they've ever seen. That's fine, though, because we can just stay there for 20 or 30 years until all of the kinks are worked out. Even Senator McCain acknowledged on "Face the Nation" that the war in Iraq is a rallying point of terrorists and that at this point we're fueling terrorist organizations, but that also failure now will lead to a greater threat than we ever had pre-Iraq.

So, when we began this little "War on Terror", it was to eliminate the threat of terrorists and bring justice to the people who perpetrated the attacks on September 11th. Five years later we have failed to bring the terrorists to justice, especially the guy at the top, and we have since increased the terrorist threat. Oh, and we've taken a country that was so weak that we were able to topple its government in the span of a long weekend and created a hotbed of chaos and violence where, if things continue as they have been, terrorists will have a fertile training ground. Awesome. Mission accomplished.

You Just Got F'ed in the A

After talking about Bill O'Reilly yesterday, that got me thinking about torture. Like when I go home to visit my parents and have to walk through the gauntlet of televisions in the house tuned to The Factor. As you may know, there's discussion in the Senate, and especially in the media, about a bill that would "define" torture, or to be more accurate, would legalize some types of torture. There are of course the arguments that torture is ineffective and only gets people to tell you what they think you want to hear and not the actual truth. There's the argument that if we torture people then we'll have no clout in demanding that our own soldiers not be tortured. There's also the argument that human decency doesn't allow torture no matter who or why. But, just in case our government decides to do the weaselish thing, I'd like to suggest some alternative forms of torture that won't leave any marks (because as we all know, it doesn't hurt if there's not a bruise).

* Make them watch hours of speeches given by President Bush, giggling and fumbling over the English language, and then show them a copy of his diploma.

* Subject them to a normal American diet by attaching an IV of corn syrup directly to their heart.

* Drive them around the country and make them enter every single children's beauty pageant. (Torture if ever there was)

* Ask them a question, and then when they try to answer, shout "Shut up, shut up!" before they can say anything (also known as the O'Reilly method)

* Lock them in a house with all of the kids from MTV's "My Super Sweet Sixteen". Then tell all of the kids that all of the other girls have nicer clothes than them. Stand back and watch the chaos ensue.

* Dress the victim in a suit and tie, make them work in an office for 40 years. Force them to take weekly diversity and sexual harassment seminars and engage in "casual fridays". Require them to go for happy hour at Applebee's with the gang from accounts payable. When they go to retire, tell them they don't have a pension. (More a long term strategy, but proven to break spirits).

* Sit them in front of a bank of monitors showing all of the 24 hour news channels for 3 months straight. Then tell them that they can go free if they can fill one index card with the list of topics discussed (one per line). When they can't, show them a picture of Chris Matthews with his shirt off. Repeat.

These are just a few ideas, but I'm sure I can come up with more. That's why, I offer my services to our president as "Torture Czar". I'll be in charge of all torture operations whether they be "enemy combatants", "evil-doers", or "dirty, hippie, liberals". I've watched enough episodes of 24 to know how to torture someone, and enough clips of American Idol to know what it's like to suffer.

There's a Communist in my Soup

A recent article in Child magazine listed J.K. Rowling as one of the 20 people who have changed childhood forever, stating that her Harry Potter series has entertained children and instilled a love of reading in them that extends beyond her own books. In many ways, fiction author Bill O'Reilly has done a similar service for the Fox "News" crowd, teaching them that you don't need facts or consistancy to write or enjoy a book. My dad is already camped out for the Monday release of Bill's latest yarn, "Culture Warrior" wherein he identifies all of the people that are destroying America...minus all of the people who are actually trying to destroy America such as terrorists or leaders who violate our own Constitution and civil liberties.

For instance, who is "enemy number one" according to Mr. O'Reilly? You guessed it, Osama Bin Laden. Oh, wait, no, he's not an enemy to American culture. I was wrong. Enemy number one is George Soros. He's a real left-wing nut job who finances crazy, liberal initiatives like scholarships for Black students in apartheid South Africa and defeating communism in Poland and Czechoslavakia, though I'm sure those aren't the reasons he's enemy number one. It might just have to do with the fact that he's a progressive who gave a lot of money to organizations who attempted to defeat George W. Bush in the last election. Luckily, Bill O'Reilly is an "independent" and wouldn't base his decision on something so partisan.

Also high up on the list of people destroying America with their progressive secularism are the liberal press, including the New Orleans Times-Picayune, the Houston Chronicle, and The Denver Post even though all three endorsed George W. Bush for president. Damn liberal newspapers, always trying to get Republicans elected to the highest office in the land. What sinister plot do they have planned? But, it's true, because it's in a book. Another new fact that Bill was kind enough to invent for us all to know is that liberal newspapers outnumber conservative papers 10 to 1. He doesn't cite any source for this
"fact", but it FEELS true, especially when I hop on the subway and everyone is reading Rupert Murdoch's liberal New York Post (oh, if you don't live in New York, you might not get the sarcasm that the New York Post is what you would get if Fox News and The National Inquirer made sweet love).

I could probably spend hours writing about all of the falsehoods in his book wherein he makes up things that people never said or takes things entirely out of context, not to mention the things he says which are just stupid, but honestly I have a broader point to make. He's not the first one to write a "book" about the "culture war", in which he tells us that George Clooney, Barbara Streisand, Michael Moore, and Alec Baldwin are trying to murder baby Jesus in his crib. The concept of the Culture War is inherently flawed and mostly a political wedge, but if you are going to talk about people destroying our wholesome, Christian, Capitalist culture, are the biggest enemies really Al Franken and Bill Moyers (who, by the way, he refers to as "fanatical" which, if you've ever seen Bill Moyers is like calling a lump of clay "fanatical")?

How about the people at his own network who have further sensationalized and polarized news like when they displayed banners such as "Taking cheap oil from Hugo Chavez: Act of treason?" on their broadcasts? How about the folks at American Idol who are dumbing down our children and our culture with shallow, vindictive, and cookie-cutter personas?
Who is hurting our culture more: George Clooney who makes a thoughtful movie about Edward R. Murrow that not many people see, or the people who make movies like Jackass and Texas Chainsaw Massacre which tons of people see? Well it must be George Clooney, because even though Johnny Knoxville teaches people that it's funny to watch a man take a baseball to the groin or to make fun of fat people and midgets, at least he doesn't do something horrible like talk about politics in front of people.

This isn't about people attacking American culture; it's about people attacking the Conservative movement, and those are most definitely not the same thing. When Bill O'Reilly hears someone on the radio with a liberal viewpoint, he thinks to himself "this man is a traitor and a lunatic". When I hear someone on the radio with a conservative viewpoint, I think to myself "I disagree with this person". Then, there are the people like Bill and Rush and Sean Hannity who I hear and think "these guys are liars and hypocrites and are lowering the level of public discourse." The threat to American culture and American values is not differing opinions, but blowhards who create false culture wars to distract from real issues.

Bill, I know you are "independent" and "a washington outsider" and "a journalist", but let me clear up a few things for you. First off, secular progressives are not trying to kill Christmas, and if they were, they are doing a terrible job of it because everyone I know got presents last year. Second, nobody cares about Barbara Streisand's opinion on anything, so the only way she is a threat to our culture is with her music. Third, the idea that there is a "liberal" media is laughable considering the fact that the majority of media outlets in radio, print, and television are owned by giant corportations mostly run by conservatives like your buddy Rupert, and also since for every Al Franken there is a Bill, Rush, Sean, Michael Savage, and 5 other conservative pundits. Yes, so some newspaper editors are liberals, but not every editor and the majority of newspapers do not have a liberal slant.
And, just to round this off, stop telling tales out of school, because no one is buying.

This past week on his show, Bill O'reilly mentioned how his publisher prevented liberal news organizations from getting advance copies of his book, but guess where I read excerpts of your book? That's right, liberal news organizations. This week he also mentioned on air that the FBI came to Fox "News" headquarters to inform him personally that he was on al Qaeda's hitlist, a "fact" that was then disputed by other people at Fox and the FBI who said he's not on any list and that the FBI never went to Fox News and told him anything. So, if you want to give us your opinions about why The Passion of The Christ is better for our country than The New York Times, go right ahead. But try not to make up so many lies and try not to insult people for being name-callers and then call them "cowards" and "far-left zombies".
You really are making our culture glitter like a diamond.

Something to Talk About

The other day, Wednesday to be precise, I was up far earlier than any person need be, especially one who has the entire day off with nothing to do. Given that my options at that point were watching Matt Lauer's sexual discomfort with his new co-host or watching the Fox morning gang giggling about whatever it is that those darned celebrities are up to, I put on C-SPAN while I ate breakfast and then when I sat down to read (and since this all makes me sound like a grandparent, I then bought a cat and knitted an afghan throw). Sometimes its interesting to see the day-to-day process of governing that most people don't hear about because it doesn't involve aborting immigrant emryos with burning flags at a gay wedding.

Anyway, during this day of varied debates including issues of disclosure of federal funding and "Indian" gaming (and isn't it stupid that centuries after we realized this wasn't India as Columbus thought, we still refer to them in legal Congressional records as "Indians"?) there was extensive debate on HR 994.

What exactly is House Resolution 994, you might ask? Well, for those in the know, not only does the House of Representatives vote on things like bills and appropriations, but they sometimes vote on Resolutions that simply make a statement, such as showing support for Black History Month or the color Green and its importance in American history. In that way, HR 994 was a resolution recognizing "that the American people will never forget the tragedy of September 11, 2001, and the loss of innocent lives that day, will continue to fight the war on terrorism in their memory, and will never succumb to the cause of the terrorists."

And they spent hours debating that. I'll quickly jump past the fact that its fool hardy to think (or in this case imply) that without the House of Representatives on top of this that Americans might actually forget the significance of Sept. Eleventh, or might in fact decide to invite the terrorists over to America to take over and maybe have a spot of tea with us. Also, imagine listening to hours of debate in which most of it was Congressmen recounting the facts we already knew and finding new ways to add adjectives to the word "tragedy". It was a terrible day, we all remember that, and we don't need you repeating it over and over which will, as they say, "wear it out". The more you mine it for political gold, the more desensitized we become.

The reason there was so much debate was because wedged in the middle of this Resolution, which no one in their right mind would vote against because then it looks like they are personally saying "screw you" to each and every widow and parentless child, were some incredibly partisan and manipulative statements. Namely, apart from recognizing the valiant efforts of rescue workers and the terrible sacrifice of ordinary Americans, this resolution recognizes legislative acts such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. So, unless you want to vote against recognizing the heroism of Americans who died on September 11, you also have to vote to recognize all the wonderful things Republicans are doing to make us "safer" while those damn Democrats are selling nuclear secrets to Osama.

Republicans know that Democrats have problems with some of these bills which allow people to be held without trial or have their phones tapped, so they put it in this resolution in order to force Democrats to show support for them. If ever their was a sick, election-year ploy, this is one of them (don't worry, there are more to come). The resolution essentially states that the House of Representatives will support everything the President has done and will do to fight the "War on Terror". Oh, and did I mention that the resolution also refers to the war in Iraq as being on the "frontlines of the global war on terrorism", which is funny since most of the terrorists in Iraq showed up AFTER we invaded the country and dismantled their army and infrastructure. I guess it is now on the frontline, a frontline we created.

Nancy Pelosi gave a great speech that day about how we should be coming together across party lines to recognize the tragedy and to come up with real solutions for making us safer, which we certainly are not (despite what the resolution states). She even points out while she's speaking that "of course" the Democrats will vote in favor of this resolution (and nearly all of them did), but that they did so to recognize the heroes who died that day, and not the accomplishments of this administration which has put us in greater danger, not less. And I agree.

Growing up near the end of the Cold War, there was always a palpable feeling of threat and destruction. People were paranoid; annihilation seemed plausible. And then the Cold War ended and, for a brief while, things seemed to be getting better. In the past five years, that palpable feeling has returned, and every action taken has not made us feel more secure or decreased the terrorist threat, it's increased it. Even progress we were making, such as the toppling of the Taliban and improvements in Airport security, have been rolled back. Afghanistan is still not a stable country, and the Taliban is making inroads every day, and as you can learn by watching just about any special report on any news station, contraband still gets through at airports. Five years later, and we're not safer, and yet our Government is wiping away a tear with one hand and patting itself on the back with the other. I cannot wait until midterm elections.

Mmmm.....That Smells Crazy!

On his September 6th broadcast, syndicated radio hate-monger Michael Savage had this to say about the imminent threat of terrorism:

"So I want every able-bodied man and woman who is licensed to carry a firearm or who knows how to use a weapon, I want you to organize in your neighborhood. We don't want you to commit violence, but we want you to learn how to create a homeland defense system in this country."

Yes, because we all know that when al Qaeda strikes, it will be with a massive army that will come in across the sea that we'll be able to fight off with a well-maintained militia. There are any number of problems I have with this, but no matter how organized your neighborhood gang is, unless they are trained in surveillance and intelligence, they are not going to be any help detering a terrorist attack. Any attack is going to come in the form of an unannounced, quick, and small terror cell that will most likely blow themselves and/or something else up. By the time you know they're doing something, it'll all be over, and then you'll just have a group of people standing around with guns with no one to fight. A neighborhood militia would be helpful if we were getting invaded by Britain, or Russia in one of those bad 80's cold-war movies. Not against terrorists.
He then went on to advocate:

"They're training their sons to use an AK-47, and we're teaching our sons how to swing a baseball bat. Tell me who wins that fight. I have nothing against baseball, but the times don't call for an obsession with sports. They call for a militarization of our children."

There are so many layers of crazy on that paragraph, I'm going to need a shovel to dig through them. Apparently he thinks that the best way to fight nut-jobs who indoctrinate and arm their children to fight mindlessly and inhumanely is by...wait for it...training our children to be just like them. What the hell is wrong with this guy? He's right though, our kids are wasting time with this little league bs. They should be spending their after-school time fighting the good fight and training in heavy arms and hand-to-hand combat. They're going to need those skills when they get sent to fight the unending War in Iraq. In fact, school is a waste of time. What value is learning math and history? If the terrorists take over America, they won't even be able to use that knowledge. Let's teach them important skills in school, like how to clean a rifle or interrogate a prisoner of war. Instead of "Elementary Schools" we can call them "Military Schools", or better yet, "American Patriot, and anyone who says otherwise is a terrorist, Schools."

So, no, Mr. Savage (an apt name if ever there was one) I don't think I'll join up with other gun nuts in my neighborhood to start training to repel an invasion force. And no, I don't think I'll start getting together with the children at the park to teach them how to fire an AK-47 at a moving target. Because you know what it means when we start doing that? It means that the terrorists have already defeated us. It means we have compromised our values, our beliefs, our morals, and it means that we are just like them except with a different name for God. Why don't you just save us time (and do your part) by going over to the middle east and fighting the terrorists there, so we don't have to put up with you here.

An Open Letter to Users of YouTube

Yes, we're all very proud of you. Your parents bought you that video camera you wanted/you hooked up that new webcam. You've got just so much to say and share with the world, and we're all very excited to hear it. In fact, I can just imagine spending hours away from my friends and loved ones in order to watch you and your friends lip sync to your favorite songs in a poorly lit basement, preferably if I can only see the top half of your head.

Hey, while you're at it, you know that clip from the Daily Show? You know, the really funny one that everyone's been talking about? You should put that on there. What? It's already on there? Well, put it up again, it can't hurt. Don't worry if you're not technically savvy, just point the video camera at the television, glare or no, and upload that shit. We'll be forever grateful if you do.

Hold on a sec, I'm looking for that new Ok Go video. They are such a good band, and their videos are really clever. You know, I bet I could imitate this video and it would be pretty fun. Hey, look, some other people did that. That's neat. I've always wondered what all the 8th graders are doing for their talent shows...now I know. This is great. Why share the brilliance of a song/video/television show when you can just imitate it for people. That's almost the same, which is why I never go to actual concerts, only cover bands.

I wish I could tell you face-to-face just how much I appreciate all of your hard work. If only there were some way, other than typing, to let you know how I feel. Maybe I could hook up a camera and speak right to it, telling you what I think of your video of you talking to a camera. Then I could upload that, and if you watched them back-to-back, it would be like we were having a conversation. That would sure be neat. Plus, I wouldn't have to shower or put on nice clothes or leave my room to do it. Awesome!

Thank you, YouTube. At first, I just thought this would be a great way to share significant news clips or funny bits from our favorite shows. It could even be used to promote up-and-coming bands or give people an inside look of the war in Iraq. Boy, would all that have been boring. Now we finally have something worthy of the internet...a network where anyone with a computer can upload clips of their favorite anime videos or video game cinematics scored to a popular rock song. Finally I have a place where I can go to see strangers teach themselves to play a piano version of the Mario Brothers theme or play the guitar solo to that new hit song I heard on MTV. And, the cherry on top...I can see people's video blogs so that finally I can hear what's going on in the life of the guy who gained 50 pounds because he spent all day in front of his computer posting video blogs.

I feel like I'm wasting my life away just doing this stupid written blog, just typing for five minutes and using my knowledge of grammar and spelling and thinking about stuff. If I were smart, I'd just set up a camera, put on my least stained t-shirt, and ramble on for 8 minutes about what I did today, namely sat in front of a computer, watched videos of people sitting in front of computers, and posted video blogs. Thank you, YouTube. I love you.

I Love a Crusade!

Isn't it interesting how some people can ruin things for everyone? Like poltics. People choosing to devote their lives to looking out for their fellow citizens seems pretty noble, and yet the terrible actions of a few makes everyone think of politicians as liars, fools, and weasels (which, granted, many are). Same thing with religion. Organizations devoted to helping others and answering people's deep, unanswered questions...also sounds pretty good. Of course then you have your religious terrorists, and your religious hate-mongers. In both of these cases, what should be valuable discussions about the best ways to make our world a better place to live in turn into hateful arguments and name-calling.

The difference being that Republicans and Democrats get along better with Independents than with each other sometimes. In religion, the person who believes your god is a fake and their god is real is more your friend than the person who sits the whole thing out. That's something I never quite understood. I mean, I understand that having a belief system and faith in a higher power connects people across religious lines, but it also puts you on opposing teams where you can't both ultimately be right about everything. Yet, it's Atheists and Agnostics who are viewed by both sides as misguided, immoral, and untrustworthy.

In a Newsweek poll, 92 percent of Americans said they believe in God, though you'd be hard-pressed to tell, giving how awful most people act throughout their days. 6 percent said they definitely didn't believe in a god, and 2 percent said they didn't know. Talk about minorities, that's a big one, and also seems to poke a hole in the idea that there's some huge liberal secular army coming to destroy Christmas and make your kids worship Kevin Federline instead of Jesus. Even more shocking is that only 37 percent of people said they'd be willing, not even likely but willing, to elect an Atheist as President. More people said they'd be willing to elect a homosexual President, meaning that there are people who actually believe someone who's life is considered sinful to them is better than someone who may lead a moral life but just doesn't believe in an all-powerful being that he can't see. And despite what some people would have you believe, the number of respondents who say they believe in God is going up, and the number of people willing to accept an Atheist is going down.

That reminds me of one of the most memorable moments I had just before my Catholic Confirmation. As anyone Catholic would tell you, and as anyone else could probably assume, confirmation is a big to-do as it represents a coming-of-age in the church. So, as one of the steps leading up to that big day, to make sure you know exactly what you're getting into and to make sure that you're worthy of it I suppose, at my church they had one of the higher-ups interview each person. Really, it was more of a discussion than an interview, though for some reason they required a Resume and a headshot (it helped that I could pray 75 wpm). Keep in mind, I was all of 14 around the time.

Anyway, towards the end of our discussion about morality and faith, he asked me something that surprised me, and I'm not easily surprised. He asked me if I thought someone could be a good person, but not a good Christian. My answer, which seemed very clear to me, was yes. A person could be kind, honest, hard-working, self-sacrificing, abstinant, moral, virtuous, and all the things that make you a good person and still not believe in Jesus Christ - essential to being a Christian by definition. Many of the things that make you a good Christian also make you a good person, but without that whole "God/Jesus/Bible" part of it, you would never be a good Christian, just a good person. He listened and then not angrily, just matter-of-factly, stated that he didn't believe that at all. He actually believed that it was impossible to be a good person if you weren't a Christian. You could be an alright person, I suppose, or an okay person, but not a good person. I was appalled. He might as well have just slapped me in the face with a Bible, because apparently I had been living in some delusion all those years going to Church when they preached openness and acceptance. Apparently it was "join us or live in depravity" with no middle ground.

There is a polarization going on in the world today, and it's only getting worse. Whether in discussion of politics, religion, economics, values, even science and history, people are being asked to take sides and turn on one another. Where's the middle ground with people who "don't know" or "aren't sure" or who want to come to a consensus? Instead of focusing on whether someone is Muslim or Christian, Republican or Democrat, Rock or Country, can't people focus on what it is that makes people good across these divisions? Because what happens when people focus on beating the other team rather than on improving themselves? They cheat, they lie, they compromise their integrity, and ultimately, the end up hurting themselves.

Life's Tough in the Aluminum Siding Business

As a former earner of the minimum wage and a future dependent on retirement benefits, I feel confident in saying that we deserve more. Everyone wishes they had more money, whether they deserve it or not. Republicans would like to keep more of their taxes, while Democrats would generally like to get paid more up front. Obviously some people are overpaid and milking the system, and it's hard to judge the value of things as abstract as ideas or customer service. How do you decide the exact worth of an hours-worth of answering phones or a years-worth of accounting? Obviously their are factors to consider and a fair amount of guess-work that smarter people than I have figured out long ago. But, I think it's fair to say that it might be less than precise.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, productivity has risen 67 percent in the past 25 years, most of that during the late nineties. As a nation, we've all been working harder, and accomplishing more in less time. This is all evident from the huge economic expansion that's occured, and the growth of everything from e-commerce to commodities markets. Yet, during this time when our nation has been producing more and making more profit, wages have only risen 8.9 percent. I'm the first to admit that maybe in 1979 people were being paid too much and working too little so there was some catching up to do as far as productivity is concerned, but still that's a huge gap. And, since 2001 the median wage for college grads has stagnated while the median wage for people without degrees has actually begun to go down. Growth in real wages, including benefits, adjusted for inflation have slowed, and in some cases decreased. And to top it all off, fewer employers are offering retirement plans and most have decreased pensions and medical coverage.

There are no easy answers here, and fluctuations in markets and the economy are going to have effects on wages that aren't always fair or predictable. However, these trends represent a larger problem, that overall the American worker is giving more and getting less. In a nation where our highest ideal is to give our children a better life than we received, its a big let down to have each generation facing more difficulty and less reward.

Hippies Need to Take a Bath

Sometimes I think all people could benefit from working in certain fields, like the service industry, so that maybe when they went back to their normal life they wouldn't be total a-holes to cashiers at Best Buy. I think people could also benefit from working in advertising so that they could learn a few things about selling ideas.

I took Katherine Harris to task for trying to get people to vote for her by calling non-christians immoral legislators and saying that God chooses our rulers rather than, as is the common misconception, the people choosing our leaders. Seems like a bad sales pitch to me.

Well, far worse than that and far more insidious is the sales pitch from the firm of bin laden, Gadahn, and al-Zawahiri. Their latest video release (don't they have DVDs in those caves?) features al Qaeda's "second-in-command" (which I think might be the title of everyone in al Qaeda) as well as an American-born, FBI-wanted member of everyone's favorite terrorist organization. In this video they once again encourage everyone to embrace Islam and are even inclusive enough to invite former Bush and Blair supporters/emloyees to join in all the Islamic fun. For 48 minutes on this tape they talk about just how great Islam is and what it has to offer ("...all for one low, low price...but wait! There's more!") And then, to top it all off they add: "Decide today, because today could be your last day."

As if the actions of al Qaeda and the fact that they are a bunch of muderous hypocrites who live in caves and slums wasn't already enough to turn people off their personal brand of Islam, we also get the added barrel of a gun stuck in our face. Why not just say "Behold the Glory and Love of Allah...or else motherf*ckers!" Most people in marketing would tell you that people don't respond well to threats (especially not explicit ones). It reminds me of the time I was at Blockbuster and the clerk told me "You can rent 'Bring It On' for just $1.99. You really should, because otherwise I'm going to rape your family." Religious beliefs are deeply rooted, based on a lifetime of indoctrination, personal experiences, and introspection. It's not the sort of thing that people change or abandon overnight, and certainly not when they are being threatened. If you wanted people to convert to Islam, maybe you could go into some of the ways it is similar to their present beliefs, and some of the ways it promotes morality or tranquility. Instead, they decided the best pitch they had was that if you don't turn your back on a lifetime of faith, then you're going to get blown-the-hell up. Well, I'm going to tell you right now, people ain't buying, and you should probably just give up with your tapes. People are so afraid of everything now from immigrants to fast food that you're not scaring anyone any more than they already are, and you certainly aren't making any converts. All you're doing is pissing us off more, and everybody knows you don't pick a fight with a big, fat drunk.

Take That, Poor People

Five days ago on Rush Limbaugh's syndicated radio program, the one that my dad is such a fan of (he has an autographed picture of Rush and, I wouldn't be surprised, probably a tattoo of Rush on his person,) he unleashed this insight worthy of Confuscius:

"I think you might then say that the obesity crisis could be the fault of government, liberal government."

'Oh no he didn't' Oh yes, he did. We all know there is an obesity crisis in this country. In fact, you can't watch a local newscast without seeing at least one of those montages where they just show fat abdomens walking around city streets while a reporter talks about fast food. To be fair, this same obesity crisis is occuring throughout much of the western world, being that we now have a greater abundance of food than ever before, the food we have is chock full of sugar and corn syrup, we have the wealth to buy a lot of it, and thanks to modern technology we only have to do a minimal of physical exertion to get through a day. My pal Rush, though, seems to think that rather than this being a systemic problem due to bad personal choices and a change in the way we live, it is in fact the fault of the "liberal welfare state", and I'm certain also probably the personal fault of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Recent studies have found a link between poverty and obesity, I'm guessing in part because the same poor decision making that can lead to eating poorly can also lead to making bad economic decisions. There's also the fact that while wealthy people can afford quality food and gym memberships, poor people not so much. There are complexities, and also many exceptions (you've seen tons of thin poor people and plenty of hefty rich people). But Rush seems to think it's all the fault of food stamps, because as you know, the government hands out so many of them and that the people who get them can just afford reams of food with them. A single food stamp in fact can be used to purchase over 3 tons of delicious Chewy Chip A-Hoy (it's true, look it up).

For some reason Rush thought it would help his argument to point out that the states with the highest incidence of obesity are also states with high poverty rates, and the states with the lowest incidence of obesity are states with lower poverty rates. Those poor states? Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Louisiana. Yes, those five, liberal states. Oh, wait, those look like awfully Red States to me; states where Republicans hold a majority, and who support a Republican president and hold to Republican values. The five least obese states? Colorado, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and root-of-all-liberal-evil Massachusetts. This list looks a little bluer to me. Do I think there's any connection? Honestly, no, but if Rush is going to make this a partisan food fight, maybe he should make sure he's not whipping cupcakes at his friends.

His argument is that because people are poor, they must be getting handouts in the forms of food stamps, food drives, soup kitchens...and we are just overfeeding these poor bastards (pun intended). I wonder how many food stamps the government is forcing on Rush Limbaugh each week, because he's not so trim himself (though he did lose a lot of weight when he was illegally abusing prescription drugs). Correlation does not equal cause and effect, and I think the correlation in this case has more to do with the individuals and with cultural values than with welfare. It also doesn't help that you can buy a 2 litter bottle of soda for less than a bottle of water, or a bag of chips for less than a bag of apples. When people are forced to make choices based on a limited income, they tend to go for quantity rather than quality, and it's not because we're giving them too many food stamps, Rush.

So Mr. Limbaugh, if you'd like to have a discussion about our warped values system or about a health crisis in the United States, we're happy to have you at the roundtable. If however you'd like to talk about how liberals are making people fat, then first perhaps you should push yourself back from the dinner table and have a good look in the mirror.