Why Cats Are Jerks

According the New York Post, a contractor was committed to a mental asylum for attempting to rescue a cat who squeezed into a hole in a wall and refused to come out for several days (rescue attempts apparently included knocking down three walls). After 60 hours, the cat was found and the man was released.

I'm certain the cat found the entire endeavor most amusing.

Ich bin ein...

Those are Berliners. Citizens of the world. Waving an American flag. Not burning it.

Oh please let it be January.

Insert Skeletal Pun Here

One of the things that seems to happen to me every summer is the discovery of some excellent television show (which I assert do, in point of fact, exist) that for some reason I have been totally oblivious to up till that point. This summer, being no exception to the pattern, has brought me Bones, the story of a crime-fighting forensic anthropologist and her actor-formerly-known-as-Angel partner.

Looking back, I think the reason I didn't start watching this show three years ago was that I was still livid over the cancellation of Angel, which I have now almost kind of gotten over (recent purchase of full-series DVD box set notwithstanding). The show really does have a little bit of everything: CSI-style mystery of the week, seasonal arcs that manage not to be too intrusive, humor that generally avoids the overly pedestrian, and of course the requisite star-crossed should-be lovers.

Plus, all of season one is currently up for free at Hulu, so really, you have no excuse.

Tripolar

Last night I saw a car with three bumper stickers on the back:

1. Ron Paul 2008

2. Barack Obama 2008

3. Anti-Gay Marriage (with American flag graphic)

...

O-kay.

Clicking Our Heels

A few days ago Still-President Bush lifted an executive order banning expanded oil drilling off of American coasts (originally issued by his father). Today, the Interior Department opened up 2.6 million acres of Alaskan land for "energy exploration" (that's code for ripping up the Earth to extract something crude).

And look! Oil prices are dropping already! Clearly we have causality!

Except for the fact that oil had actually begun to drop a week ago. But don't tell the man behind the curtain that.

mobile ME

It's likely that Steve Jobs is, perhaps, somewhat responsible for the success of Apple. Probably maybe. But. Today I realized that he truly is standing on the shoulders of giants — giant spoiled brats. Like me.

See, Cult of Mac members don't just own computers. We feel ownership regarding our computers, in that cheesy social worker sense of the word. Mac enthusiasts believe that their computers have some sort of moral obligation to meet their every need, current or future, plausible or implausible. And if the computer should fail in that noble task, the Mac enthusiast is truly offended. It's like if your best friend doesn't call you back for a day and a half. Hello, rude.

As evidence I offer reactions to the launch of the iTunes app store, allowing users to download third party applications for their iPhones (translation: software developed by someone who doesn't work for Apple). More than excitement or gratitude, the overwhelming tenor of comments I have read are almost peeved, evincing a genuine and self-righteous sense of annoyance that Apple hadn't developed any such thing sooner. Jerks.

Confessedly, I share this mentality myself. The apps developed thus far for two-way syncing of Google Calendar on an iPhone and a traditional computer are, in a word, utterlyanddeeplydissatisfying. Resultingly, cutting into my total glee towards my new iPhone is a penumbra of, "I can't believe someone hasn't already thought of and created this. Eye roll."

Shoulders of giant spoiled brats.

I assert, however, that this is actually a good thing. Macophiles' sense of entitlement increases the productivity not only of the source corporation (Apple) but of the consumers themselves, many of whom contribute to solving the problems they identify long before Apple gets around to it. If my parents' generation is the Me Generation, then perhaps mine is the Mobile Me Generation. (Not that I'm going to purchase Mobile Me — that was just a too convenient rhetorical device. Google totally already does all of that for free. Pfft.)

None of this is to say that Mac users are more obnoxious than PC users. Because they're totally obnoxious, too. But that's a different post.

Panic at the Disco

There's something wrong with the economy. I know it. You know it. I've had to restructure my personal finances to accommodate rising gas costs. The condo diagonally above us has been empty for over a year. IndyMac got bailed out — no, seized — yesterday (and I only kind of even know what that means). Smart people are telling me to get out of the stock market. Not that I'm in the stock market (I won't even buy into a poker game for more than three bucks), but it's well-intended and urgently delivered advice.

And while I've read many attempts at analyzing fragments of the problem, I've had a hard time wrapping my head around exactly what the hell is going on.

Today I read an interesting and historically informed article attempting to holistically answer that question: The Panic of 2008: A Turning Point.

Check it out.

Tragically, Hips

I hate it when this happens to me. I was totally going to start an awesome line of leggings that make even mannequins look hip-heavy, but then Lindsay Lohan went and stole all of my ideas!

There's no way she thought of leopard ankle gloves first. No way.

A Moment of Silence Is in Order

Bow your heads for the Fourth Amendment. Lord knows the Senate won't.

Senate Passes FISA Bill, Gives Telecoms Immunity

Lieonomics

Every time I get into an argument about guns with a gun rights advocate, I hear about this study that purports to prove that cities with laws permitting concealed weapons have lower crime rates. This is an assertion I've heard from several people on several occasions, and the study they describe is always the same. I've never been able to find any research corroborating the assertion, and I've looked more than once.

Turns out there's a reason for that. It was likely bogus. The article, entitled "More Guns, Less Crime", was penned by conservative economist John R. Lott — a fellow who has asserted that abortions are good for crime rates, and apparently has a habit of creating internet sock puppets to comment positively on his work online.

His book is, of course, titled Freedomnomics. Sigh.

Win-Win. Win.

Gosh, why didn't anyone just think of this sooner? We're saved!

McCain: I'll Cut the Deficit by Winning Iraq War

Considering McCain's assertion that U.S. troops staying in Iraq for 100 years would be "fine with him," I can't say this gives me a lot of economic confidence in a McCain presidency.

Not that I really had any, given that he's already admitted he's "not an expert" on "this stuff." Of course, he now denies having said that. Someone really needs to tell McCain about the YouTube:

It's a Bird! It's a Plane! It's...

...the moon. Yes, this past May someone in South Wales mistook the moon for a UFO. They even called 999 (the Welsh version of 911) about it.

Here's an excerpt from the transcript:

Caller: "If you've got a couple of minutes perhaps you could find out what it is? It's been there at least half an hour and it's still there."

Control: "It's been there for half an hour. Right. Is it actually on the mountain or in the sky?"

Caller: "It's in the air."

Control: "I will send someone up there now to check it out."

Well, we all get confused sometimes, no? Just the other day I though my nail clippers were an angry little man wearing a shiny, oblong hat.

The Inconveniences Attending Too Much Liberty

In 1783 William Pitt (the Prime Minister whose actions began the slow dismantling of the hideous British East India Company) stood on the floor of the House of Commons and argued the following:

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves."

Strong words from the man who would soon become the Prime Minister of Britain — a nation which had only recently lost one of its most profitable tentacles in a revolution spurred by accusations that Britain was indeed in the habit of making "the argument of tyrants" to attain its goals.

Today we celebrate that very event, blowing things to bits in the sky to honor our determination to be a nation of free men (yes, then, men) rather than the worker bees of a corrupt king. Reason and the public good were to be our guiding principles — not necessity. Human freedom was to be held sacrosanct, and its infringement was to be guarded against by the vigilance of a robust populace.

And so to me Independence Day is very much worth honoring, less with hot dogs and streamers than with reflection upon the radical language that led to the formation of our nation.

On July 4, 1776 Thomas Jefferson and 56 other men laid a series of charges at the feet of declared tyrant King George III, making the case that he was no longer fit to govern them. Two of the charges were these:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

King George, of course, disagreed.

History repeats itself, and we have had other King Georges, and other attempts to impinge upon self-evident human freedoms, and other rationales for why necessity trumps the right of humans to be free (or at least the right to argue one's case for freedom before a jury of one's peers).

Bush: Dangerous Gitmo Detainees Could Walk US Streets After Supreme Court Ruling

William Pitt: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves."

We've forgotten our roots. We have. Look:



One of our closest data twins is Iran. Iran. We, the descendants of men who would rather die standing than live on their knees, are now the ideological brothers of those whom we accuse of Islamo-fascism when it comes to humanity's most basic of civil liberties — the right not to be tortured.

Pass the celebratory hot dogs!

When someone tells us that giving prisoners the right to a trial means that they'll inevitably strangle us in our beds, we believe them. In a pique of textbook fear-mongering, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino disingenuously frets, "The judge might say to the United States, 'You don't have enough evidence to hold this person.' And then what do we do? ... Is he allowed to leave?" (The implication clearly being "Because if he does, he'll garrote your sons and deflower your daughters.") And we sagely nod along.

Am I missing something here? If a judge might reasonably say "You don't have enough evidence to hold this person," then why are we holding this person? If we know that someone is a terrorist, why not try him or her as such, attain a conviction, and carry on? How can we possibly deny the right of prisoners to a fair trial in one breath and celebrate the Declaration of Independence in the next?

You know, this Declaration of Independence:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

Like it our not, we live in a nation whose greatest linguistic architect was prone to saying things like this: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

Hear, hear.

I'm not against fire works and hot dogs. (Well, actually, I am against hot dogs, but that's a separate issue.) I just think we ought to know why we're eating them. (The hot dogs, not the fire works.)

Happy Independence Day, readers. I wish you happy meditations upon self-evident truths.

ThunderCats! HO!

There is going to be a ThunderCats movie! In 2010! Wikipedia says so so I know it's true!

After being shockingly not disappointed by the recent Transformers movie, I am trying not to get my hopes up here. Because if they ruin Mumm-Ra for me I will never forgive them. Ever. Whoever they are.

Picking the Right Wing's Brain: The Overton Window

Today I bring you insidious genius in the form of the Overton Window. This is a technique developed and employed by right-wing think-tanks to shift public debate in a direction favorable to their policy goals.

The fundamental premise is that each idea exists in one of six phases vis a vis the collective mind of the masses:

— Unthinkable
— Radical
— Acceptable
— Sensible
— Popular
— Policy

These categories exist as a continuum through which ideas can move in either direction. For example, legal slavery was once official U.S. policy and is now unthinkable. Allowing women to perform brain surgery was once unthinkable and is now policy. Gay marriage has moved from unthinkable to somewhere in between radical and policy, depending on where you live; national polling indicates that a majority of young Americans now find the notion acceptable.

The goal of the Overton Window is to allow one to think strategically about moving an idea through the continuum. Foreign policy towards Iran presents a useful case study. Bombing Iran was a radical position seven years ago, and now appears to be teetering somewhere around acceptable. While I personally think the act unthinkable, my thought is irrelevant. As a party engaged in attempting to impact policy, my job is to understand how most people (not my cavalcade of progressive acquaintances) feel about bombing Iran and engage in the debate accordingly. Scoffing at the notion of bombing Iran when it comes up in conversation (while doing so feels quite natural to me) won't get me anywhere; arguing that it's not sensible for a variety of reasons would be a far more effective rhetorical strategy for me to adopt, given my understanding of the notion's position in the Overton Window.

This stuff works. Really works. Just ask Rush Limbaugh, or take a look at public debate regarding privatization of Social Security. It's time to appropriate the master's tools.