Verbatim quote from Assemblywoman Sharon Runner's website, on The Issues:

"It is time to establish an equitable funding system in order to ensure that no community college student is funded at an adequate level regardless of where they live in California."

Appears as if Miss Runner could have used that Bonehead English or logic class at Tumbleweed Tech, instead of Trailer Park Marketing 101....

The Honorable Sharie Mae intended to say something like "all students are entitled to adequate funding regardless of their geographic location," but she, alas, has not quite attained a 12th grade level of language skills: thus, in effect, she asserts that NO student should have adequate funding.


Assemblywoman Sharie Mae Runner, 36th District...howdee


Sharie and George Runner, like their boss Ahhnuld the King, recently have turned their attention to pedagogy. That should be pretty amusing, though sadly so, to any person who has managed to pass a few college classes. Sharie unlikely could follow her Bible College griddlecakes recipe correctly, and you know she couldn't distinguish standard deviation from her Standard Revised Version of the Good Book. George, from the renowned University of Redlands, located somewhere in a mall off the I 15, claims to be an business or econ. major, but for some reason methinx he gets most of his "deep thoughts" from the Book of Revelations. So not only the 3 R's, but an extra R for Rapture: "All students meet in the gym for "Rapture Awareness Days"..."


Senator George Runner

I recently had a political-historical realization--deep thought time: although they think they are "patriots," hicks such as the Runners and the "Walmart baptist" type of conservatives, are not, let's be honest, real Americans. Even conservative Founding Fathers such as Adams and Hamilton--really an English aristocrat in disguise and quite a tyrant-- supported the secular Constitution and were opposed to theocracy. More moderate and liberal "Fathers"--Madison and obviously Jefferson himself--would I think have supported John Kerry, reluctantly. TJ, somewhat of a Stoic and a rationalist, would not have found much in common with what currently passes for a Democrat (tho TJ did voice support for Abolition it may be recalled), but he would have opposed and fought the rise of the corporate capitalists and the militarists, and the redneck fundamentalist grunts who support them.

From Petr Kropotkin, 'War!' (1914)


“What Germany, France, Russia, England and Austria are struggling for at this moment, is not military supremacy but economic supremacy, the right to impose their manufactures, their custom duties, upon their neighbours; the right to develop the resources of peoples backward in industry; the privilege of making railways through countries that have none, and under that pretext to get demand of their markets, the right, in a word, to filch every now and then from a neighbour a seaport that would stimulate their trade or a province that would absorb the surplus of their production. When we fight nowadays it is to ensure our Factory Kings a bonus of thirty per cent, to strengthen the “Barons” of finance in their hold on the money market, and to keep up the rate of interest for shareholders in mines and railways. If we were only consistent, we should replace the lion on our standard with a golden calf, their other emblems by money bags, and the names of our regiments, borrowed formerly from royalty, by the titles of the Kings of Industry and Finance - “Third Rothschild,” “Tenth Baring,” etc. We should at least know whom we were killing for.”

Literature, entertainment, censorship

From Book X of the Republic: "And now since we have reverted to the subject of poetry, let this our defense serve to show the reasonableness of our former judgment in sending away out of our State an art having the tendencies which we have described; for reason constrained us. But that she may impute to us any harshness or want of politeness, let us tell her that there is an ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry; of which there are many proofs, such as the saying of 'the yelping hound howling at her lord,' or of one 'mighty in the vain talk of fools,' and 'the mob of sages circumventing Zeus,' and the 'subtle thinkers who are beggars after all'; and there are innumerable other signs of ancient enmity between them."



In Plato's ideal state, lyric poetry-- which is the product not of reason and logic, but of inspiration and emotion--shall be banned. This section is often criticized and attacked as an early example of state censorship; it also demonstrates, however, that the greeks perceived a clear distinction between the aesthetic and logical approaches to "truth".

Without getting longwinded or too theoretical, I think this distinction--as well as the argument for banning or controlling artistic and poetic creation--still holds. The latest brain fart spewed on some bubblegum star or rapper's CD is not near to Newtonian (or Einsteinian) constants, nor even to a syllogism. Poetry and really literature as a whole are anecdotally true at best and not on the same level as physical or mathematical laws. Literature may have psychological and occasionally historical relevance, yet it is not proof of any psychological theory or concept or the historical record itself. It's qualitative, not quantitative. Most students know far more about Hamlet, an imaginary "construct," than they do about English (or Danish) history of the 16th century, and Shakespeare's abiding presence ( really somewhat sinister) demonstrates how the literary myth overpowers the historical and economic reality of the Tudorian monarchy. Shakespeare's play Hamlet is, however rhetorically marvelous, not the historical record, nor does it contain any necessarily true statements regarding politics, psychology, or the physical world. Entertainment, much lower than classic poetry, is far less concerned with/addressed to any sort of logical or scientific truth.

Though many so-called liberals protest any forms of censorship, there may be decent grounds for the Chinese authorities controlling the spread of discos and pop culture in their country; and though a complete banning of western entertainment in the islamic countries may seem wrong--it is--controlling the spread of the religion of celebrity and instant gratification may not be the worst thing a country can do. Citizens in Morocco or China or Saudi Arabia should be able to read Shelley or Hemingway, listen to Bartok or Ellington or Metheny, I think, but do they need to have their kids listening to gangsta rap and Britanny Spears and death metal or reading Hustler? I think not. But the danger is letting religious zealots be the Ministers of Information, instead of Platos.

"HOG, n. A bird remarkable for the catholicity of its appetite and serving to illustrate that of ours.



Porcus Episcopalia, vr. San Joaquin

Reichmarshall

Let them eat Noir

Most humans are at least vaguely aware of "noir", having watched The Maltese Falcon, or parts of it, during late night brew or chronic sessions. And Bogie as Sam Spade is classic noir; as are Peter Lorre and Sidney Greenstreet as the villains. Dashiell Hammett, the author of The Maltese Falcon was perhaps the American master of noir fiction, and his own life was quite dark --he was imprisoned in the early 50's for some time after refusing to rat out some of his pals suspected of being communists. Hammett's noir is as to the point as a Dempsey jab, with no frills, though with touches of irony and absurd comedy ( Lorre does the comic villain well); lit. types might classify it as "urban realism", but there is much more to it than mere realism.




Noir is a 20th century phenomena, really, perhaps foreshadowed by Poe in his non-supernatural tales such as the Purloined Letter and Murders of the Rue Morgue or Conan-Doyle's stories of Holmesian deduction; it's not about spooks, it's dark but not ghoulish. The noir of Hammett or Raymond Chandler is, however, much more gritty and "hardboiled" than Conan-Doyle's somewhat sentimental Edwardian tales. The language of Hammett or Chandler is pared down from Poe or Conan Doyle's more literary and elegant style; it's sexier, cocky, and with less gloss. Sam Spade is no British gentleman as was Holmes, and he's able to handle himself in a street fight. ( And remember to never mistake noir for dull, pissy English murder mysteries set in manors or european railroad stations).

Hemingway also wrote some noirish stories ( the Killers, the Battler) and Chandler shows some Papa-like influence, though I suspect that Hem. was also influenced by the noir writers. Like Hemingway the diction of noir is simplified, often macho--the speech of cops, lawyers, detectives, criminals, floozies, waitresses, losers. Jim Thompson is another classic noir writer though a bit more primitive than say Chandler. His book The Grifter's is a great story of losers and racetrack creeps, and a decent movie; After Dark, My Sweet is another Thompson fave, and the movie, with Jason Patric, is really superior to the book. In bad noir hacks such as Spillane the cliches can, however, become ridiculous, and obviously Ho--wood churns out bad noir year after year.

The cinematic productions of noir fiction have not been so faithful to the text. Chandler's books--say The Big Sleep--were distorted and if you read the book with any understanding you might find Bogart as Phillip Marlow a bit miscast. Bacall seems to do the heiress well, but Marlow is a big guy--200 lbs, 6 ft. or so. Bogie is a great Sam Spade, but as Marlow he seems ineffectual. Mitchum does Marlow very effectively in Farewell, My Lovely.

Though noir might be thought of as macho , it's also romantic; Chandler's stories usually feature some hot if conniving starlets or washed-up, uh, courtesans. The traditional heros and villains of literature are absent in noir; there are antiheroes, women are not always angels or whores; there's a note of modern ambiguity. The white hats and black hats of westerns are gone, as are the saloon gals with the hearts of gold; or perhaps as in some of Chandler's more bitter visions such as Red Wind, everyone seems to be a black hat.

Though noir is often categorized in the "pulp" file, many scholars are coming to realize that Chandler and Hammett's visions are as worthy to be called "literature" as well, say Fitzgerald or Hemingway's writings. Noir presents the urban spectacle unsentimentally, and at its best without some obvious moral--and in Chandler, corruption, amorality and nihilism are the central motifs. Yet there is more than a hint of a leftist vision to Hammet and even to some of Chandler's writing. In the world of Noir--say in Farewell, My Lovely--corruption extends from the dives and shacks of Burbank to the mansions of Bel Air, and it seems about everyone is on the ol' payola.

James Ellroy is a modern noir master, though his writing is far more graphic, violent, and yes obscene than Chandler or Hammett's; the movie LA Confidential was made from one of his novels. Nonetheless Ellroy's wildly discordant visions of LA-- sort of Ornette Coleman with say Stan Kenton--have a flavor of authenticity to them, and a note of real tragedy....

Noir influenced the Beats, as any discerning reader of say Kerouac's "The Subterraneans" realizes; "cyberpunk" writers such as PK Dick and William Gibson also owe much to Chandler's keen style--and Gibson's crisp noir prose in Count Zero or Virtual Light is a refreshing change from the dull wooden language of earlier sci-fi such as Heinlein and Asimov.

Noir : c'est la vie

Protestant Doomsday Agenda

I have encountered more than a few protestant nutcases in my time who believe in the literal truth of the Book of Revelations; many of them, if not most, also believe in a literal "rapture". There are little videotapes on it--mostly out of Tejas or Okiehoma or some Dixie protestant nutcase seminary. And people are, in the Dixie Rapture vision, literally whisked off the earth to Beulahland in the midst of a nuclear holocaust or other nightmare (when Satan's legions take over or something. )

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R–Texas), who has quite a bit of control over the agenda in the House, does seem to be one of these prot. nutcase types (though there are plenty of catholic nutcases and deviants to be found--pagan nutcases are not so uncommon either). Bush II himself has indicated that the Book of Revelations is one of his "political" guideposts, a comment which should scare the shit out of all of us. The Book of Rev. is certainly one of the most bizarre pieces of religious writings to be found in that "old book" (as Thoreau said).

These modern-day Ezekiels and Revelators might do some re-reading of the Founding Fathers' rather skeptical comments on "End Time" theology--for instance, Jefferson, who claimed that Revelations was the work of a deranged mind. TJ realized that the protestant Rapture based on the Book of Rev. should be quite troubling to any rational person.

Perhaps some of you have heard of dispensationalism. It's a sort of uberCalvinist notion that Xtians are forgiven of ANY sins (e.g. crimes) at all times simply by being Xtians and attending Church, and "acceptin' Jee-suss as their personal savior" etc. In other words, the church-going, "faithful" Xtian can do whatever he wants and is forgiven simply because he's Xtian. There's more than a hint of that in much of the US right-wing agenda. The muslims have a scary rapture notion though too. And the leftist pagans are about as nauseating. As someone recently said on the Fray, the rightwingers are closet brownshirts, yet the leftists have become blackshirts....


Doomsday, thanks to Jeee-suusss

Excerpt: Dr. ML King's "Letter from the Birmingham Jail"

"You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may won ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there fire two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the Brat to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all"

"Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distort the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I-it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and awful. Paul Tillich said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression 'of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal."

MLK-Jail
_________________
To the stall the people come to go,
Reading an obscene graffito.

“Your Papers Please”

US adopts National ID: Homeland Security Now In charge of Regulations for all US States Drivers Licenses and Birth Certificates

By: Jonathan Wheeler

In a chilling act more reminiscent of the now defunct Soviet Union or the Nazi regime of Adolph Hitler, the United States Congress passed legislation yesterday that requires the States to surrender their regulatory rights over driver’s licenses and birth certificates to The Department of Homeland Security.



The massive US Intelligence Reform Bill weighed in at over 3,000 pages and though unread by individual Members of either the House or Senate nevertheless passed all of the legislative hurdles needed in order to become law.



President Bush lobbied hard for these provisions, only objecting when Senator Sensenbrenner attempted to require these same provisions for illegal aliens but which the President opposed. This provision was dropped from the final bill.



Beginning in 2005, the Department of Homeland Security will issue new uniformity regulations to the States requiring that all Drivers Licenses and Birth Certificates meet minimal Federal Standards with regard to US citizen information, including biometric security provisions.



Added to currently existing Federal Laws and Supreme Court rulings American citizens when born will be issued a Social Security Number that will be included on their Birth Certificates, along with DNA biometric markers. All birth certificates will also be registered in a Federal Government database maintained by the Department of Homeland Security. No child will be allowed enrollment to schools or be entitled to either State of Federal Government benefits programs without first presenting a certified Homeland Security registered Birth Certificate.

Drivers Licenses will also contain DNA biometric markers and include the holders Social Security Number and be required for receiving and applying for all State and Federal benefits programs. Previous Supreme Court rulings have also upheld State and Federal Law Enforcement authorities right to request Identification from any American citizen, for any reason and at any time as not being violations of their, the citizens, constitutionally protected rights.



Major Banks and credit card companies have applauded the adoption of a National ID system as being important to counter fraud and increasing instances of identity theft. National ID cards with biometric markers will eliminate them from having to issue Credit and Debit cards, which for the first time in US history have surpassed the usage of checks and cash. Utilizing The Department of Homeland Securities centralized federal database, Banks and credit card companies will only require the presentation of a citizens Driver’s License to make purchases as all of the persons financial information, including credit and cash ! balances, will already be known in ‘real time’. (The combining of Homeland Security and Banking databases on citizen’s balances and purchases, along with their past and present purchasing information, has been allowed under previous Federal Laws including the Patriot Act.)



Also included in this bill is a law to require The Department of Homeland Security to establish a separate ID system for citizens to use prior to boarding airplanes, and which is eerily reminiscent of the Soviet and Nazi regimes dreaded Internal Passport.



Never before in our history have the words of Benjamin Franklin been so correct when he stated: "people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both".

Today, December 9, 2004 will be one of those moments in time that future historians will look back on and pin point as being the day that the United States of America, as it was founded by its forefathers, ceased to exist.

....

"Mondays: In Christian countries, the day after the (football) game...."

Bierce

Mur-ry Pigskinmas

"They are as sick that surfeit
with too much as they are that starve with nothing."
Shakespeare

Literature as Reification

The common view of literature is that it is the collected wisdom of great minds, the noblest thoughts expressed in verse, etc. I dispute this view. My view--materialist and moderate leftist--is that literature generally functions as reification--a type of reinforcement of the ideologies, attitudes, belief systems and indeed epistemologies of the ruling classes. Shakespeare's plays, used for centuries to teach the children of the bourgeoisie the Queen's English, are an apt example of this. In numerous plays the "courtly" attitudes are upheld, working class characters are mocked (and, as with Malvolio, presented as uneducated morose churls to the nobles), and in general Anglo-Catholic and monarchist views are reinforced and promoted.

That is not to say courtly and aristocratic virtues may not be in part valuable. Reason, ethics, eloquence, a certain aristo-world view may be in themselves valuable. Classical scholarship, mastery of latin, knowledge of the greek philosophers are not trivial affairs, however irrelevant to modern technocracy and market capitalism. Yet what is overlooked by literature which proclaims the superiority of aristocratic virtue, is the brutal reality of the monarchy, the prisons, the disparity between nobles and commoners, the "golden and sanguine laws" as Shelley said. Yet even a Shelley is, I assert, a spokesman for the imperial throne. For literature itself always relates to monarchist if not clerical context. It is no accident that most literary history involves "courtly " themes, the Paolo and Francesca , Tristan and Isolde types of things--Camelot.

For most students of literature, courtly love and aristo virtue--whether hypocritical or actual-- are the contexts for literary interpretation. And 20th century realist writers, say a Dreiser or Hemingway, are repositioned, recontextualized in relation to the "perennial truths" of the aristocratic writers. The French realists are seen in relation to the ancien regime (which is, let's admit, secretly loved). It should not be surprising that a catholic-monarchist such as TS Eliot would be viewed as "official" literature by the academic ideologues, and "realists" such as Hemingway or Dreiser disparaged--either implcitly or explicitly-- as yokels. So even the realist and leftist attempts to counter the monarchist and/or clerical Weltanschauung are, I believe, defeated. For the entire context of literature and literary interpretation is in essence aristocratic, and thus anti-empiricist, anti-democratic, anti-humanist......It also should not be surprising that Marx himself disparaged liberal writers and fabian socialist types who thought "exposing social injustice" was a proper political stance. For Marx, regardless of his flaws, perceived that the institution of "belle-lettres" is contaminated with a sort of otherworldly (ultimately theological or superficially platonic ) ideology, where Truths simply exist immutably and unquestioned. The move away from idealistic metaphysics--towards Darwin and economics-- is thus also a move away from belle-lettrist dreams.......

An effective leftist action? Burn a Riverside Shakespeare, and your Norton Anthologies of English Verse; turn to Darwin instead of Dickens, Keynes instead of Kerouac, Einstein instead of Jane Eyre-head.

Applied Ethics lesson for Friday

From Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals

-- Ich gebrauchte das Wort "Staat": es versteht sich von selbst, wer damit gemeint ist—irgendein Rudel blonder Raubtiere, eine Eroberer- und Herren-Rasse, weiche, kriegerisch organisiert und mit der Kraft, zu organisieren, unbedenklich ihre furchtbaren Tatzen auf eine der Zahl nach vielleicht ungeheuer überlegene, aber noch gestaltlose, noch schweifende Bevölkerung legt. Dergestalt beginnt ja der "Staat" auf Erden: ich denke, jene Schwärmerei ist abgetan, welche ihn mit einem "Vertrage" beginnen liess.--

Cheap anglo translation:

I used the word "State"—it is self-evident who is meant by that term—some pack of blond predatory animals, a race of conquerors and masters, which, organized for war and with the power to organize, without thinking about it, sets its terrifying paws on a subordinate population which may perhaps be vast in numbers but is still without any shape, is still wandering about. That's surely the way the "State" begins on earth. I believe that that fantasy has been done away with which sees the beginning of the state in some "contract."....

Nietzsche

The Psychopathology of the Rightwing Mind


Psychopathology

"HOG, n. A bird remarkable for the catholicity of its appetite and serving to illustrate that of ours. Among the Mahometans and Jews, the hog is not in favor as an article of diet, but is respected for the delicacy and the melody of its voice. It is chiefly as a songster that the fowl is esteemed; the cage of him in full chorus has been known to draw tears from two persons at once. The scientific name of this dicky-bird is _Porcus Rockefelleri_. Mr. Rockefeller did not discover the hog, but it is considered his by right of resemblance."



Porcus Episcopalia, vr. San Joaquin

Reichmarshall

Burton's Prop. 59 victorious (with various Beasts of the Kern)

Burton's Prop. 59 won. Though it is far too tame, it may be a start to real political reform. Prop. 59, now the law, would at least in theory give the public access to all communications by elected officials. Inquiring minds might want to know something about say the deep thoughts of a Kevin McCarthy or King Ahh-nuld himself and now they have the right to, at least to some degree. Everything Ahh-nuld says or writes or speaks, or pays someone to write, should be a matter of public record.

The implications of this law are interesting: perhaps eventually the CA public will be far more involved in the decision making process. Do you trust the likes of Assemblywoman Sharon Runner making decisions about economics or really anything? Better that say the CA teachers union make political decisions than a Sharon Runner. All of the proceedings of Sacramento elite, in public or chambers, should be wired and on videotape. There is no "off the record" for elected officials.

Anyone interested in ethical governing should appreciate John Burton for putting forth this rational proposition.



"What will Proposition 59 do? It will create a new civil right: a constitutional right to know what the government is doing, why it is doing it, and how. It will ensure that public agencies, officials, and courts broadly apply laws that promote public knowledge. It will compel them to narrowly apply laws that limit openness in government—including discretionary privileges and exemptions that are routinely invoked even when there is no need for secrecy. It will create a high hurdle for restrictions on your right to information, requiring a clear demonstration of the need for any new limitation. It will permit the courts to limit or eliminate laws that don't clear that hurdle. It will allow the public to see and understand the deliberative process through which decisions are made. It will put the burden on the government to show there is a real and legitimate need for secrecy before it denies you information."



Bakersfield Gray Rat, Martini Georgius

Veteran's Day Poppy


Veteran's Day is to be counted, I believe, among the fairly insignificant patriotic "holidays," similiar to Labor or Memorial Day; the American Legion guys are featured in the paper wearing their nice caps with medallions; politicians appear at various veterans functions to shake hands with some grizzled old WWII infantrymen, or Shriner-like survivors of the Korean War, though we don't see the politicos too often shaking hands with the Vietnam type vets, who are, as the media would have it, all long-haired street psychotics searching for some decent bud and underground assault rifles. Solid conservative opportunities to obtain vet. photographs--photos of stern hawk-faced elders that a backwater republican congressman like Big Billy Thomas might display like trophies on a web site festooned with flags, schoolkids, and the expected rows of healthy crops or orchards--are rather slim with former Ranger-marksman turned freaks who think the local mall is "in country" and whose most profound spiritual memory is most likely of Thai or Subic Bay bar girls on a table top performing for the crew.

But words are so feeble, as are sentences and propositions, and ultimately, statistics, in terms of capturing the monumental psychopathology of war; the photographs and documentary footage present the truth far more effectively and more evocatively. Old grainy photos of dead German or French dogfaces hanging in barbed wire above trenches at the Battle of Verdun or something are as beautiful as Van Gogh's drawings of whores, perhaps more so, and the beauty is not one of artifice; it's not contrived, as most war writing and Ho-wood films seem to be. (Though having recently read Tim O'Brien's "The Things they Carried" I must say it is quite powerful).

Yet given the millions of 20th century war dead--whether soldiers, civilians, or genocide victims--it's surprising and in fact dismaying that so few pictures of the dead are to be seen in newspapers, on TV, on the web, in books. And this "corpse image control" continues presently with the Iraqi conflict: we see a few pics of blasted cities, perhaps a few graves or bodies, and the occasional beheading, but on the whole the American public does not have to endure, say, the sight of dozens of mangled bodies blown apart by a US cruise missile. This is a type of modern political injustice if not hypocrisy. It is not unreasonable to argue that the US Government, and any govt. engaging in warfare, has an obligation to show graphic pictures of death and military destruction; indeed, the war should be live and media-streamed on TV and the Net for all to see, including schoolchildren.

H.L. Mencken on Voting

"[W]hen a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental--men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... [A]ll the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre--the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.

"Rotarian Luncheon"

South Park vs. Sean Penn

Matt Stone, one half of South Park's dynamic duo, recently uttered, "if you don't know what you're talking about, there's no shame in not voting." Matt has a point. Although Democratic or Republican party leaders could care less about the intellectual status of those who vote "their way," there is some danger in just assuming that a popular vote will result in ethical or equitable politics. Democrats surely hope that uneducated, working class types vote their way, but if the working class vote tends to go to the GOP, then perhaps the implications of Stone's comment would be more appreciated.

Ahh-nuld's (and earlier, Reagan's) popularity among the poor and working class demonstrates that voters no longer adhere to the old classifications, i.e., poor = democrat voter; wealthy = republican. In other words, requiring prospective voters to pass a poll test or possess a modicum of education might be in the Democrats' or third party's interest.

The South Park duo were denounced by Sean Penn, and this is perhaps understandable. Even Comrade Penn should be aware, however, how Stone's logic can be viewed from a democratic or leftist perspective: if voters, whether poor or wealthy, college educated or not, continually support GOP candidates, or even conservative democrats, then we should question the voting process itself. Hopefully Kerry (and dems across the US) will prove victorious over Our Chief Commanding Redneck with DT's, but if he doesn't, then Dem.s might do well to rethink their innate love of voting and "the democratic process."




"On this week's 60 Minutes Wednesday, which features an interview with the Team America masterminds, Stone lets loose on Penn. "It's funny to take...activist actors and...elevate them to the level to what they think they are in their minds," Stone tells 60 Minutes correspondent Vicki Mabrey. "When Sean Penn is on TV before the Iraq War talking about the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty...that is pure comic gold. I don't care what side of the aisle you're on."

Both Stone and Parker seem to have it in for the Oscar winner. Parker told Variety last year when he announced plans to make Team America, "We hate those actors who take themselves so seriously and think they are a productive and important part of society. The subtle joke here is that all actors are puppets. This will probably piss off everyone in town--and might well be our swan song."

Thanatopolis Towers