Art Machine
Just another former infatuation junkie

I promised that I would be donating 50% of my profits from The Lost Liberty Blues to the Democratic nominee.

Well, 100% of the profits from TLLB totaled up to about $4.80.

So a $20 donation has just been made to the DNC.

I’ll still be collecting money for donations until November, but the donations will now be made to MoveOn and other organizations pushing for progressive causes.

Also available on the Anvil & Sprocket, a new review of indie social burlesque Ophelia Learns To Swim. Share and enjoy.

A full weekend and a soggy keyboard later, my review for The Bad Movie Police: Galaxy of the Dinosaurs is finally up. Look for more reviews in the near future.

Is it really that much of a shock that George Lucas has decided to stack the deck for Episode III by casting Gary Oldman as a new villain?

Now, all he needs is Christopher Walken as a Sith Lord and Bruce Campbell as a roguish smuggler, and he’ll be guaranteed every single internet geek ticket that can possibly be sold.

Hell. I’d buy multiple tickets for that cast.

Edit: Hell, I’d probably petition to get Bruce Campbell in it.

There’s a petiton out to Draft Bruce Springsteen for a “Concert for Change” that would run concurrently with the opening of the Republican Convention.

Well? What are you waiting for?

As those of us who have grown up in the wake of the War On Drugs ^TM know, drugs can’t solve any of your problems. You might be able to forget them for a while or lose yourself in a drug-induced haze, but it doesn’t make your problems go away. No, drugs can’t solve any of your problems.

In other news, Bush wants Americans and their kids doped to the gills.

President Bush plans to unveil next month a sweeping mental health initiative that recommends screening for every citizen and promotes the use of expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs favored by supporters of the administration.

[...]

The panel found that “despite their prevalence, mental disorders often go undiagnosed” and recommended comprehensive mental health screening for “consumers of all ages,” including preschool children.

“Drugs can’t solve your problems, kids. Now, line up for medication time. Prozac on the left wall, Xanax on the right, and, Billy, come up to the desk for your Cymbalta.”

Is it any wonder that Eli Lilly was a major contributor to the Bush campaign – and just happens to be a major manufacturer of drugs designed to treat mental conditions?

Don’t misunderstand me. I know full well that there are serious disorders that require medication, and I’m willing to accept that a great many people who suffer from these conditions are undiagnosed. What I am dissatisfied with, however, is the rate at which prescriptions are handed out (not to mention marketed) like candy. Not everybody who feels nervous before heading out to a public place suffers from Social Anxiety Disorder. Not everybody who feels down is a candidate for Prozac. And yet it’s become the simplest thing in the world to go ahead and prescribe these medicines on the off chance that they’ll help you feel better – and with patient after patient taking Eli Lilly’s advice and asking their doctor if Prozac is right for them, the growing tide in America is to diagnose yourself before you even set foot into the doctor’s office. Now, when a doctor gets a string of patients asking for Prozac, in this day and age when socialized medicine is dead and deeply buried in favor of corporate and commercial medicine it’s better to just write the scrip and let it go.

Do we really need the government putting its stamp on that kind of world? It’s good for Eli Lilly’s business, but what will it do to us?

My doctor said, “Insomnia is just the symptom of something larger. Find out what’s actually wrong. Listen to your body.”

I just wanted to sleep. I wanted little blue Amytal Sodium capsules, 200-milligram-sized. I wanted red-and-blue Tuinal bullet capsules, lipstick-red Seconals.

My doctor told me to chew valerian root and get more exercise. Eventually I’d fall asleep.

– Fight Club, Chuck Palahniuk

Fight Club

Copped from Thud:

The Bermuda Triangle:

Gotta catch ‘em all.

Fnord.


Which Illuminati are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Ralph Nader announces his running mate. Nader’s still running? Yes, Nader’s still running.

“I’m a member of the Green Party, I’m very proud of being a Green,” Camejo said. “But I am so happy to join with Ralph Nader in the broader coalition he is trying to build to present an alternative for this election that stands on principles of social justice, peace in the world and equality.”

The big thing you hear from liberals around the country is that Nader must be stopped. Must he?

Well, first of all, we have to ask, “Should he be stopped?” And the answer is, “No.” But primarily because Nader should be smart enough to back out on his own without our having to stop him. And the chances are good that he really is smart enough to see that if we don’t want four more years of Bush, then we can’t deal with a spoiler like Nader in the race – but Nader has set his priorities differently. The man knows that he’s a dividing force on the Liberal end of the spectrum, and he has to be smart enough to realize that he isn’t going to pull votes away from George W. Bush – most of Bush’s followers equate Nader with Satan. Nader can’t have his core issues as a priority any more, because anybody with those issues and a little bit of sense could see that four more years of Bush would destroy decades of progress made on those issues – and they wouldn’t want to take that chance.

So, should Ralph be stopped? No – because he should stop himself. Reason and logic should permeate his brain enough that he should realize the advantages to having a Democrat in the White House instead of whatever it is we have now. But it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen. So he must be stopped. But how?

We can start by acknowledging a simple fact: Nader is not the man for the job. I do not speak to Nader’s viability as a candidate. This is not a Dennis Kucinich-esque analysis where one reporter – remarking on the most frequent comment voters had about Kucinich – suggested the he should have his last name legally changed to, “Kucinich-ButHeCan’tWin.” This isn’t a matter of people won’t vote for Ralph or a matter of Ralph’s ability to win over swing states. This is a matter of Ralph Nader being the wrong man for the job, period.

Ralph is running on the grounds that he is an “independent citizen” and is “not for sale.” True, Ralph is not currently an elected official – but he is a long-term consumer advocate who – in the past decade – has taken to his political career as a Liberal spoiler like the proverbial duck to hydrogen dioxide. The idea that Nader would sell himself as a “common man” is laughable in the extreme. As for being “not for sale,” that may well be the case – but the question is when does “not for sale” become “unwilling to listen to anything remotely resembling reason.” Nader would charge that the large chorus of Liberal voices calling on him not to run is asking him to “sell out,” but the fact of the matter is that we care for many of his issues – we just don’t want to see the Liberal vote split at a time when it seems those issues are at their most fragile.

Nader wants us out of Iraq ASAP. I, too, want us out of Iraq ASAP. As do many Liberals. The difference between us is in our definition of “Possible” – the “P” in “ASAP.” Nader sees “Possible” in terms of the instant he can sign off on the order.

I feel – as I know many of my fellow Liberals do – that we should not have gone into Iraq in the way Bush did (although the world is better for Saddam Hussein being out of power), and that we should not have gone in without the support of the rest of the world. But I also feel – as I think most of my fellow Liberals do – that it would be irresponsible, inhumane, and immoral to suddenly pull out of Iraq and leave it completely bereft of any support and aid now that we have so royally screwed things up with everything from Halliburton to Abu Ghraib. In other words, “Possible” means that we have to get international support into Iraq first and then – with a diminished force thanks to international support – help to stabilize conditions at the very least while making up for the mistakes we have made.

And in terms of Nader’s adequacy for the job – the man has no international experience, little national experience – in truth, little more experience than being a bullhorn-wielder – and is severely lacking in diplomatic skills. So lacking, in fact, that the only other high-profile politician I can think of who currently puts up as un-diplomatic a front as Nader is none other than George W. Bush, himself. His unyielding, unrelenting, dogged attacks on mainstream Liberals show an unwillingness to debate, reason, and compromise – a dangerous trait to put in the White House as we have seen.

And, finally, when Ralph comes around to his “common man” approach that we talked about earlier, who is his target audience? The youth. He is a candidate “for the youth.” He’s very good at making Colelge appearances, appealing to the young, and making the early voting-age audience feel that he’s their candidate.

To his supporters in that age range (which happens to still be my age range), let me just say this: You’ve been duped. Hornswaggled, that is. Bamboozled. And if you keep this up, you’re liable to get yerself Bushwacked.

Nader’s catering to the younger voters is nothing more than evidence of the slick politician Nader really is. I know as a young voter that we all wish we could find somebody who shared our views and wasn’t afraid to say so – Hell, every voter wants to find such a candidate. It’s the fantasy that drives Hollywood flicks like Bulworth and Head of State. But Nader’s “youth appeal” is a cold, calculated scam. He hits the same issues Kerry does, but he adopts a rebellious tone and snaps it up on college campuses. Take a clue – this is no common man representing the youth and rebellion of the college crowd who’s going to take your views to the White House. This is a seventy-year-old skeevy politican who wants to glom your vote in his quest to become a political kingmaker.

And while we’re on the issue of Nader’s political maneuverings, let’s talk about the Big Lie. This is the Lie that Nader has built his recent political career around. This is the Lie that he sold during the 2000 election, it’s the Lie he’s selling again in 2004, and it’s the Lie that George W. Bush doesn’t do anything to debunk, because he knows that the Lie benefits him just as much as it does Nader. This is the Big Lie – the Lie that there is no difference between the Republican and Democratic parties.

Bullshit.

And yet, Nader sells the Lie like his last name was originally Popeil. It doesn’t matter that on the economy, the ecology, defense of the nation, the growing terrorist threat – it doesn’t matter that on every single one of these issues Bush was different from Gore and he is vastly different from Kerry. Nader pushes the Lie for his own political advantage, denying fact and reason and preying off of the fact that – as experienced, knowledgable politicians who know how to get things done – Gore and Kerry have learned to be diplomatic when they speak on these issues. And is somebody who’s willing to push such a bald-faced, out-and-out Lie for his own personal gain somebody we really want in office?

It’s not just that Nader can’t get elected, it’s that he’s the wrong man for the job, period.

So, now that we’ve got that out of the way, we can address a new issue. Let’s stop talking about Nader as a serious candidate.

I’m not suggesting that we should make fun of Ralph. I’m not suggesting that we should treat his candidacy as a joke – it’s not. It could have very serious consequences for all of us.

I am saying that – as a supporter of the Green platform – I am disgusted that there is still a part of the Green Party that wants to endorse Nader for the election, and that this part of the Green Party is strong enough to force a debate on the issue.

Nader is not only wrong for the office of President, he’s wrong for the Green Party. The last election Nader helped to get the Green Party relegated to the position of late-night joke fodder. His campaign was (and is) totally self-serving and consists of little focus on the true issues, and mostly the Lie.

Nader is not good for anybody. He may be better than Bush, but that’s damning with faint praise. We cannot reasonably say that Nader is the right man for the job.

When it comes to the “right man for the job,” however, there is a man to whom we can apply that term.

I’m growing a little bit tired of this administration’s strategy, which seems to consist almost entirely of, “We weren’t wrong, you just misunderstood us – so nyah.”

First, as the 9/11 commission reports that they can find no substantive links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, Bush continues to cling tenaciously to his previous statements.

“The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda,” Mr. Bush told reporters after a cabinet meeting today.

But the 9/11 commission staff’s lengthy chronology of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, said that although there was evidence of repeated contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 1990’s, “they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.”

But Bush now claims that he never stated that Iraq actually helped Al Qaeda – just that they were connected.

Riiight. And the prisoners at Abu Ghraib weren’t tortured, they were “pumped for information.”

Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein weren’t even a good Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel – they never made beautiful music together, not even professionally. Osama Bin Laden blamed Saddam Hussein for the downfall of Islamic tradition, accusing Hussein of being too westernized and blasting him for running a secular government. Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein routinely spoke of his dislike for characters like Bin Laden, whom he blamed for keeping the Middle East in a perpetual Dark Age.

Both were bad men in their own ways. But there was never any love lost between them. To pretend that there was is wrong and manipulative and draws attention away from the real issues. While you sing another chorus of “Have You Forgotten?” the world shakes its head and wonders if America is really stupid enough to believe that Saddam Hussein supplied the (mostly Saudi) terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center. If there truly was a mistake made in terms of intelligence, then it’s best to just admit it (with the proper spin, of course) and move on.

And now there’s the whole issue of when torture isn’t really torture and when it’s okay to violate the Geneva Conventions. Silly little wooly-headed Liberal that I am, I thought the answer to both questions was “never.” I thought torture was the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure – but, apparently, it’s not torture if it’s done to collect information about a potential threat or protect “the people.”

This effectively means that ninety-eight percent of the torture performed in the world isn’t really torture, because almost everybody who uses torture claims that they use it as a means of intelligence gathering or as a method of protecting “the people.”

And we always have to follow the Geneva Convention because we want others to follow it. When we release embarassing videos of war prisoners, degrade and torture detainees, and deny the Red Cross access to a prisoner, we essentially open the door to that kind of behavior from our opposition in any conflict. We have to play by the rules if we expect others to do the same.

Just like Mac says over atThe Pesky Apostrophe (remember when it was thegofish?) – the rule of thumb should be to consider how this country would react if another country did this to us.

It’s not that hard. It’s a little thing called “The Golden Rule.”

And you would think that if Bush really were “God’s President,” he would be able to get that concept, at least.

I hope you haven’t missed The Guardian today, where Terry Jones lays out the current administration’s definition of torture – and what it means for the future of parenting.

What this means in understandable English is that if a parent, in his anxiety to know where his son goes after choir practice, does something that will cause severe pain to his son, it is only “torture” if the causing of that severe pain is his objective. If his objective is something else – such as finding out where his son goes after choir practice – then it is not torture.

...

In fact, the report went further. It said, if a parent “has a good-faith belief [that] his actions will not result in prolonged mental harm, he lacks the mental state necessary for his actions to constitute torture”. So all you’ve got to do to avoid accusations of child abuse is to say that you didn’t think it would cause any lasting harm to the child. Easy peasy!

I currently have a lot of my son’s friends locked up in the garage, and I’m applying electrical charges to their genitals and sexually humiliating them in order to get them to tell me where my son goes after choir practice.

Classic.