|
|
Peeking Out at the Real Worldby George Ziemann -- May 2, 2009 I live in Phoenix. According to the media, the city is overrun by Mexican drug cartels, who are buying assault weapons, selling pot and kidnapping everyone in sight. Now there's the swine flu story. Sheriff Joe Arpaio has already combined the two on Fox News to warn us of "diseased" illegal immigrants. I should be afraid to go outside. Instead, I feel like the swine flu is a cover to distract us from something more important. Like torture. There is apparently a debate going on (again) about the legality of torture, when there is really no question about it. In yesterday's Washington Post, neocon Charles Krauthammer made the argument that there are exceptions wherein torture is okay. He's been watching too much 24. It's all about making excuses, but it's kind of like watching the RIAA bumble into action. Six months ago, everything was top secret. "Torture? No way. Not us." This morphed into "It's all legal. Our lawyers said so." When Obama showed us the torture memos and everyone points out it's still illegal as hell, Cheney forgets about the whole "not to my knowledge" defense and asks for release of the memos that showed torture was working. Where Krauthammer took this as a recommendation, it sounded distinctly like a confession to me. No waterboarding was necessary. Clear Channel Going Down After hearing the good news that radio behemoth Clear Channel is facing bankruptcy of some sort, it's no coincidence that the front page of the RIAA website still features a thank-you note from February to the members of the Senate who introduced the "Performance Rights Act." According to the RIAA, this legislation, if it has not already been lost in the shuffle, "will close an archaic provision of America's copyright law that allows AM and FM radio stations to earn $16 billion a year in advertising revenue without compensating the artists and musicians who bring music to life and listeners' ears to the radio dial." It's kind of funny to hear record labels complaining about not paying the artists and musicians (especially since the record labels will take at least 50% of the income before thinking about looking for the artists that they would pay, but said artists still owe money for production of their last album), but let's look beyond that to ask the logical question that was also brought up in the Pirate Bay trial, namely, if Clear Channel is making so much ad money, where the hell is it? Everyone is stealing from the music business, but none of them have any assets. Christians vs. Atheists I look at reddit once in a while, and a recurring theme there is this battle of oneupmanship between Christians and atheists. While I understand the Christians' attempt to convert an atheist, I do not understand why an atheist would bother to argue their belief in nothing. If I were a total atheist and someone started a religious pitch, I would probably just change the subject or ignore them rather than argue. If you're an atheist, you really wouldn't care enough to carry on the verbal battle. I think they do it just to piss off the Christians. Celebs vs Paparazzi If you are even semi-famous in London or Los Angeles, every time you go out of the house, people are going to take pictures of you so they can show what a bad wardrobe selection you made that day, who you had lunch with, what you ate, what the bar tab was, who took you home and, if a female, whether or not the photographer could catch an upskirt shot while you were getting in or out of the car. I think the best (worst) examples of this are TMZ in the U.S. and the Daily Mail in the U.K., which today featured Katy Perry's control top underwear, and the stunning announcement that Liz Hurley recycled a dress from 5 or 6 years ago. The horror. And if Britney smokes a cigarette or or goes through the Burger King drive-thru, TMZ will be there. Why? Are people really concerned about this? Our entertainment is watching famous people do normal things, preferably on giant flat-panel TVs? Ever read Fahrenheit 451? The Mordor Question Saw this on reddit, too. Someone, I'm guessing a younger (20s) person, was asking whether America has always been so full of gloom and doom. My initial reaction was, "Of course not." Then I thought about it for a minute. Without looking anything up, the 1910s featured World War I, the "War to End All Wars." Gloom and doom all the way, with Prohibition thrown in as a bonus in 1919. This led the the Roaring 20s, which was fueled by bootleg or otherwise illegal liquor. Side effect was Al Capone and his associates. The Great Depression took up most of the 1930s, which ended with the beginning of World War II. WW II was still going on when the 40s started, but during the second half, the parents of the Baby Boomer generation were busy making babies, which chilled everyone out for a while. The 50s had the Korean War and McCarthyism. The 60's had Vietnam; the 70s had Nixon and Carter, the Olympic Village terrorist thing and Iranian hostage situation. The 80s had Reagan and the "trickle-down," "supply-side" economic theory, a raised threat level against Russia, ending with the fall of the Berlin Wall and a Pink Floyd concert. The 90s... After the first Gulf War to chase Iraq out of Kuwait, I had some very good jobs, made a decent salary. I was generally too busy to worry about current events. As a result, times were good. This decade, Bush was in charge and the present is what it is. Has America always been so full of gloom and doom? I guess the correct answer is that most of the time, yeah, the country is a pretty scary place -- if you believe the media or listen to the political parties. |
|