In Defense of Iowa

You know how you take your mother and father for granted all through your childhood and then one day you just start crying into your beer because you just remembered what an insufferable little shit you were? That's kind of how I felt after reading this article over at Iowa Independent about these 56,272 square miles that I call my home state.
I will go to bed tonight feeling very safe and well educated.

Book Review #2

A Civil Action by Jonathan Harr

Being on the verge of entering law school, I figured it was high time to start learning a little something about the law. I remember in undergrad I had a judicial process teacher who swore by the movie My Cousin Vinny as an accurate representation of courtroom procedures. I sat and watched this movie and thought to myself “law isn’t so hard. . .at least not when you’ve got Joe Pesci, Marissa Tomei, and the Karate Kid teaching it.”

And then it all made sense. All too often, we are made to think that we have the option between entertaining ourselves or educating ourselves. What a false choice. It is the wise man that finds a way to do both things simultaneously. I call this the Colbert Report method of enlightenment. It was while using this same basic principle that I started to read the non-fiction thriller “A Civil Action.”

What a story.

The basic plot is that two large companies, W.B. Grace and Beatrice had been dumping chemicals (mostly TCE and perc) onto their land throughout the 60’s and 70’s. The company land, dangerously close to municipal water supplies, had become contaminated and the contaminants were ultimately sucked into the water supply, causing a cluster of leukemia and all sorts of other disorders for many of the town’s citizens.

I finished it last night and I’m still reworking the details in my head: the depositions, the hydro-geology tests, rule 11, summary judgment requests, judicial deception and dishonesty, the testimony, the negotiations, the objections, and of course, the expert witnesses.

The expert witness testimony was by far the most fascinating aspect of the book, giving a unique glimpse into the blurry, unsubstantiated set of opinions that the court eventually calls “facts.”

In one instance George Guswa, a distinguished ground water expert with years of experience, claims that contaminants couldn’t have gotten to the water supply because the soil was not porous enough. He explained the equation that he had used (Darcy’s Law) and then offered a computer generated model of the land as evidence.

This testimony was in direct contradiction to another expert witness, Dr. Pinder, a professor at Princeton (or some other equally prestigious establishment, I’m too lazy to look it up), and one of the preeminent hydro-geologists in the world. The two were friends and had worked together in the past, but were in complete disagreement on this point.

What to do? Does the jury just call this a push? One guy says it’s possible, the other says it isn’t, let’s call it a draw?

The attorney for the cancer-stricken plaintiffs, Jan Schlichtmann was sure that Guswa was mistaken andthat something was wrong with his calculation. However, Schlichtmann was not a scientist and actually, not even very competent at mathematics. Dr Pinder, unfortunately, was out of town and unreachable.

It was at this point that Schlichtmann and his associates could have backed down. They could have said “this guy has a computer generated model. . .we’re screwed.”

Instead they grabbed some geology textbooks and took them home to study. In two days time one of his colleagues had, using simple high school algebra, identified the flaw in the Guswa’s equation.

The next day at cross-examination, Schlichtmann asked Guswa to redo his calculation on the blackboard. Ultimately, Guswa was forced to state to the jury that, using his own figures and the foundational equation of hydro-geology, Darcy’s Law, the city of Woburn is currently lying at the bottom of 10 feet of water. Though the jury had not been to Woburn recently, they assumed that this was not the case.

After being given another day to rework his hypothesis, Guswa returned with an alternate testimony: not only was it possible that the contaminants had reached the water supply, but that it was probable.

That’s pretty inspiring stuff. And it actually begs certain questions. The first of which is:

Why am I always so concerned about not dotting an i or crossing a t? I’ve never claimed to be an expert in dotting i’s or crossing t’s, but somehow feel bad when I make a minor spelling or grammatical mistake.

This man, a respected ground water expert messes up one of the easiest equations in hydrology in a case affecting hundreds of people and concerning, potentially, billions of dollars. How could he show his face in the office ever again? It’s as if Gary Kasparov absent-mindedly got checkmated in 6 moves. . . by a 7 year old who’s moving the pieces around haphazardly. If Jan Schlichtmann, a non-expert wouldn’t have questioned his testimony, no one would have and the jury would have weighed it in exactly the same kind of light that they weighed Dr. Pinder’s testimony.

There are lots of other great bits that will make you put down the book, stare into space, and say “Wow, I can’t believe how flawed and arbitrary our justice system is.” Or “Does this Judge Skinner have no accountability whatsoever?” Or more importantly “Does this Judge Skinner have no soul or understanding of fair play?”

In fact, there were times that I put down the book because I was too angry to continue. I think that was mostly due to the writing of Jonathan Harr, whose ability as a storyteller is obvious and impressive. Bravo Mr. Harr, for educating and entertaining. I’m proud to say that your book, along with the film “My Cousin Vinny” will form the bedrock of my legal education for years to come.

Speaking of which, I hear that A Civil Action has been made into a film starring John Travolta. I haven’t seen it yet because I’m waiting for a different take on the story: karate master Ralph Machio and wilcat mechanic Marisa Tomei file a suit against the two evil corporations in what could be the biggest, and funniest decisions ever. Let the education begin.

Public High School Beauty Pageant Results

In a feeble answer to U.S. News and World Report's questionably conducated higher education rankings, Newsweek recently released its list of top 1200 public high schools in America. Cedar Rapids Washington was the top finisher in Iowa, coming in at #368. I only scanned until about #900 but saw no other Iowa schools listed.

How these rankings were conducted I have no idea, but it looks pretty suspect. Apparently some of the "best" schools had "high dropout rates and low average test scores."

Jerry Wolfman Named President of World Bank

The World Bank announced yesterday the hiring of Gerry Wolfman as the next President of the world’s largest international loan institution. Wolfman, a former investment banker and part time lycanthropic shapeshifter, will succeed disgraced sitting President Paul Wolfwitz, who in turn replaced two term president Paul Wolfensohn.

A spokesman for the institution, Doug Shroeder, explained the recent hiring. “We here at World Bank have a long and rich history of handing the reins of our operations over to people with wolf-related names. The wolf, one of the most respected and feared carnivores to be found in nature, carries associations the World Bank like to think of as positive. The word wolf implies that the bank is strong and aggressive, even predatory, in its fight against poverty.”

Shroeder then elaborated on why the threatening name is so vital to the success of the bank’s operations. “You see, it’s like the rest of the world, the impoverished parts, are sheep. Sheep are very docile and helpless animals. They are peaceful, but they lack the ambition or drive that help you succeed economically. The wolf can be that kind of strong presence that the sheep need to reach their full free market potential. Our job here at the World Bank is to put the wolf in with the sheep as a model for growth.”

To win the nomination, Wolfman had to beat out a talented and experienced pool of applicants that included such international banking luminaries as Donald Rumsfeld, Wolf Blitzer, and Michael J. Fox, all of whom were also finalists for the post.

Bill Clinton Endorses Barack Obama

Former United States president and saxophone playing heartbreaker Bill Clinton endorsed Illinois Senator Barack Obama’s bid for the presidency yesterday in what Beltway insiders are calling one of the biggest coups in the history of American politics.

Shortly after announcing his support, Mr. Clinton accepted an offer to work full time as the Iowa State Director of Barack Obama’s campaign, forcing him to reject offers from other presidential hopefuls such as Hillary Rodham Clinton, his wife and mother of his only child.

On Monday morning Clinton emerged from his front door, his lower body wrapped in a white monogrammed towel, to explain the rationale for his recent political play.

“Hillary’s a good girl,” he said as he towel dried his head, “but that Barack Obama is really making waves. I mean, everybody loves Obama. Hillary? Not so much. I figured it be good for me to get on this boat while there was still room.”

As the Iowa State Political director for Obama’s campaign, Mr. Clinton said that he will be employing his considerable political prowess and public speaking skills for one purpose and one purpose only, “excluding the best from the rest,” adding, “there is simply no one out there who I trust to lead this country in the kind of positive direction that Obama will.”

When further questioned about the kind of principles involved in heartlessly abandoning his wife’s camp, Clinton replied brusquely. “Look, I’m not the kind of amateur that shakes someone’s hand and then decides that they’re the best person for the job. I’m a pragmatic politician. That being said, I hope she doesn’t take this personally.”

His wife Hillary expressed some concern over the move, stating, “I felt that the offer we made him was more than generous, but this is how politics work. You’re not going to get all the best consultants, no matter how well connected you are. But still, I do kind of feel disappointed in him. I really never thought that this man, Bill Clinton, would ever betray my trust like this,” adding, "never."

Farewell Falwell--Heart conditions are the wrath of a just God against the corpulent.

John McCain called him " a man of distinguished accomplishment who devoted his life to serving his faith and country."

If only Jerry Falwell could have replied, delusional, cocksure, foaming at the mouth, he probably would have said something like this: "AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals."

Man that guy was a fucking wacko.

Want more Falwell bigotry? Slate has a breakdown of some of the more outrageously hateful things that Falwell has said over the years.

Somebody's Spinning

I remember watching sometime before the war an exchange between Janeane Garofalo and Bill O'Reilly wherein O'Reilly ridiculed Garofalo for her reservations about a war that could kill many civilians. Here is just a snippet of that transcript:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

03/08/2003
Bill O'Reilly questioned actor/activist Janeane Garofalo;

BILL O'REILLY: "If you are wrong, all right, and if the United States, and they will, this is going to happen, goes in, liberates Iraq, people in the street, American flags, hugging our soldiers, all right, we find all kinds of bad, bad stuff, all right, in Iraq, you gonna apologize to George W. Bush?"

JEANINE GAROFALO: "I'll bring roses right to his front door. I will bring a fruitcake and roses. I would be so willing to say I'm sorry, I hope to God that I can be made a buffoon of, that people will say, 'you were wrong, you were a fatalist,' and I will go to the White House on my knees on cut glass and say, 'Hey, you were right, I shouldn't have doubted you.' But I think that is preposterous. The flip side of the coin is, will he, and for that matter, will you offer me the same courtesy if I'm right? If we're treated as invaders instead of liberators, will you invite me back to your show and apologize in front of your viewers?"

BILL O'REILLY: "Absolutely. But I hate to disappoint ya,' it ain't gonna turn out that way."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently when O'Reilly said "it aint gonna turn out that way," he meant that he wasn't going to invite her back to the show. He probably said it very loudly, with finality. . .and an impressive amount of conviction. . .

I can't find the video on either Youtube or on the O'Reilly factor homepage, but I remember watching it. If anyone knows where the video can be found on the web feel free to let me know.
Some more details about Bill O'Reilly's shameful conduct can be found here.
Does this mean that Bill O'Reilly can't make fun of socially conscious film stars anymore?

Get Your Own Valor

Apparently, under the Stolen Valor Act (18 U.S.C. Section 704) signed into law by President Bush last December, you can no longer dress up like a soldier with medals. Gotta feel bad for this guy, who became the

"first person in the nation to be prosecuted under the new law, which broadens the provisions of a federal law that only covered the Medal of Honor."

Time will tell if the government will pursue charges retroactively against valor thief George C. Scott, above, for his depiction of medal heavy General Patton in 1970.

First Book Review

Killing Hope—William Blum

Here is my first book review, or maybe book recap. I figure a review will probably be able to go into a lot more detail than I do, but I’d still like to write something to help me process the material. If it inspires someone else to give it a read (or not give it a read), all the better. Here’s what a couple of people had to say about Killing Hope, by William Blum:

"Far and away the best book on the topic."
Noam Chomsky

"I enjoyed it immensely."
Gore Vidal

(Note—Gore Vidal is the utterer of one of my all time favorite quotes. . . “I never miss an opportunity to have sex or appear on television.”
“I enjoyed it immensely” seems pretty lame by comparison).

I finished this book a couple of days ago and found it, as I knew I would, appalling and depressing. The book, whose subtitle is “U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II,” consists of 392 pages of summaries of 55 such interventions. Mr. Blum acts as a kind of Ghost of Christmas Past, taking us by the hand as we visit all of the invasions, bombings, assassination attempts, and torture that are tax dollars have helped to fund.

The basic thesis of the book was this: Following WWII, the power brokers of the American government, presidents, CIA chiefs, DOD Secretaries, etc. were so infatuated with the idea of defeating the “international communist conspiracy,” that they undermined any government that even carried the whiff of progressive change. Possible infractions included: neutrality in foreign affairs, agrarian reform, income redistribution, and nationalization of industries. Even moderate regimes with outstanding human rights records and proven commitments to democracy were undermined and systematically subverted if any sign of independence or economic and political self-determination were manifested. The end result was that our tax money usually supported a right wing alternative that, no matter how undemocratic or brutal, deferred to the economic judgment of the United States and was therefore acceptable. This policy led to some of the most brutally repressive dictators and regimes the world has ever seen, all supported by the U.S.

My previous experience with this kind of material had come mostly from reading The Nation or the works of Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn. Occasionally, these kind of things hit mainstream media for discussion. When Afghanistan and Iraq were targeted for liberation, it was noted every once in a great while that the U.S. had actively supported the Afghani Moujahedeen (“holy warriors”) throughout the 80’s in their battle against the Soviets. Or that the U.S. had given the same kind of support to Iraq itself (and by extension Saddam Hussein) in its war with Iran from 1980-1988, giving Michael Moore great images like the one above (of Rumsfeld and Hussein) to use for his movies:

So every once in a while you hear about things like this, but this was the first time I’ve ever read anything so comprehensive on the subject. I read it as an overview and introduction, but it should probably be used as more of a reference. The book is extremely dense with meticulous citations for each chapter. There are so many CIA plots, coup attempts, heinous warlords, and arms deals that looking back at a random chapter I say to myself “Wait, what kind of sordid things happened in Angola again? Or, “When was the coup attempt in the Seychelles?”

Here is a list of the chapters if you’re interested.

As a funny side note to this book, I heard an apocryphal story that Mr. Blum, a former CIA station chief, fought an extensive legal battle with the CIA for the rights to publish the book. He was able to publish the book but the proceeds would go to the CIA. At this point Mr. Blum requested that people check it out at their local library.

One more reason to support your local library. . .

Why Silkwood is a better movie than Junebug.

I just finished watching Silkwood, a Mike Nichols film from 1973 about whistle blower Karen Silkwood, played by Meryl Streep. The movie is about three roommates in Oklahoma who all work at a plant that produces uranium rods to be used in power plants. When anyone at the plant comes into contact with the uranium alarms go off and the contaminated or “cooked” person is taken to the showers, stripped down and scrubbed by a team of workers in hazmat suits.

Karen becomes involved in the union and eventually starts digging into company malfeasance that starts making her some enemies around the plant. The bosses don’t like it because it makes the company look like the heartless cancer machine that it is, and her coworkers don’t like it because this heartless cancer machine, as heartless and cancer producing as it is, puts food on the table.

It’s at this point that the champions of the cold, unforgiving laws of free market enterprise would come in and say:

“So, they don’t like cancer, get another job. There are plenty of people out there who would love to have great job security and die at 45 while clutching your hairy, two headed child.”

But it appears that this was pretty much the only game in town. The company moves out or shuts down and you have an entire town that is now impoverished and unemployed (think Roger and Me).

Kind of a false choice between those two options.

Not to mention that moving costs money, and you’re not really guaranteed a great job if you do move somewhere else. The only thing that you have any kind of training in gives you cancer, so you kind of want to get out of that field.

Eventually we’ll live in a world where the remaining multi-multi-super-ultra nationals need to choose between two parts of the world.

In the first part of the world there will be laws protecting workers safety (no more cancer cover-ups), assuring some kind of livable wage (so that people don’t work full time and live in poverty), and a reasonable tax system (so that people have things like education and health care). Of course, higher wages, extra security regulations, and (gasp) taxes on the people who make money in this system will raise operating costs, pushing companies to. . . .

The second part of the world.

In this part of the world wages will be determined by, and only by, the market. As it turns out, the market wage for a man or woman who’s dying of hunger is pennies per hour (dying slowly is preferable than dying that day right? The survival instinct in pretty strong in humans). Safety regulations will also be relaxed, as everyone knows that higher operating costs spell trouble for the bottom line. Every day people will die in mining accidents or from faulty machinery. (Crafty economists will argue that this is a plus. Every time someone dies, a job is opened up for another worker, thereby reducing unemployment). After all, they knew the risks when they took the job, now they’re going to complain that they’re dying and getting cancer? Get real.

In the first part of the world, unemployment will begin to soar (it already is in places like France). Businesses will flee and the free-marketeers will say “your unemployment is so high. Why do you have so much red tape and regulations and taxes?”

Good people that are understandably scared about losing their jobs and not being able to feed their families will heed this warning (go Sarkozy!) and vote in someone who, if they are lucky, will finally get rid of that pesky health care they’ve all had for so long so taxes can go down and those corporations will finally (fingers crossed) come back. All the workers have got to do to convince them to come back is one thing. . .prove they can work for less than pennies a day.

Sounds like a challenge to me.

Ok. So I kind of got off topic. Or at least the title of my post. But I think it kind of proves my point about Silkwood vs. Junebug. In Silkwood, the viewer is presented with a very thought provoking illustration of the stark choices often facing the American workforce. It’s full of real characters who spend time being both a product of their environment (banjo playing, huge confederate flag behind the bed, swearing, pot smoking) and being thoughtful, intelligent, and warm-hearted human beings. This is in direction opposition to. . .

Junebug--

In Junebug, a country boy who has reinvented himself in the city returns to his small Southern hometown with his urbane and sophisticated wife to meet his family. The family turns out to be a bunch of stupid and hostile morons who are incapable of understanding the world from which the two city dwellers come. They express this misunderstanding by being openly hostile to their guests, Southern hospitality being the only Southern stereotype that isn't strictly adhered to.

The beautiful wife has a capacity for forgiveness and understanding that is almost Christ-like. Or perhaps she’s more like Mary Poppins with a group of maladjusted children. She explains “city” concepts like art and beauty to them and the daughter (pregnant and in her twenties. . .those rural Southern folk haven’t even heard of family planning yet) begins aping her every word to try to impress her. She can’t believe that such an interesting and beautiful woman had arrived, seemingly by magic, to shed just a little bit of sunshine on her dull and unbearable life. Ooohhs and aaahhhss ensue as the self-effacing sister tries diligently to ingratiate herself into the good graces of her cultured guest.

Grant Wood would be rolling in his fucking grave if he saw this film. Whereas while watching Silkwood I was asking all sorts of great questions about the future of rural industrial America and thought like I was getting an honest portrait of a working class town, in Junebug I just kept asking myself “Is this how writer Angus MacLachlan views the people of North Carolina?” It was probably one of the more reductive and condescending films I’ve seen in a long time.

The one bright spot was Amy Adams, who played the awestruck and childlike sister and was rightly nominated for an Oscar for her performance. I can’t wait to see her in the future, providing of course that it’s not the same kind of stereotype heavy fare she carried this time.

Until then, there’s still a bunch of Mike Nichols that I haven’t seen yet. . .

Republicans for Obama?

So, not only does Obama's "I'm a smart, cool, intelligent and idealistic bridge builder" message appeal to liberals and moderates, but apparently it also appeals to a constituency that's been historically hard for Democrats to capture: hard-line right wing Republicans.

When Bush's 2004 chief campaign strategist Mathew Dowd starts sending out media love to Obama, you know that something weird is going on.

I thought this article was interesting for two reasons. One, I am an Obama supporter. Two, I know a couple of Republicans who have expressed interest in supporting Obama. There are a lot of Republicans out there who are, quite understandably, embarrassed by their party's incompetency right now. They're tired of having to defend a horrible domestic fiscal policy, a travesty in Iraq, and charges of corruption and cronyism that now, with the help of Democratic congressional oversight, are coming faster than they can duck and parry.

If you can't beat 'em join 'em. I think it's pretty clear that the Dems are going to win in 2008, so with so many disillusioned voters out there everyone is going to be looking for a new winning horse to tie their chariot to.
Obama/Vilsack ticket takes 55% of the popular vote in '08.

American Blackout

So I just watched American Blackout tonight and I think I can safely say that I have never been so righteously indignant in my life.
The movie is an examination of the systematic disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida in 2000 (under Florida Secretary of State/Florida Chairwoman for the Bush's campaign Katherine Harris) and in Ohio in 2004 (under Ohio Secretary of State/Ohio Chairman to reelect Bush Ken Blackwell).

It then goes on to show how how the congresswoman from GA's 4th district, Cynthia McKinney, opened up investigations into the matter and later lost her seat in 2002 due to Republican cross over voting in the primary.

This, to me, was one of the more interesting aspects of the film. Georgia operates on an open primary system, which means that one need not be registered as a Democrat or Republican to vote in either primary. The Republicans, knowing that they couldn't capture the seat in the general, chose instead to support a more moderate alternative. The alternative was another black woman, Denis Majette, who they thought would be able to win some of the black Democratic vote of DeKalb county. This vote, if supplemented by enough support by Republicans, might be enough to beat McKinney in the primary. It was.

During the primary, 117,000 voters showed up for the Democratic primary while only about 5,000 showed up for the Republican. This was in a district that I think was about 65--35 Democrat. Unbelievable. There's almost a kind of hideous brilliance in that strategy. Political machination at its finest. I think this moment was best captured as McKinney was filmed at her laptop watching results role in and saying "There just really good at what they do. We have to get better."

There's all sorts of other great stuff: the wildly inaccurate list of Florida felons from 2000, the voting machine malapportionment in Ohio in 2000, the courageous stands by Barbara Boxer and the black congressional caucus before Bush was officially declared the winner, etc.

McKinney is the star though, and it's worth watching just to observe her in action. True, she had that run in with the security guard not too long ago (which probably contributed to her defeat in 2006), but she is so warm and intelligent and strong that I just wanted to jump off the couch, grab a sign, and start chanting slogans. Kind of gets me in the mood to do some canvassing. . .

and January is only seven months away.

Here's a kind of fuzzy, and heavily edited tape of McKinney questioning Rumsfeld and the DOD comptroller. Just a taste of her spirit.

Spelling out numbers

I was talking to my friend Eric the other day and I think I have arrived upon a fun and safe way to make people question your sanity: requesting numbers to be spelled out. It is definitely a task that I would find slightly amusing to be asked to perform.

I ask people all the time to spell out words or names, but now I'm going to take it one step farther. A typical conversation would look something like this:

Man-- "Two hundred thousand people live in Des Moines"
Me-- "Can you spell that out for me please?"
Man-- "Oh yes, the s's are silent. It's, d-e-s."
Me-- "No, sir, you misunderstood me. I am familiar with the word Des Moines. Could you please spell out the number."
Man-- "Are you f'ing with me?"
Man-- "Please say them one digit at a time as you would say one letter when spelling out a word. For example, the number 10, as I have learned, is spelled 1-0. It's a problem I have."

Then, not having heard of the problem but not wanting to be insensitive to my bizarre impairment, the man would say "three hundred and fifty six thousand. . .3-5-6-0-0-0."

I'll let you know how that works.

Speaking of Eric, his uncle recently grilled Luarita Doan of the GSA, who seems to have numerous impairments of her own, foremost of which is her inability to honestly and legally head a government agency.

Here is the video of Rep. Bruce Braley's noble quest for transparency and competency in government.



Pretty inspiring stuff huh? You gotta love government oversight controlled by the Dems. An article over at TPM Muckracker has a little bit more on this story and it does a pretty good job of placing it in context along with the DOJ firings.

The Empire and the Bomb

Last night I went to see a speaker named Joseph Gerson who was promoting his new book Empire and the Bomb. According to some random University of Michigan page I was just on, Joseph Gerson is:

"Director of Programs of the American Friends Service Committee in New England---the principal Quaker peace organization in the United States. He is a leading figure in the U.S. peace movement. His previous books include The Sun Never Sets and With Hiroshima Eyes."

Here is what I remember learning:

• Since the end of WWII, every president has explicitly threatened another country thirty times with nuclear war. These countries include Russia, China, Vietnam, and countries of the Middle East. This caused Gerson to make the analogy "if you walk up to someone, point a gun at their hand and ask them for their cash. . .even if you don't fire. . . you've used the gun."
  
• The U.S. has around 15,000 nuclear warheads right now. Approximately half of them are deployed. Each weapon could take out a city the size of Los Angeles.
  
• The matter of disarmament hinges on article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires nuclear countries to disarm. A refusal to do so is a breech of contract and thus urges other countries who had previously ratified the treaty to seek nuclear weapons of their own.

He had some really great anecdotes about former CIA directors that he had spoken to (John Deutch and Stansfield Turner) and about how they were well aware that the implementation of Article VI had never been the intention of the United States.

He also spoke eloquently about the need for disarmament and highlighted the fact that even crazy fucks like Kissinger now believe that our interests cannot be met by maintaining a nuclear arsenal. KISSINGER. Golden child of realpolitik. . .wants us to disarm.

So, we basically have two options:

1. We can continue to develop our own nuclear weapons arsenal. This will fuel the creation of other programs in other countries and eventually lead to millions of people dying.
   
2. We can negotiate and begin to disarm.
   

It seems like a very easy choice.

I also thought it was interesting that someone in the audience brought up suitcase bombs.
The idea that some crazy person with a death wish would somehow be deterred from letting off a bomb in Manhattan because the U.S. has a huge nuclear arsenal is absolutely ridiculous.

That's it from me. Here's a link for the background of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at Wikipedia:

Dylan vs Stewart-- Reluctant Voices

Watched No Direction Home last night and really enjoyed it. Thought it was interesting how reluctant Dylan was to be the "Voice" of his generation or of the movement on the left. It reminded me of another reluctant "Voice" of the youth. . .Jon Stewart.

So I thought I'd throw on some videos to see how these two dealt with being appropriated by the left and how they dealt with the media analysis of their being the "chosen ones."

The first clip is of a Time interview with Dylan and it kind of makes me cringe. It's almost like watching a stubborn, argumentative child cruising for a fight.
Dylan writes these incredibly beautiful and captivating songs, but he has virtually nothing at all to say about the songs or himself. He seems to lack any kind of capacity for self-analysis or cultural criticism and often comes off as kind of an abrasive asshole when asked to articulate his worldview or his musical or political philosophies. Is this a byproduct of being a genius?

There was this great moment in the film where Joan Baez was being interviewed and she recounted a story of how one time she went to some kind of protest or sit in. While there, people would come up to her and ask "Is Bob coming?" And she had to say "No. He never has and he never will." And she laughed as if these people had no idea who Bob Dylan was.

I think that's something that's one of the things that the musical and political worlds kind of have trouble coming to terms with: that the writer of our best "protest" songs ever (as he indisputably was) wasn't really a protester. Which isn't to say that he didn't care about social justice or civil rights and things; it's just that his commitment to his music was far and away more intense than was his commitment to advocating a cause. Which is fine.

And that brings us to Jon Stewart, whose commitment to comedy, he insists, is his number one priority. As he says in the clip "People don't understand that we're not warriors for their cause." But despite these disclaimers, people have difficulty understanding how somebody that "gets them," and completely captures the zeitgeist (as both Stewart and Dylan did) could be unwilling to completely throw themselves into the political arena to rumble.

It's kind of fun to watch how the two handled it.
On the whole:
Stewart--affable, analytical, self-deprecating, thought provoking
Dylan-- crotchety and confrontational. I can't see this man laughing at himself. He is the cool kid in the back of the room making jokes as the other kids, wanting to bask in his coolness, laugh nervously to encourage him. He'll never be the political leader and moral conscience that we all dreamed him to be. . .but man could he write a fucking song.

Ok. I've got to get to Legal Aid soon so I'm going to call it a day. That's my take on the Dylan--Stewart question that wasn't a question until I watched the movie last night.

Eto'o strikes again

My man Eto'o Fils with an incredible goal against Brazil.

Stephen Colbert

This is the Colbert Video from YouTube.