Dead Blog

Oh well, we don't really use this blog any more. Never much did. Now it's just another cyber-outpost for the latest and greatest techniques in blog spam. A brief funeral for Bloggertown will take place behind the Baja Bud's just west of Sepulveda. Goodnight sweet prince and flights of XXXCIALIS VIAGRA HALF OFFF< GIRLZ GIRLZ HUMPING ALL KINDZ OF SPECIALS.

Takin' it for McCain

The other day, Slate's executive editor Jacob Weisberg wrote a piece flogging for John McCain. This sort of fawning for John McCain is nothing new, he's been a press favorite for several years now and for good reason - he's unpredictable enough to give good copy and honest enough to not always tow the party line. For thinking people, especially ones who don't particularly care for the Republican party line, this is good. Fair enough. If asked, I would certainly pick McCain over Bush ten out of ten times. But somehow McCainaanites always manage to turn every little bit of his political maneuvering into substance and principle.

Weisberg begins by acknowledging that McCain's new rightward tack is political machination and therefore a little disappointing. But he then carefully assures us that this political posturing is a necessary evil if we are to bask in the glorious possibility of a McCain presidency. McCain's pandering is "politically shrewd" and if we read the "smoke signals" correctly we can divine that he is the moderate Jacob Weisberg hopes for. Of course, we must also discount his record in the 1980's for that was also a more conservative phase for the senator. You just have to dig deep enough and then you too will see that John McCain is a good guy.

But for some reason, that same generosity of spirit isn't afforded Democrats. "Kerry," he tells us, has, "never demonstrate[d] any real political courage," and Howard Dean, he warns us, is prone to making the occasional, "injudicious comment"! Oooohhhh. By injudicious comment it's fairly clear he means stuff that is true. Stuff that it the mouth of a reflective saint like McCain is critical and thought provoking, but in a Democrat is a "political gaffe." Well, they are considered gaffes because the press writes about how Dean's comment was impolitic instead of exploring its truth quotient. For some reason, gentlemen like Weisberg afford McCain a whole lot more leeway.

Can it be done?

almost a year ago this well ran not so much dry as afoul of summer. i disapperated to aspen, and returned to massachusetts for a month of failed attempts at making a movie about underage sex and murder. shortly thereafter, i relocated to the westerly culture cap of our great nation, and since then it is my belief that close proximity with mavis has squashed our desire to communicate in blog form. but perhaps this silence hastretched long enough. perhaps the horse is ready to be got back up upon. now that i work three days aweek instead of 6, i think it likely that some words may flow again, carving more depth into this small tributary of webwork.

but all this by way of elaborate reintroduction. the truth is, i have nothing to say. i'm bored with social security like the rest of the nation, i'm worried about iraq but there seems to be little i can do from a position of english speaking residence halfway accross the globe, i'm talking about videogames over at videogameon.net, and as of yet i know shit about california politics.

the only topics lefto me, it would seem, are those beyond knowledge and somehow more fundamental. the questions anyone can ask given time and air. the ponderances we are all free to make with as many or as few letters as befit our interest.

here is a brief one, before i attempt a sleep.

the universe is absurd, or infinitely explicable. to wit:

the universe cannot have not begun, since it is here. but the universe cannot have begun from nothing, since all events must be preceeded by stimulus. motion must give rise to motion, but cannot do so without impetus of its own.

so either a) the universe began from nothing, for no reason, rendering the whole affair fundamentaly absurd
or b) the universe is eternal, and why chains are infinitely answerable, just not necessarily by us.

i find the second option more comforting, but the first more fun. and yet, perhaps to pursue the infinite answers promised in b, would result in a state of absurdity, like a dog chasing after his tail for the duration of his lifetime. if so, our only escape from absurdity, if we desire such escape, is to ignore the questions at somepoint, and simply know that the answers exist.

to be fair to the loonies, some claim that c) the universe does not exist at all. i refer them to their claim as evidence of their existence, and, by extension, the existence of a universe.

as a final thought, though it is an imperfect metaphor (as all must be when attempting to describe the sum of existence), imagine a glass globe filled with water and oil, moving at a neverchanged, inherent rate of rotation. the liquids and the motion together ensure continued change throughout the sphere, never ceasing, never begining. will the relative positions of the liquids be eternally random? a neverending string of different configuration? or will a point of pattern be reached, somewhere in the vast distances of time, from which the entire process will self-replicate, rendering the motion, in a way, a stasis?

is this where life becomes death?

Clever Cooper

I wanted to draw attention toward this New York Times article that reveals my favorite part of this Rove affair. It seems Matt Cooper, the Time reporter facing jail time for refusing to reveal his source (Rove), wanted to avoid both jail time and violating his sense of journalistic ethics that required him to keep his source confidential unless his source gave him specific authorization to testify. The day he was to go to jail, Robert Luskin, Rove’s attorney was quoted in the Wall Street Journal saying, “If Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source, it's not Karl he's protecting.” Cooper and his attorney took that to mean that he should not go to jail to protect Kart Rove. He had his authorization. I’m not certain that gets past all the journalistic ethics issues but it does really nail Luskin for his bullshit statement.

Fooling Some of the People

Today Bush staged a photo op at the little known Federal Bureau of Public Debt to make a point about Social Security. The thrust is that the Social Security trust fund is, in reality, merely a file cabinet full of IOU’s. Every now and then the privatization forces trot out this old turkey and other have done a better job than I could of debunking their claims. That said, I’m going to try and point out how completely ridiculous those claims are.

First, as any Heritage Foundation lackey will admit, the SS trust fund, like all US Treasury IOU’s, is backed by the, “full faith and credit of the U.S. government.” If Bush were actually proposing the US government, heretofore the safest investment in the world, default on a loan the consequences would be enormous.

This is why the whole project is so sleezy. If Wall St. and foreign investors believed that the United States is preparing to stiff its creditors, there would be a rush to pull money out of the US government and a major financial crisis for the markets and the government. But that’s not happening, even though the president has told us in no uncertain terms that when your Social Security check is supposed to come, the government will send you a default notice instead. Why isn’t Wall St. panicking? Why aren’t the Japanese rushing to divest of the dollar? Because they believe, and are willing to bet large sums, that Bush is bluffing.

And here’s why the tactic is stupid. Because in modern America, most of us have our money held up in IOU’s from the bank. I don’t think I’ve ever had more than several hundred dollars in my possession at once, yet I’m fairly certain the money isn’t about to go away any time soon. A file cabinet full of IOU’s just aren’t as viscerally scary as the president would like.

And here’s a reason to be outraged. If, as the pres sez, the trust fund is empty because, “government spent it.” Then can’t it be argued that government, of which Mr. Bush is presently the leader, gave it away in tax breaks? A couple years ago Bush looked at the budget forecasts and said to himself, it is more important to cut taxes than to honor the debt to American seniors and future seniors. He’s telling us some guy named George W. Bush spent all your retirement money and if I see him I’ll let you know. Laughable.

Any thoughts?

Name Change

This is really dumb and I apologize for posting, but I'm changing my name from Cornmeal to Mavis Beacon. I generally post on other blogs as Mavis and I can leave Bloggertown's URL on those sites to stir up some traffic. Folks will be confused and leave if they don't see a consistant name. Again, sorry for the stupid post.

deathiness

two good pieces from jolly old Engletown.

the first debunks the pope, providing much needed counter coverage in the face of a "good old days" flood.

the second debunks death.

alongside this suggested reading, i have a factual question: is attempted suicide illegal in the US? federally? stately? locally?

and a subjective followup (easier, more fun): should it be?