RibbleRabble

It's been a while since the last blog, but I genuinely felt this needs to be said quite clearly: if 30% of Americans will at some point travel by air this year, 30% of Americans (~75,000,000 people) will be being strip-searched at the airport--without probable cause--if we allow backscatter machines to become permanent fixtures in the security line.

I have no idea what makes people somehow think that the magic of technology somehow mitigates such a brazen violation of several constitutional rights by treating the 30% of the entire American population that travels by air each year like criminals.

By the way, in case some of you out there somehow think that this will make things safer, know this: a terrorist doesn't expect to survive the flight, so he'll have no problem filling his large intestine with explosives or downing a few sealed baggies of his explosive of choice. Drug smugglers already do it with every drug imaginable, so I don't think it's beyond wide-eyed fundamentalists to do the same thing with explosives.

Keeping that in mind, my fellow 30% of America, when this e-strip-searching fails to prevent the next once-in-a-decade attack that apparently only kills a few thousand people (0.002% of Americans), be sure to think of me and how right I was when 30% of us are getting...what? I dunno? What's next? Maybe...e-fingers-in-the-asses by some robot. After all, it's not strip searching en masse when it's done electronically, so surely it's not a cavity search when it's also done electronically.

Go ahead. Laugh at the idea of an airport anal probe. I know I did. I mean, it's absurd to even think it'll happen. The thought of a robot with a finger in my ass at the airport is hilarious, and since this is the internet, someone out there probably finds the idea not only hilarious but exciting. :P

I suppose, though, that if a few decades ago you'd told me 30% of everyone in the country and 100% of all air travel passengers would be getting strip-searched annually, without probable cause, well, I would have probably laughed just as hard.

By the way, if any historians in the future happen to read my tiny, insignificant blog on the outskirts of the internet, know this: this is how the most successful empires fall. It's neither lead-lined aquifers nor disease nor invasion nor over-expansion; instead, it's paranoia. Dopamine-fueled paranoia that something, somewhere, somehow... will get us or our children--that evil and danger lurks in our own shadows and must therefore be eradicated before the boogeymen get us. It doesn't matter if the threat is insignificant, justified, or non-existent. If it's insignificant, we think it can be eliminated; if it's justified, then we'll claim ourselves infallible to it; if it's if it's non-existent, then we'll invent it.

When our last real enemy gave up, we panicked when there were no more. We turned on ourselves and decided that if the evil isn't just out there any more, it must be right here instead. It's because of this paranoia that we end up stripping away everything that has allowed the empire...republic...once-democratic nation to flourish in the first place. All of our principles, including freedom itself, are sequentially being seen as weaknesses that are being exploited in a seemingly perfectible curtain of allegedly impervious iron--and those weaknesses must be patched for our curtain to remain strong.

Of course, as history has shown us, it's a detrimental, ineffective curtain that's fated to fall. No matter how high it's built or how wide it extends, it can never be anything other than a huge, expensive hunk of metal we use to keep ourselves thinking we're locking bad guys out when we're really just locking ourselves in, becoming a nation of idle shut-ins content in our baseless, self-determined notion of perfection.

The curtain always falls, and it doesn't fall lightly. It crashes down with a rippling thud, crushing the poor souls desperate enough to erect it in the first place--all to protect the putrid corpse of the past. We'd do anything to get back to the irrationally-idealized "good" ol' days, obsessing in our quest with some bastardized notion that for us, the ends can somehow morally justify the means.

Somehow the anal-probing robot fits into the metaphor, but I'm not sure how. I have to admit, though, I like the mental image of it "inspecting" the very minions constructing the wall. That'd be hilarious...

... Hilarious, but shockingly accurate to the metaphor.

To wrap it all up, I've got this to say: what...the...fuck are you people thinking? Did it never occur to you, somewhere along the way of Nixon, Bush, and the Patriot Act that maybe we should quit fag-bashing and stand up for something noble...something peaceful...something...actually good? Is it even worth trying to fix it any more? I'm starting to think that everyone's just content with letting it all fall to the ground because the charismatic men on TV with fire in their souls, aesthetic crosses on their necks, and cookie-cutter stickers on their cars sit and tell you some missing white girl or some jerk burning a flag or some dude getting married to a dude is somehow more important than 30% of Americans being e-strip-searched without probable cause.

That said, I make a fuss, but in all honesty I really don't give a flying fuck. Nowadays I'm so far outside the freak show that I can only look on and watch in awe. A part of me still wants to join in--to fit in--but thank god I've so far been able to bitch slap that part of me down. :P

It's lonely out here, though. There are few lights, and what lights there are lie far off in the distance, polluted by the fluorescent decadence of a once candle-lit hope for tomorrow. I must admit, though, that I quite like the darkness that everyone's afraid of, because there's nothing to be afraid of once you step outside the light of our noisy cave. I mean, you expect some monster to come get you, and you kind of want one to gobble you whole when you find out the monsters never existed in the first place, or if they did, they're back the way you just came.

I also like the fact that the dark's one of the last places where you can still find balance, and, most of all, freedom.

That said, darkness is a bit depressing at times, and it's a bit of a bitch trying to find the rare kindred spirits wandering around in a night that's almost as black as pitch.... :\ On the upside, though, pot grows like a weed out here, and stress is nonexistent. No wonder they tell everyone there are monsters out here--the whole system would collapse if people knew they actually had a shot at happiness if they stepped out of their caves.

Imagine if we all stopped listening to the cacophonous din of a rock star nation that's been convinced by its businessmen to dump its instruments and ignore its band mates; a pop star nation that now wonders why it struggles to find a harmony or even carry a tune after having carved out its own heart; a bright star nation so desperate to satisfy its addiction to an inflated bottom line that it will steal the very shoes from under the feet of others if it yields more fuel to burn.

That's all it is--a sadistic symphony where everyone screams pointless nothings, dances out of rhythm, and flails aimless delusions in perfect self-confidence that unlike the mechanical music monkeys they so frequently resemble, they remain differentiated from both primitive simians and robotic mechanizations by a far greater, decidedly unique purpose: to repetitively clap for a bass-less cymbal of happiness.

A bunch of parents with sand in their vages banned a Steve Martin play about the nature of creativity, intelligence, commercialism, and art from being performed at the high school (with a 4-3 vote by the school board), because the play contained allusions to alcohol and sex. So, a local college stepped in and said the students could perform it there. Kickass.

From the article:

The La Grande School District Superintendent got a complaint from a parent and a petition signed by 137 people and banned the play, which has references to sex and drinking, features the characters of Albert Einstein and Pablo Picasso meeting in a Paris bar in 1904, as both were on the verge of breakthrough work. It deals with themes of artistry, genius and the nature of the 20th century.

Since when is an allusion to either sex or drinking a problem in performace? Seriously.

It's not because they're "children." They're highschoolers. Teenagers. They're a couple of years away from 100% unfiltered reality and being free'n'able to blow someone's head off in war, but sex and alcohol is too much for them to handle? Up until the 80s they were able to buy and drink alcohol, and it was outlawed only due to the now-proven-incorrect belief it would end teenage drunk driving, so their knowledge of it or alleged glorifying of it is immaterial, since they're clearly not going to be possessing it, drinking it, or driving during the course of the play.

The country supported outlawing it solely to prevent them from harming others-- not due to the alcohol, the consumption of alcohol, the idea of alcohol, or the glorification thereof. We tried that nearly a century ago with extremely poor results; organized crime and violence significantly increased until prohibition was repealed, at which point violence and crime levels returned to pre-prohibition rates. We don't want to re-live the first part of that, right?

The second half of this is sex. Again, they're not kids. Their metaphorical (and in half of them, literal) balls have dropped, and sex is totally natural. Everyone living is the result of it.

For the parents to assume their children don't already know about sex is truly frightening, because it means they've completely failed as parents, and even worse, they don't give a crap enough about their kid to inform them (or are too ball-less to do so), while at the same time disallowing a play to do the job for them. More shocking is that the parents are assuming that their kids aren't already having sex and don't already talk about it between friends— that's mind-bogglingly ignorant.

So, I guess the only reason for forbidding the play is due to the artistic tastes of parents. That, too, is also immaterial. If a parent doesn't like the art his kid enjoys, then the parent needs to shut the hell up and remember how rock'n'roll, jazz, nudism, and pretty much every new art form on the face of the planet spurred significant negative criticism by "parents" during their respective periods. Then again, I guess they would have been reminded of that once they had seen the play that their kids would have performed (that's part of the content of the play) but instead the parents essentially ban themselves from seeing it, plugging their ears and drowning out reason with their baseless screams.

In the end, if the goal is to shield your kid from the world until the second they've been thrust head-first into it, or if your goal is to stagnate art, halt progress, hasten the collapse of creativity, and force the country to fall behind as the rest of the world develops on, then by all means, ban the play and everything else you don't like. Good luck. All I ask is that you simply come up front and say that instead of masking it as a problem of an artistic work referencing drugs, alcohol, sex, harsh language, or some other vague, arbitrary and unfounded crap about "the children."

Really, I should be thanking the parents. As a result of their actions, I'm willing to bet that countless high schools across the country will be performing the play in the near future. People are like that. Censor something, and it's seen by everyone. I guess it means that the world isn't completely mindless...

...yet.

Since it looks like the market's spiraling out of control, I figure I'll offer up some advice on how to fix it, since I can't actually fix it myself. It's not like the right people are going to be reading this anyway, but I figure I might as well write it out so that I can get it out of my system.

First, how to fix the economy: in short, elect Obama. It sounds goofy, partisan, and overly simplistic, but let me explain in business and historical terms. First, please read up on the quick history of the first Great Depression in the United States. You'll notice by the graph that things literally did not begin to turn around until the labor-appeasing, labeled-a-socialist Democrat was elected to office.

Why did the turnaround happen? Simple: he increased government spending to benefit the working class significantly. He increased regulations on business and the free market, founded the SEC, and did a bunch of other things that made him the ire of the upper class. Why did he do this? He realized that the only reason the depression happened in the first place was due to the overpowering business-oriented government from the prior several decades.

... is this starting to sound familiar? And remember, the GDP began to climb pretty much the second the liberal took office and started screwing over big business. Because of that, the GDP continued to rise substantially over the remainder of his 3 terms in office. McCain is claiming that he'd do the exact opposite and freeze government spending, give more tax breaks, and basically take the path of Hoover. Moreover, McCain has been very clear in pointing out that Obama favors significantly increased government spending-- something that Roosevelt not only endorsed but clearly engaged in. And, look at where it got us: out of the depression.

So the choice this November is simple. If you want 4 more years of things getting worse, vote McCain. If you want 4 years of things getting better, vote Obama.

...and I assure you that I'm right. It just sucks that, like always, I've gotta sit in the backseat and let people decide their own path. Either way, it should make for an interesting show. :P

Cheers.

The total cost of the Iraq War has now exceeded $845 billion dollars. It occurs to me that if we are willing to spend $845 billion dollars and thousands of lives, for much less we could have solved the problem without bloodshed.

Before the start of the war (when Saddam was still alive), we could have simply bribed him to do whatever we wanted. In fact, we could have sent him yearly checks for $1 billion dollars and he'd have recorded 2girls1cup if we asked him to. No, he'd have even played the part of the cup. More importantly, it would have only cost us, at maximum, around $35 billion dollars to keep it up for the worst-case duration of his natural life (he was 65ish before the war). Since he was a dictator, and since he had a natural power over his people, we could have simply made the stipulation that the only way he can keep receiving the money is if truly made steps to convert the nation to a democracy, and, obviously, it would be important to allow us free access to the country for inspections.

It's a pretty simple idea, and, it would have worked. Think of it: no bloodshed, no terrorism, no economic collapse, and, most importantly, $0.99/gallon gas. Best of all, it'd only be 35 easy payments of $1 billion a year (and inflation would be on our side). Instead, we've got this debacle, which has cost us 5 easy payments of $169 billion dollars a year.

I'm just trying to plan for next time.

Cheers.

I was recently skimming over the Wikipedia article on Scientology controversies and came across a particularly interesting bit of text:

The Church maintains strict control over the use of its symbols, names and religious texts. It holds copyright and trademark ownership over its cross and has taken legal action against individuals and organizations who have quoted short paragraphs of Scientology texts in print or on Web sites, in some cases asserting their scriptures constitute "trade secrets." Individuals or groups who practice Scientology without affiliation with the Church have been sued for violation of copyright and trademark law.

I thought this was kind of interesting. Arguably, the point of copyright law is to protect businesses (including sole proprietorships) from other businesses trying to make pure profit off of the former. That is, copyright law is there so that should Joe Schmoe want to create a book called Joe Schmoe's Guide to Modern Cults, another profiteer by the name of Jane Doe couldn't come along and copy, verbatim, Joe's Guide to Modern Cults and claim it as her own work while making pure profit.

So, when I see Scientology trying to delve into laws made to protect businesses, a red flag is raised in my head: they're a church— not a business. By definition, they're technically a 501(c)(3) non-profit religious organization. Therefore, I have but one question: why should they be covered by copyright law if the fundamental goal of the organization, legally, is not to turn a profit, but instead to benefit mankind? More importantly, is it valid to use patent/trademark law in matters of religion to begin with?

Above all, if the legal protections designed to protect profit-oriented activities of businesses and individuals are allowed to be applied to churches, then how, exactly, could you even legally distinguish a religion from a business? This one's fairly intriguing, because if the only method for doing so are the tax reporting and exemption statuses delegated by the IRS/states, then we have, in effect, created the largest loophole to a tax code ever known by man. Not only is a religious organization tax-exempt, but unlike every other non-profit organization, it also does not have to report its income to the IRS. Therefore, if religious organizations like Scientology are afforded the same luxury protections as businesses, they are essentially tax-free/tax-reporting-free businesses.

Now, can you imagine how profitable (and dangerous) a business would be if: it never had to pay taxes; it never had to tell the IRS where it's getting its money from; it never had to tell the IRS how it's spending its money; and, it could sue anyone who said anything bad about them? Yikes.

If religious organizations are allowed to be covered by copyright law, and they're allowed to trademark their religion's name, and, on top of that, they can actively bring suit against people who use the name when the religion doesn't want them to, then they are demonstrating business behavior. Essentially, they sue in order to "protect" the corporate image of their "brand name." That makes them even more indistinguishable from businesses. Using the power of the government, they can proactively suppress political dissent, preying directly upon the financial disparity between them, a multi-million dollar organization, and their target, a multi-hundred dollar citizen.