Challenge! Answered!

Ha!
It's not nice to taunt Daveawayfromhome! Because you never know when he's gonna come up with a nice fish to smack you upside the head with!

First, to go with the picture, there's a Book! It's called Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith, by Rob Bell. It discusses Christianity and Jesus from a "fresh" perspective. No, I havent read it, but it sounds interesting and if the library has it, I'll give a whirl. Here's a testimonial:

This book is beautifully written. I have become not only a better Catholic but a better Christian. Rob writes with a guided hand to help truly Re-paint the Christian Faith. Finding truth where truth is, is one of the thoughts that help unite Gods people, not just those that consider themselves People of God. It is a much bigger picture than we can see, Velvet Elvis truly helped me to see even more of that picture!!

Velvet Elvis has Truly Helped. Words to live by, you know.

Okay, but maybe Jesus books dont float your boat. But you know you love Elvis! Everybody loves Elvis! Well here's a website for a guy who will paint your picture, on velvet, AS ELVIS!! How cool is that? Actually, it's the same guy who painted the above picture.

blog-whoring for the big box

Today, Rebecca at Death and Taxes discusses the stealth infiltration of big business, namely Wal-Mart, into the blogosphere. Her summary:

Michael Barbaro, in the New York Times, has written an article that addresses how Wal-Mart and bloggers are joining ranks to spread the gospel of Wal-Mart! Amen. In this article, we are told that a Wal-Mart employee, Marshall Manson, who is also a Blogger, writes email messages to bloggers who are receptive to Wal-Mart’s Plight (ah, yeah right!) offering them tips and information that they cannot get from the MainStream Media, or MSM, (Thanks Barbaro, I didn’t know that one yet) [me either]. Part of the issue explored in this story is that many receivers of these emails are simply cutting and pasting the information in their posts without saying where they got the information.

She then discusses her ethical problems with such behavior (which I've got to agree with). Being a fair-minded person, she also provides links to the opposition (notably, all people who participated in this practice), such as PunditGuy:

I don’t think it is evil for corporations to enlist bloggers to amplify their message. If the blogger decides to push the message along, it’s his or her choice. Conversely, if a blogger chooses to counter that message, again, it’s their choice. If a blogger has a passion for a particular topic and they write a lot about it, it’s possible that first time readers could assume the blogger’s professional interests somehow intersect. In the blogosphere, that’s usually a bad assumption to make. I have a feeling that Mr. Barbaro read many of our blogs for the first time while doing research on this piece. In many ways he jumped to conclusions about who we are and what we do.

Well, Pundit Guy is right, there really are no real "rules", though there is "etiquette" in the blogs. Quite frankly, I like it that way. Rules = control.

Yeah, they should have credited the pieces given to them by Wal-Mart. But I'd say that to an extent, this kind of thing is self-regulating. Little blogs who do this kind of thing, I think will be seen through eventually, dishonesty being dishonesty. Big blogs carry a certain momentum, but that can be slowed down by being caught and others crying foul. Most important is that people simply not rely on a single source for news. Blogs, PBS or NPR, the MSM, local dailies. Read them all, compare and contrast. It's a global world also, so try BBC or Aljazeera, and get a less Ameri-centric view of the goings on.

I really think this Wal-Mart thing and the controversy around it speaks more to the central problem of American Life: we want other people to do everything for us. Educate (and discipline) our children, fight our wars, keep our government in line, pre-form our opinions.
Do our thinking for us, O Authority!

That said, The Wal-Mart thing doesnt surprise me one little bit. Someone was going to do it (or, rather, get caught doing it) eventually. No, money doesnt have to switch sides. Maybe people do it because they want to be included in something big (and Wal-Mart is certainly big), maybe they do it because they really like Wal-Mart (I shop there because they're cheap, but I dont like them enough to shill for them), or maybe they just do it for the same reason they'll pay fifteen bucks to wear a T-shirt with advertising on it (all logo T-shirts should be gimmes). Maybe all these reasons are really the same: we're a herd animal, sheep, despite all the "lone wolf" mythos that we like to apply to ourselves.
But, we're sheep who can choose which herd we belong to. And it doesnt have to be a big one.

I think that the solution to this Wal-Mart situation is simply to complain about it bitterly. Nothing like a public scolding to make people think twice next time they get one of these bits of "news" passed on to them.
Wal-Mart is currently at the top of the Resource food-chain, and as such they require scrutiny, harrasment, skepticism, and outright hostility, lest they take the path of the Bush Administration (which, lets face it, experienced a 5-year honeymoon) and descend into arrogance, hubris and tyranny. Wal-Mart will cease to feel the heat when some other chain replaces them - and until then they can just suck it up.

They're Celebrities, so they get to endure the Paparazzi - did they think they got rich just because they're pretty?

Incidentally, in the interest of full disclosure, this post grew from a comment on Death and Taxes.

did I mention...

...that I'm taking a week of vacation?


This may explain all the activity that you may see here for a few days, just in case you're wondering what's gotten into me.


Update, 9:00 p.m.:
So, here I am, less than twelve hours after I say "whoa, look out folks, I've got time to burn out here in blog city", and I got...

...nothing. blank. zip.
I'm gonna go read a book.

Freudalizing Bush

Here's an interesting article from the Guardian analyzing Dubya's younger years. There are so many things there that I hardly know where to start. How about this:

The outcome of this childhood was what psychologists call an authoritarian personality. Authoritarianism was identified shortly after the second world war as part of research to discover the causes of fascism. As the name suggests, authoritarians impose the strictest possible discipline on themselves and others - the sort of regime found in today's White House, where prayers precede daily business, appointments are scheduled in five-minute blocks, women's skirts must be below the knee and Bush rises at 5.45am, invariably fitting in a 21-minute, three-mile jog before lunch.

Authoritarian personalities are organised around rabid hostility to "legitimate" targets, often ones nominated by their parents' prejudices. Intensely moralistic, they direct it towards despised social groups. As people, they avoid introspection or loving displays, preferring toughness and cynicism. They regard others with suspicion, attributing ulterior motives to the most innocent behaviour. They are liable to be superstitious. All these traits have been described in Bush many times, by friends or colleagues.

There's other good stuff here, too (including further proof towards my less-and-less tin-foil-hat idea that Dubya sees himself as an instrument of the Apocalypse). Any props here should go to Ran Prieur.

quote for the day

Ah, the wisdom of Ben Franklin:

There was another Bookish Lad in the Town, John Collins by Name, with whom I was intimately aquainted. We sometimes disputed, and very fond we were of Arguement, & very desirous of confuting one another. Which disputatious turn, by the way, is apt to become a very bad Habit, making People often extremely disagreeable in Company, by the Contradiction that is necessary to bring it into Practice, & thence, besides souring & spoiling the Conversation, is productive of Disgusts & perhaps Emnities where you may have occasion for Friendship. I had caught it by reading my Father's Books of Dispute about Religion. Persons of good Sense, I have since observ'd, seldom fall into it, except Lawyers, University Men, and Men of all Sorts that have been bred at Edinburgh. (from The Autobiography)

What do you suppose Ben would have though about Rush Limbaugh?

Ironically, I've put off reading Franklin's Autobiography for years because I thought his writing was too convoluted.

micro-blogging

I suppose if you're not from round these parts, you may not care much, but I've started a "Texas" blog. That way I can spew vitriol (or even say something nice) about Texas stuff (and there's a lot of stuff here) without boring the rest of the world.

with friends like these...

First of all, a disclaimer: In the following post I am speculating, not endorsing. I say this because years from now I dont want one of my daughters to show it to me and say something like, "You wrote this in 2006, so why is this bad for me now?" I'm sure after I've had a good lie-down I'll be really proud of her for having the gumption to both find the article and ask me about it, but, my dear, it is still speculation.


By now, you've probably all heard the term "friends with benefits". It refers to a practice among young people of having sexual relationships with those whom one has friendship, but no romantic involvement. In theory this results in "no strings attatched" sex, without the pressures of dating, or any other relationship commitment.
This isnt really anything new, certainly when I was in high school there was at least one crowd that engaged in casual sex amongst themselves, without any real feeling other than the hormonal pleasure of it. But apparently the scale of the thing has grown quite a bit since back in the day.
But really, how suprised should anyone be about this kind of thing? On top of their already raging hormones, modern teens must also deal with a constant barrage of media telling them just how great and important Sex is to Life. In America, money may be our god, but sex is our icon.
Every other commercial is a seduction. Some are just short of pornography (and if you've ever watched a cheap porno film, you'll recognise many commercials as being very much like the beginning of one). Inexplicable attraction and near rape caused by product usage, shampoo-derived orgasms, sexual favors bestowed upon the bearer of whatever product is being hawked; these are par for the course in the world advertisers, where nothing is not for sale.

This isnt new information, you've heard before, usually accompanied by a "what's wrong with our children?" diatribe/plea, perhaps on the evening news, or perhaps in your Daily Newspaper, in the "lifestyle" section, sandwiched between an ad for the latest teen sex comedy and an article about the latest fashion trends (cleavage is back!).
My twist here is that I'm going to say that this is not a sign of a breakdown of morals in American society.
Okay, maybe it is, but not the way most people think it is. The breakdown has already happened. The breakdown is the sexualization of nearly everything in our society, not because we're a nation of nyphomaniacs, but because we're a nation of voyeurs led by the nose by the lying minions of the Ad Council. We wallow in our Extreme Culture, chanting the mantra "if it feels good, do it", while, like junkies, searching for a bigger thrill as the old thrill grows staler everytime we see someone else doing it also.
Of course our children engage in regular, pre-mature, sexual activity. To expect anything different is like expecting someone to stay dry while being thrown in the ocean. They are soaked in sexuality, in their music, television, movies, even toys (seen Bratz dolls?). Almost all this sexuality is in the form of commerce, and rarely in a form of anything resembling caring intimacy.

Even Victorian-era teens often managed to have sex. There's a whole generation of writers (mostly male) who've written stories, plays, movies, books, and songs that involve losing their virginity (the older ones usually to either a hooker or their small town's "experienced" older female, the younger to the "unavailable" class beauty). Consider my own "older" generation, where almost nobody who's had pubic hair from the 70's onward kept their virginity intact until marriage.

So here are these kids. Sex is no big deal to them, having been surrounded by it all their lives. And they live in culture which values jadedness, so they must, at all time, appear to be cool, about sex especially. Why especially? Because one must be cool in the face of adversity, and one of the facets of sexuality they've grown up with is that it's a right messy bitch. Nothing causes problems faster and harder than sex, and while they may not have any experience telling them why this is true, they've seen enough stories to know that somehow it is true.
So, how does one go about avoiding the pain of the mess we call sex, while getting all the good parts that they've been told about over and over, by both the culture and their hormone-racked bodies? Suddenly, having sex with someone you already trust seems like a much better idea, doesnt it?

Oh, I know.
It doesnt really work out. Sex changes everything, regardless of what people might say. Friends, strangers, third cousins twice removed, everything reverberates after sex, shimmying like the San Andreas and causing almost as much destruction to whatever you thought you knew.
Not that that stops most of us. Or even should.

Of course, if you've got kids, especially if you've got girls, all this cerebrating means nothing when you consider the horrible, horrible idea of your child having sex!
'Cause really, you'll kill the little bastard who touches your baby inappropriately.

Breath. 10, 9, 8, 7...

Anyway, my point is that perhaps we're not looking at this issue from the right angle. Maybe, instead of a sign of the apocalypse, it's more of a coping mechanism.
Think about it.

And put those shotgun shells away, dammit.

because Nicolle Hollander is a goddess

I've been reading Sylvia for years, and yet, because no paper around here carries it, I tend to forget about her. And that's just wrong.

shameless duplication

Yeah, I'll admit it. I'm stealing this, whole, from Pastor Rowe at The Worst Hour in Radio History. But it's a worthy post, and to read it on his site you'd have to get there through posts about his penis, which some people might not be willing to do.
Plus, I'm lazy:

It's really cute how Republicans think they're the party of fiscal responsbility. Like, puppies and rainbows cute. The traditional conservatives will say "WE'RE the ones for economic stability, not the neo-cons who have bastardized our philosophy," but that's a mostly bullshit interpretation, as the trad-cons have been out of power since basically Eisenhower. Yes, Nixon tried to keep the tradcon ideal of low taxes and balanced budgets afloat, but gave less than a shit about their other ideals of personal freedom or noninterventionist foreign policy. Although, to be fair, that last one was mostly the fault of Nixon's trained werewolf Kissinger, the vile, curly-haired shapeshiter responsible for more war and death than Idi Amin and Hirohito put together.

The reason why deficits have gone up astronomically in every Republican administration in the last quarter century is due to an obscure economic strategy known as "Starve the beast." It is, in essence, a blueprint for bankrupting the entirety of the American government so that when it finally collapses the government's spending can be re-engineered to follow conservative principles. And it makes sense. Lowering taxes and increasing spending is sure to please the voters, whereas raising taxes and/or cutting spending is political poison.

The architects of this philosophy seem the believe that when the government falters and cuts off its avenues of traditional spending, people will just accept it as a simple truth. Which, is of course, ridiculous. It will be anarchy. Old people who can't pay rent. Young people who can't go to college. Mothers who can't feed their children. Veterans who don't get their benefits. Children who can't go to school. The insane, thrown out on the streets. The sick who can't get medicine. The country will explode.

There, now that wasnt so bad, was it? Maybe tomorrow I'll have some words of my own.

Kill Your Television (right after watching, oh, I dont know, Con Air or Mighty Morphin Power Rangers)

Okay, I think we all know that TV violence has adverse effects on children (and adults, for that matter), even the Television People are no longer arguing about this. Studies (and there have been lots of them) show that exposure to television violence can have the following effects:

• Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others
• Children may be more fearful of the world around them
• Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others

There is a lot of violence on TV these days, and by many accounts the worst of this is on children's television, not because it's more graphic, but rather because it's less graphic, more sanitized. Cartoon violence, where no one really gets hurt. And not only does no one get hurt, frequently, no one even cares, or pays (Guess who it is that constantly gets away with repercusion-free violence: The "Good" Guy).

"A typical child in the U.S. watches 28 hours of TV weekly, seeing as many as 8,000 murders by the time he or she finishes elementary school at age 11, and worse, the killers are depicted as getting away with the murders 75% of the time while showing no remorse or accountability. Such TV violence socialization may make children immune to brutality and aggression, while others become fearful of living in such a dangerous society." (source: psychologymatters.org)

And before you start thinking that children's (and adults) shows have gone out of control, remember a major culprit TV violence that is often overlooked: Commercials (I couldnt find a study on this during my casual googling, but you dont really need one - just watch TV, and remember, too, that implied violence is nearly as good as the real thing).

Hey! How's about some statistics:

I. FAMILY LIFE

• Percentage of households that possess at least one television: 99
• Number of TV sets in the average U.S. household: 2.24
• Percentage of U.S. homes with three or more TV sets: 66
• Number of hours per day that TV is on in an average U.S. home: 6 hours, 47 minutes
• Percentage of Americans that regularly watch television while eating dinner: 66
• Number of hours of TV watched annually by Americans: 250 billion
• Value of that time assuming an average wage of S5/hour: S1.25 trillion
• Percentage of Americans who pay for cable TV: 56
• Number of videos rented daily in the U.S.: 6 million
• Number of public library items checked out daily: 3 million
• Percentage of Americans who say they watch too much TV: 49

II. CHILDREN

• Approximate number of studies examining TV's effects on children: 4,000
• Number of minutes per week that parents spend in meaningful conversation with their children: 3.5
• Number of minutes per week that the average child watches television: 1,680
• Percentage of day care centers that use TV during a typical day: 70
• Percentage of parents who would like to limit their children's TV watching: 73
• Percentage of 4-6 year-olds who, when asked to choose between watching TV and spending time with their fathers, preferred television: 54
• Hours per year the average American youth spends in school: 900 hours
• Hours per year the average American youth watches television: 1500

III. VIOLENCE

• Number of murders seen on TV by the time an average child finishes elementary school: 8,000
• Number of violent acts seen on TV by age 18: 200,000
• Percentage of Americans who believe TV violence helps precipitate real life mayhem: 79

IV. COMMERCIALISM

• Number of 30-second TV commercials seen in a year by an average child: 20,000
• Number of TV commercials seen by the average person by age 65:
  2 million
• Percentage of survey participants (1993) who said that TV commercials aimed at children make them too materialistic: 92
• Rank of food products/fast-food restaurants among TV advertisements to kids: 1
• Total spending by 100 leading TV advertisers in 1993: $15 billion

V. GENERAL

• Percentage of local TV news broadcast time devoted to advertising: 30
• Percentage devoted to stories about crime, disaster and war: 53.8
• Percentage devoted to public service announcements: 0.7
• Percentage of Americans who can name The Three Stooges: 59
• Percentage who can name at least three justices of the U.S. Supreme Court: 17

Compiled by TV-Free America
1322 18th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 887-4036

What about adults? Yes, adults are affected, too.
Okay, that's not too surprising, we've been hearing this for years and all, right?Here's my thought: Why is television assumed only to affect our attitudes about violence? I mean, after the violence thing, most people just say something like, "Oh, it zombifies you".
Well, yes, it's a totally passive experience, best enjoyed when immobile, with your disbelief suspended and your critical thinking skills in neutral. But what I'm talking about is this: maybe, in addition to violence, television lessens people's sensitivity to other social ills! Social ills such as graft and corruption, or incompetence, or scandal.Try this experiment in the next week whenever you watch TV; Put a pad of paper and a pen on the seat next to you, marked with the following columns:

1. corruption by a politician
2. corruption by any other authority figure
3. incompetence by a boss
4. incompetence by any other authority figure
5. scandal involving authority figures

Dont forget to include commercials!If everyday we are exposed to "examples" of bad behavior in our fictional Authority Figures as we watch television, perhaps it's no wonder that we dont seem to care about the Bad Behavior in our real Authority Figures.

Turn that damn thing off. Turn them all off.
Take your kids and yourself to the park, or go on a walk or a bicycle ride, or go to an Art Museum, or a Science Place, or just read a good book.

But whatever you do, turn off the TV!