The Motley Spew

The Collectism diet

2008-06-24T20:32:00.002-04:00

It's true: Asian tourists do in fact travel en masse, and it is in fact hilarious. But it is also admirable — a beautiful portrayal of their communitarian (versus individualistic) culture.

You may have seen one or more of these such tourists wearing a SARS mask. They don't have SARS, dollars to dimes, but they are sick, and wear masks to prevent spreading whatever they may have their companions. We, in the United States, wear masks not when we're sick, but when we don't want to be. The social contract does not extend far beyond the self. This isn't a value judgement; it's simply how it is and how it has always been.

Recently, the Japanese government, dissatisfied with the girth of its country's citizens, took a drastic — or drastic by our standards — step.

Story: Japan, Seeking Trim Waists, Measures Millions, 6/13 New York Times

Under a national law that came into effect two months ago, companies and local governments must now measure the waistlines of Japanese people between the ages of 40 and 74 as part of their annual checkups. That represents more than 56 million waistlines, or about 44 percent of the entire population. My note: Japan is realllllllllly old.
Those exceeding government limits — 33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women, which are identical to thresholds established in 2005 for Japan by the Internationa,l Diabetes Federation as an easy guideline for identifying health risks — and having a weight-related ailment will be given dieting guidance if after three months they do not lose weight. If necessary, those people will be steered toward further re-education after six more months.
To reach its goals of shrinking the overweight population by 10 percent over the next four years and 25 percent over the next seven years, the government will impose financial penalties on companies and local governments (My emphasis) that fail to meet specific targets.

It would be obvious to copycat Japan's anti-obesity initiative by fashioning one of our own. But this would be an obvious and catastrophic failure. Mandates don't change the culture, and mandating that overweight citizens must slim down would be like clipping the top of a weed. The country's agri-food sectors would still produce 3800kcal/citizen/day; the government would still be subsidizing corn syrup and soybean oil more heavily than celery; our youth would still spend in excess of 4 hours a day transfixed upon a screen.

And, perhaps most considerably of all, this would exceed the previously heeded boundaries of government. We would feel violated, insulted, infringed upon. The nanny state, which has already stolen our trans fats, granted validity to thousands of petty lawsuits and forcibly strapped a seatbelt across our chests, would demand we lose weight. The nerve. For a citizenry that balks at toll roads and licensing procedures on firearms, a national weight loss requirement would venture far too far into what we consider personal and private.

Yet the mandate approach should not be discarded. There's freedom, and there's irresponsibility: irresponsibility that negatively impacts society at-large; irresponsiblity that refuses to wear a SARS mask; irresponsibility that will not — despite a energy and environmental crossroads the likes of which we have never seen — let off the accel when the country needs it most.

In 1974, the National Maximum Speed Law capped speed limits at 55 mph. In 1987, the cap was raised to 65. In 1995 — when gas cost $1.16 a gallon — the cap was done away with. Today, as drivers fill up for $4+/gal., many continue to push the spedometer further and further to the right. The government, and the power invested therein, would be apt to push back. There will be opposition and cries of Big Brother, but, ultimately, the social contract will be bolstered, as will be the topic at hand.

Even if we can't tighten our waistlines, we can do this. We can do this.

Hello Muddah, Hello Fuddah...what I've been up to

2007-10-26T14:57:00.000-04:00

In lieu of doing something productive (the concept of which is horrifying), I'm going to copy/paste my clips from this year's Beacon into my blog. Yay. Go Sox!

-

10/4 Beyond Roe: progress on abortion

Of the many political issues obfuscated by language, the lexicon of the abortion debate is the most obfuscating of all. "If thought corrupts language," George Orwell wrote, "language can also corrupt thought." This is where the abortion issue has arrived.

The abortion factions have named themselves in the affirmative: "pro-life" and "pro-choice." The use of "anti" is avoided, lest people think proponents are negative or spiteful, or that they have no new ideas of their own. Yet this misuse of language has borne a gridlocked debate that is "anti" in every way: anti-progress, anti-collaboration and anti-common sense.

The absolution of pro-lifers and pro-choicers has turned discussion of abortion into a shouting match that accomplishes nothing and constantly moves in place. An obvious, common goal has been ignored: the reduction of the number of legal abortions (over 40 million of which have been carried out since 1973) not through overturning Roe v. Wade, but by creating a social environment in which women will freely choose to have their children.

This life-versus-choice dichotomy is a major litmus test for the two major political parties, which reject those who fall on the wrong side of the choice/life divide. As a result, the decision-making of politicians has been sabotaged, as they now focus on appeasing abortion-crazed constituents and lobbyists instead of viewing each piece of legislation independently.

In 2004, "Laci and Conner's Law" established the harm of an unborn child as a separate crime from assaulting a pregnant mother. Thirty-eight senators, including presidential candidates Joe Biden, Hilary Clinton, John Edwards and Chris Dodd voted against it.

The senators, displaying the infallible judgment for which they were elected, decided to deny the obvious: an unborn fetus is alive, and ergo, life. And the abortion lobby was pleased.

It is puzzling that bleeding heart liberals come down on this side of the issue. If abortion is not the death of a fetus, what is it?

In 2005, the newly pro-life Mitt Romney, then governor of Massachusetts, vetoed a bill that would have made emergency contraceptive pills more accessible to women, including rape victims staying in hospitals. Romney, in explaining the veto, said he is a "pro-life governor." Mitt must have been confounded-the bill was about contraceptives.

When Republicans-the "pro-life" base-discuss guns, the right to bear arms is the foremost topic, and concern for "life" is absent. In 1998, Republican senators Sam Brownback and Fred Thompson voted against an amendment to a bill that would have required manufacturers to affix trigger locks on handguns. Yet for their "pro-life" voting records they are praised.

According to the Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics, gunfire killed 90,000 American children and teens from 1979-2001. Conservatives don't call this killing of innocents "genocide."

It is not possible for abortion to simply-poof-disappear. Besides, it isn't as if conservatives are on the cusp of overthrowing Roe. Even with President Bush's appointments of historically right-wing judges John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, years of precedent-setting decisions bolster the case and act to keep it in place.

A decision as monumental as Roe is not easily reversed, and with time running out on Bush's control of the Presidency, it should stand for a long time yet.

Prohibition made it clear that an absolute ban on any privelege does not work in America. If abortion were outlawed, a crime apparatus similar to that seen during Prohibition would take form, merely redirecting panicked mothers-not-to-be from Planned Parenthood to back-alley abortionists. The World Health Organization estimates that 20 million of the 46 million annual worldwide abortions are performed illegally under unsafe conditions.

In order to end abortion, attention must be paid to those who have them. The Guttmacher Institute found that 52 percent of U.S. women who receive abortions are under 25, and 64 percent have never been married. Hispanic women are twice as likely to have an abortion as white women, while black women are more than 3 times as likely.

Securing the safety of urban areas, properly funding public schools, toughening penalties against deadbeat, alimony-skipping dads and guaranteeing health care coverage for children-which Bush vetoed Wednesday-would better a child's world and could influence parents in deciding against abortion.

If only the two sides could begin come together on that, perhaps the abortion debate would become anti-unsolved.

B&N L-ooooooooosers

2007-09-16T14:58:00.000-04:00

My piece in Thursday's The Berkeley Beacon:

Textbooks-a necessity that, in essence, are ink-covered paper sandwiched between plastic-coated card stock-cause students considerable grief.

Emerson's on-campus bookstore provides students the convenience of buying their class texbooks locally, but at a price.

In May 2006, Barnes & Noble College Booksellers agreed to a ten-year contract with Emerson on the operation of the school's bookstore.

The precedent set by the commercialization of Emerson property will prove damaging to the college's reputation and to the character of its neighborhood.

In an e-mail interview with The Beacon, Andrew Mahoney, director of business services for Emerson College, wrote that the store "strengthens Emerson's commitment to the city and surrounding community. It was determined Barnes & Noble was the only company that could deliver the type of store and level of service that the College was interested in providing its students."

Evidently, this is community development a la Emerson College-a corporate bookstore in the middle of campus.

Neighborhood redevelopment has scarcely meant better profit streams for big business.

It's fair to ask whether the new Barnes & Noble-run bookstore is the beginning of a series of commercial establishments on Emerson's expanding campus.

What else is to come? A McDonald's in the Paramount Center? A Store 24 in the Colonial Building?

The identity of Boston's neighborhoods is among the city's greatest assets, and disregard for that identity will only bring headaches and frustration.

For a college whose student body purports to be free-spirited and independent, Emerson's association with Barnes & Noble is incongruent at best.

Notice that the Emerson-frequented eatery on Tremont Street is not Subway, but New York Pizza.

Students don't look to hang out at the cafe in Borders on Boylston Street-they prefer the ambiance of the independent Trident Booksellers & Cafe on Newbury Street.

If money has to be spent on books, it should not be spent at a faceless corporation.

It is downright idiotic to buy a used book for $70 from Barnes & Noble when the student who sold the book to Barnes & Noble months before recieved far less for it.

There are a few notable alternatives to buying books at a corporation-controlled bookstore.

Google Product Search yields the best results, returning a list of copies of a book found at online stores.

Bargains on used or sale-priced books can be found on the Internet, and even after shipping, these prices regularly beat Barnes & Noble's.

Facebook.com supplies other options, like the user-run Emerson College Book Trade Group, which provides a forum for direct book exchange between students with no commercial intermediary to enact a drastic markup.

Also, the good karma of fostering a business relationship with an independent bookstore can pay dividends.

Owners will give discounts to regular customers.

A discount at Barnes & Noble? Don't even ask.

In this country, where many consider their right to vote meaningless, it must be noted-we vote every day.

In a capitalist system, the dollar is the vote, and a dollar spent at a large, personality-lacking store is a vote against what makes Boston a world-class city-its charming variety and old-world appeal.

At the least, picking up one's booklist at Barnes & Noble will not deter the advancing tide of the commercialization and standardization of Boston's personality.

Let Boston not fall to the fate of our suburbs, where retail chains bump elbows to score plots in strip malls or shopping centers, and where the "local" place to eat is T.G.I. Friday's or Applebee's.

The convenience of the school bookstore is tempting, but the consequences of its invasion of this campus are undeniable.

Vote for Boston: get your books elsewhere.

Goodbye for now

2007-08-27T16:03:00.000-04:00

I know that I just got the blog up and running again, but for the time being, the Motley Spew will go into hibernation while I move my efforts over to the Berkeley Beacon Opinion Blog. I'm co-editor of the Beacon's opinion section this year, and am responsible for contributing to their blog. So please, follow me. Come along for the ride:

http://www.beaconopinion.blogspot.com/

Fred Thompson says get away from me i dont like fried snickers bars

2007-08-18T17:40:00.001-04:00

Check this-the-hell-out: AP.

"Don't confuse the lawyer with the client." I'm sorry, but what? Virtuous, angelic Fred Thompson lobbies on behalf of a out-of-luck abortion-rights group. Does Mister Thompson consider his efforts to be on par with public defenders and pro bono publico attorneys? Surely no other lobbyist would have done the job in Thompson's stead. Washington is going through a lobbyist shortage, after all.

How about this, Fred Thompson: don't confuse the prostitute with the drunk guy nailing her in the backseat of his Cadillac.

"It has nothing to do with one's political views," Thompson said of his work for the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, "Lawyering is a profession and it's also a business."

So your conviction stop when you punch the time clock? I call shenanigans.

Also, what's up with the guy being so hesitant to rub elbows with potential supporters at the Iowa State Fair? He's six months (at least) behind the rest of the Republican field at this point. Move it, Fred! Time is running short.

I just can't take the guy seriously.

2007-08-15T20:52:00.000-04:00

A couple weeks ago, upon my triumphant (?) return home from the Sunshine State, my Dad gave me a friendly suggestion for summer reading material: Culture Warrior, by the Bill O'Reilly. You know, the one with Mr. Bill standing up against a pristinely lighted Amercian flag in front of a scene of winter twilight while donning a stunning, highly reflective cerulean blue windbreaker?

I think the point Mr. O'Reilly is trying to make with the book is that winter is cold, and it is always prudent to bring along a couple extra layers.

Now, my dad is a conservative, and he's entitled to that. Conservatism has contributed immeasurably to the growth of these United States, and although I myself am probably more left than right, I have no problem with my Dad reading a righty book. Whatever. However, at this very moment, conservatism pisses me off, partly because its front men -- the Bush Administration and William Kristol -- are idiot assholes. Idiot. Assholes.

I told my dad I would be black-listed at Emerson for reading an O'Reilly book. He said it would be good to have a counterpoint for all the liberal indoctrination I've been subjected to: university, "the liberal media," and the stuffy, August New England air (I made that one up). I watch the Red Sox pretty much every day. Professional sports. That's pretty right-wing, isn't it?

I couldn't take this book seriously. I dismissed it before I even opened the cover (although I did eye-roll my way through the Introduction and the first chapter).

*This is where a transition would go if I cared enough tonight to write one.*

So anyways, Bill is always finding something to whine about, which is part of my problem with him. The man has a comically strong opinion about everything. It wears on you. Bill is always looking to blame something on someone because of some liberal or secular or elitist doohickey conspiracy. It hurts your head. Nothing can just be--it has to be someone's fault.

Enter Nas. On September 6, Virginia Tech will hold a memorial concert to commemorate the lives of the victims of the April campus shootings. Rap Artist Nas, John Mayer and Dave Matthews Band will perform at the event alongside local and campus artists.

O'Reilly, apparently unable to stomach the inclusion of Nas, posted the following in his blog:

If you would like to express your outrage at the inclusion of a violent "gangsta" rapper in a memorial concert at Virginia Tech this September, feel free to contact the university's president:

Dr. Charles W. Steger
President, Virginia Tech

Office of the President
210 Burruss Hall
Blacksburg, VA 24061

president@vt.edu
(540) 231-6231

Because this is what Virginia Tech needs. A bunch of Bill O'Reilly fans calling up and expressing their "outrage" over hip-hop. These are college kids, Bill, not the American Legion. This music is very much the norm.

I agree with you in this respect, Bill: a lot of hip-hop is detestable. But pick your spots! 32 people died. I assure you, after all the VTech community has been through, there will be no "outrage" over Nas performing at a concert.

I'll prob post again (like, something substantive) later today

2007-08-15T11:59:00.000-04:00

I really hate Mitt Romney. Did you know his first name is Willard? It is. I hate him so much. Check out the tshirt I made (clickity click). Lols.

French President comes to Maine, does not Throw Wine in Bush's Face

2007-08-12T13:43:00.000-04:00

Newly elected French President Nicolas Sarkozy dined with President Bush yesterday at the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine. The visit was billed as a casual affair and was expected to serve as an extended introduction/meet and greet for the two world leaders. Lobster, atlantic salmon and steamers were absent from the lunchtime menu, as seasonal seafood fare was passed over in favor of good ole' cookout-style Americana:

The visiting French president got American picnic fare of hot dogs, hamburgers, baked beans and fresh dessert.

"If he feels like it, he can have him a piece of blueberry pie," Bush declared.

After indulging the media by fielding questions -- and then prodding the talkative Sarkozy to do the same -- Bush wrapped up their brief appearance on his own terms.

"Thank you," he said. "We've got to go eat a hamburger."

--The Plain Dealer, 8/12 (story)

Get your fill of cheap ground beef and refined carbs, Nicolas. They don't do cuisine like this in la France! With nothing at stake in the meeting, the less-than-elegant spread makes sense. If your country doesn't have a stake in the Iraq War, the Bushies aren't breaking out the shellfish.

Both Bush and Sarkozy stressed that their meeting was to involve eating and eating only. Not policy, not pressing world affairs. Eating. And for all involved, this is just as well. Sarkozy is a conservative (by French standards), but he has no interest (or means) of throwing shit (that has not been sticking, mind you) at the wall with Bush in Iraq. Realizing this, Bush labeled their get together as a "casual" meeting, meaning: "I'm not going to try to get anything done because I can't get anything done," or "We've got to go eat a hamburger."

Hey, I don't like drinking directly out of the can. Cold Sores. Can I borrow an IOWA STRAWPOLL?

2007-08-11T13:36:00.000-04:00

Mitt Romney is poised to run away with today's Iowa Strawpoll - an early and informal checkpoint for Republican Presidential candidates. The results of today's strawpoll (I don't care to wait for the returns as the outcome is not in doubt) should be carefully interpreted, given the logistics of the voting event. There is only one polling station - Ames, in the center of the 300x200 mile state - in all of Iowa, and in order to cast a ballot, voters must pony up $35 to pay for a fundraising dinner (to benefit the GOP of Iowa). Romney's campaign is even going so far as to pay voters' poll fee in exchange for a vote.

Rudy Giuliani and John McCain's campaigns both bailed out of strawpoll contention (and for the moment, Iowa as a whole) as it became clear that Mitt Romney (and his endless bundles of personal cash) would be the clear-cut victor in today's nonbinding contest. A consultant on Fred Thompson's campaign cited fear of a poor showing in Ames as a contributing factor for Thompson not yet officially declaring his candidacy.

This may be Romney's biggest victory today: forcing the other top tier candidates to clear out of Iowa while his campaign digs in. Also significant is the media exposure Romney will experience in the days after the vote. Mitt has made it clear: his (personal) money is his campaign's money, and he's not hesitant to spend either.

Ron Paul (to the surprise of everyone who doesn't post in politics-related internet forums) is also expected to have a strong showing.

EDIT:

"The straw poll was held on the campus of Iowa State University and is viewed as a test of organizational strength in Iowa. In almost every case, the candidates paid the $35 per person fee charged to vote in the straw poll. It's a major fundraiser for the state Republican Party." --CNN

I implied that Romney's paying voters for their support is extrordinary. In fact, it is not.

Trojan in a child-proof bottle

2007-08-09T18:24:00.000-04:00

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/325351_planb27.html

Two weeks ago (who said the Internet is the way to stay current?), a Washington State law mandated all pharmacies be able to prescribe the Plan B contraceptive to customers went into effect. A pharmacy owner and two other pharmacists sued the state, saying the law put them in a comprimised position, forcing them to "choos[e] between their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs." According to state legislators (who, of course, do not serve on the federal court reviewing the case) nothing is expected to come from the lawsuit.

In my opinion (prepare ye for a completely out of place football analogy), contraceptives equate to interceptions, not punts. In other words, the morning-after pill acts more like a condom than an abortion, not killing an embryo, but preventing it from coming to exist. However, the pro-abortion rights/anti-abortion rights battle is not what interests me with this story.

So these pharmacists say that Plan B is contrary to "deeply held religious and moral beliefs"? Ok. For the moment, let's accept that Plan B is morally objectionable.

What about selling Ambien to an 80-year-old woman whose only sources of income are social security and the 3% interest on the $46.34 in her checking account? Is that not immoral? What about suggesting a patron cut pills in half because they can't afford the proper dosage? Selling the Glaxo Smith Cline pill for $120 when a generic brand is sitting there on the shelf for $50 to get a fatter cut on your commission? That's not immoral?

Can I sue my government for the FDA turning a blind eye to inflated drug prices while people all around the world can buy the same drugs for a fraction of the cost?

Yet when we put a condom in a pill, everyone freaks the heck out.

BLOG post #1

2007-08-08T18:15:00.000-04:00

Henceforth, this blog will be formatted like a blog, not a disjointed, intermittent hodge-podge of random writings. I've decided that (after beginning and abandoning four or five potential next entries) this format of more frequent, informal updates will hold my attention (and your attention) more readily.

Last night's AFL-CIO Democratic debate and Sunday's "This Week with George Stephanopolis" Republican debate had me wondering. What if instead of separating debates by party lines, we had debates split up by the alphabet?

The A-H Debate: Democrats Joe Biden, Hilary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, John Edwards and Mike Gravel. Republicans Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter.

The K-Z Debate: Republicans John McCain, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, Fred Thompson, Tommy Thompson and Ron Paul. Democrats Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson.

How cool would that be? I vote very cool. This way, when Democrats hate on Republicans (or vice versa), they'd be there. Candidates would be forced to defend what they say, and bolster claims with logic or fact-based argument, not by making partisan snipes across the aisle. Such a debate would have to be moderated quite closely to keep things from getting too unruly, but the overall result would be worth the trouble: a wider range of expressed opinions within each debate and a more revealing look at candidates and their policy views.

However, it is unlikely something like this would ever happen, as candidates have to agree to the format of debates. Kucinich would debate in a Rotary Club in Kansas at 3am, but as far as the top-tier candidates - Clinton, Giuliani, Obama, Romney - go, I doubt they would subject themselves to something so unorthodox and potentially damaging.

It would be cool though.

GOP oh my me! Debate log and commentary.

2007-06-05T21:20:00.000-04:00

Live log/commentary, 6/05 Republican Debate

This is mostly a response-by-response synopsis of tonight’s Republican debate. I did not do this for the Democratic debate because I didn’t feel like it. But trust me, their answers were just as flawed. The quotations I selected, of course, were what I myself found interesting, eloquent, or contradictory. Frankly, much of the time, I was out to poke holes in the responses of the respective candidates. I typed “applause” or “cheers” towards the beginning of the log, but I got lazy and stopped after a little while.

By the way—and I do not hide this at all—Mitt Romney sucks balls. I thought he was rather lacking tonight. For the first time in the campaign, he seemed old (he is 60). He looked slick, but was nonsensical and scattered. He tried to answer three questions in every one asked of him, and ended up being all over the map. At times he reminded me of Mike Gravel on the Democratic side. He needs to be rehearsed more. Too much of the true Mitt came through for his own good.

Giuliani spent the night slamming Democrats, not challenging the other Republican candidates. Will this extend his lead? I don’t know. It was a very odd tactical shift, in my eyes. Slamming President Bush has worked for the dudes (and gal) on the Democratic side, yet Rudy seems to have left an opening tonight for McCain by attacking the other side this early.

CNN’s “approval dial” gimmick is flat out stupid. That works in marketing and focus groups for pilots of TV shows, but not for politics. Ugh.

Mike Huckabee had the answer of the night on a questing about evolution (which Huckabee denied in the last debate). I like him. He seems genuine, and is also an inspirational presence, having lost and kept off 100 pounds .

John McCain won tonight’s debate, in my estimation. He was candid, funny, and feisty and seemed to return to the “straight talk”-style of his 2000 campaign. I disagree with him on many issues (most of all, the war), but his defense of his immigration policy was blunt, counter-strike-minded, and in touch with reason and fact.

With the buzz Ron Paul has generated (especially online and amongst Democrats), I wouldn’t be surprised if he ended up being courted as the libertarian party nominee.

Fred Thompson did not participate in tonight’s debate, but was present in the audience. Thompson still has time and a very, very good shot at the nomination.

Arianna Huffington’s headline after the last Republican Debate: “10 middle-aged white guys standing on a stage.” Tonight was more of the same. Hopefully there will be half as many in debates from this point on.