Stan Goff makes the case against the modern pathologization [a word?] of eating disorders and PTSD. Not in a crazy Scientology way, but through the lens of societal patriarchy, consumerism, and the monopolization and commodification of medicine. Or something in that ballpark.
In the US, of course.
And something to ponder: the creeping authoritarianism we currently decry began not with the “War on Terror,” but with the “War on Drugs.”
New job. Passed the NY and NJ bar exams.
In the immortal words of Judge Dredd, “I am the law!”
My brother volunteered for the Webb campaign in Virginia at a polling place, heroically braving the elements. You can read about it here. Though the locals weren’t completely friendly, he elucidated the positive effect of his presence:
More importantly, I realized that by being this one, lonely, pathetic guy, standing in the cold and the rain, under a damn tree, with my signs and buttons and clipboard, people would start to understand that there is something happening. That the Webb campaign and the ideals of the Democratic party mean enough to someone like me to spend five hours simply standing there, ready to talk if you want. It was a way to tell people in the area that these ideals were worth working for, and therefore worth looking at more closely.
Stan Goff was also out in the rain, in North Carolina, and also miserable. He was doing his own independent thing, but still promoting Democrats. He was not quite so positive:
White folks vote their color hard out here, where fashionalbe clothes and shiny mortgaged gas-guzzlers conceal a primitive ignorance and hostile, defensive insecurity even among the mostly college-educated Research Triangle Park denizens. After a full day there, I was confirmed in my belief that late capitalist culture stupifies in ways that cut us off from 90% of the deeper experiences that are unique to humanity, and leaves us trapped in the psychic Potemkin village of a hellishly vapid consumerism. (We refer to this as… “freedom.”)
[snip]
The first impresson I have to note is that the Democratic Party as an institution is a corporate-and-Wall-Street-funded behemoth of rank opportunism. They used the growing opposition to Bush’s energy war in Iraq as a battering ram, but in the process of making this breach will probably sacrifice the interests of women, African Americans, and immigrants to glide the winds of white xenophobia and thuggish patriachy that swirl over the post-Nixon Republican South.
This is not to say the two disagree on the fundamentals (you’d have to ask them). I just enjoyed the contrast.
I love NarcoNews. They haven’t said a god damn thing about the US midterm elections. Why? Because it won’t change a god damn thing where they are.
Once again, very very late with PMQs blogging.
But then again, I just accepted and will begin next Monday my first job out of law school. And I began training for a marathon. And I’m moving this week.
But you can always watch it alone without my largely uninformed commentary.
How much is democracy worth?
$14.40, at the very least, at this moment in time.
That was how much I paid to vote today.
I was traveling for the past few days for job interviews. During that time, my absentee ballot finally arrived in my Queens apartment. I didn’t return until last night, a Sunday. Apparently, the Atlantic County (NJ) Board of Elections won’t count absentee ballots that arrive later than election day. So I was forced to use overnight mail this morning to insure my ballot would arrive on time.
I was saddened to vote for Menendez. I am a pretty strict 3rd party man. But now that there is a chance for a Democratic majority in the Senate, I had to tow the line. Here’s what I want to see happen with a Democratic majority:
Investigations.
Subpoenas.
Impeachments.
Please, bloggers, stop using the word “schadenfreude.” If this blog were more popular, I just know every “schadenfreude” user would write posts about their schadenfreude over my annoyance with their overuse of the word “schadenfreude.”
I think I recall US/UK officials saying how they wanted, and were trying, to keep civilian casualties to a “minimum” during the Iraq war. The same thing gets spouted during any war, so it seems. The word “try” leaves lots of wiggle room of course. But I’m not sure if this even constitutes “try.” More like “didn’t try at all.” Nor does it even seem like they “wanted” to limit civilian casualties, except maybe in the most abstract sense (”I sure hope we get lucky and these bombs that kill far more civilians than combatants don’t end up killing too many civilians”). So, it’s more like “hoped against all probability.”
There is a less obvious benefit and potentially absurd consequence to the conviction against Hussein. One day, in my Utopian Fairy Land, during the prosecution of Saddam Hussein’s US co-conspirators from the 1980s (Rumsfeld, et al), perhaps we’ll get to watch them challenge the prosecution’s use of collateral estoppel on the issue of the existence of an overt criminal act (crimes against humanity).
about the problem of corporate news (and why you will never learn about it on corporate news). See here (be sure to look at the PDF link at the bottom).
Are these corporations are engaged in deep cost-benefit analysis? Even though advertising on Air America programs will attract buyers, they realize that they themselves stand threatened by exposures of corporate malfeasance (even if not directly investigated, perhaps proper reporting will encourage other such reporting, or create a culture of corporate mistrust)? That’s my guess. Or is this something more base? Simply members of the same class standing together to protect their collective interest? Maybe these two options are the same thing.
Order! Questions for the Prime Minister!
Some very belated and brief PMQs blogging.
The first question. A Tory concerned about human rights in Burma, and UK companies trying to hide investment in Burma by using British territories. Here’s a group that talks about Burma, and why nations are trying to discourage the regime.
Cameron starts with the youth justice system.
Totally transformed or at breaking point?
Who knows, but it would be nice if the government could get its story straight.
“Now, Prime Minister, back to prison . . . actually that has a certain ring to it.” hahaha. No.
Now Cameron finds a way to attack Gordon Brown (the Chancellor of the Exchequer). A good idea, since chances are that Cameron will fight an election against Brown. Too bad the question was pretty weak. But the follow-up is better. “[Brown] couldn’t even stop Abu Hamza buying a house while in prison . . . ” “it doesn’t matter who’s in charge. Blair/Brown, Brown/Blair, this country isn’t safe under Labour.”
Blair’s retort: “I think he spent rather a long time preparing that I suspect this morning . . .” *background laughter*
Indeed, I believe I have read that Cameron prepares a great deal. Given that the Conservatives (and I’m sure Labour too) have PMQs “briefing teams” (which Cameron once worked on for a prior oppo. leader), you can suspect they take it quite seriously. To bad Blair brushes off well-planned questions with the infinite number of facts lodged in his skull, AND he is more amusing off-the-cuff than Cameron is when well-rehearsed.
A question about an art exhibit of 100 rather attractive naked men . . .
Ming Campbell wants to know why the UK is not extraditing US soldiers who allegedly killed a UK journalist (Ming says there is a “prima facie” case, which essentially means that the facts as known satisfy every element of the crime).
Ming says that what they have with the US is a fast-track extradition process that “only goes one way.”
Blair says Ming is “stretching reality.” The standard attack against the Lib Dems is to insinuate that they’re loony.
Back to Cameron.
The House laughs at Cameron when he suggests the Tories were pushing a climate change bill. Cameron wants Tories to be (or perhaps just seem) more green than Labour.
Now Blair points out how wishy-washy the Tories are, and gets the House in a jolly uproar.
A Labour backbencher challenges Blair on the Iraqi (US) government’s policy on trade unions. The last thing the US wants is labor solidarity in Iraq.
A conservative wants a proper debate on Iraq.
“Let me make one thing absolutely and abundantly clear: there will be no change in the strategy of withdrawal from Iraq only happening when the Iraqi forces are confidant they can handle security. To do anything else would be a complete betrayal, not just of the Iraqi people, but of all the sacrifices that have been made of our armed forces over the years.”
Christ. At least we get that “nudge-nudge, wink-wink” feeling from the US administration and its followers about how not leaving Iraq is more about political fall-out for Republicans than it is about actual good intentions. The current retreat from “stay the course” tells us the US warmongers are wavering. Blair sounds as if he’s not budging at all. Maybe the UK media gives a different perspective.
More questions . . . that’s enough.
For great justice.