It's like 150,000 soliders, when all you need is Allah.

The title of today's post comes from a song by Alanis Morissette. She sang it in reply to Nouri al-Maliki, the deft leader in Iraq who recently said:

"We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want,"

Does anyone else see the irony between being confident and having faith in God? How can you possibly “say in full confidence” that your government forces are prepared to take over the country yet leave room for God to interfere? Or is Maliki another leader who communicates with God?

This may be the cynic in me talking but Iraq is fucked. I don't think there's any viable military or political solution. Even if we withdraw all of the troops and the Iraqis are ready to take over, there will be no democracy -(which I think was one of the many excuses for invading the country in the first place and one of the more fortuitous obstacles impeding our attempts at "nation building"). As we have seen in many other countries around the globe at various times throughout history, democracy is something that cannot be forced upon a culture. Some Iraqis may want an open, transparent society, while others may want a moderate theocracy, and still others (namely al-Qaeda and its affiliates) would like an authoritarian theocracy. With several competing factions vying to establish the political ideology of the post-Saddam Iraq and seemingly little will to compromise, the diagnosis for the country is dire. Democracy is something that needs to be embodied by the people and it also needs to be something for the people. There is no way you can call Iraq a democracy without ridding it of al-Qaeda, which would ironically (and presumably) entail a more rigid method of a terrorist crack down. To rid the country of al-Qaeda would be to rid the country of its attempts to become democratic.

In 1939, the State Department (our own government! FDR nonetheless!) lauded Mussolini's Fascist achievements in Italy by claiming his government "brought order out of chaos, discipline out of license, and solvency out of bankruptcy." Those are some pretty nice words for a Nazi puppet regime. I can foresee a day when al-Maliki or some other stooge is praised in such a way for bringing "peace" to Iraq.

Basically what GWBush did to Iraq when he invaded, is not dissimilar to a drunken douchebag reliving his frat boy days by blacking out, sticking his balls on someone's chin, and brushing their teeth with his dick. Thanks to Michael Cera for the genius of that quote.

Patrick Henry once said, "Give me liberty or give me death." Well, the Iraqis are getting alot of death and very little liberty.

Millions of Peaches.

The case for impeachment against George Bush and Dick Cheney is incredibly strong yet incredibly unlikely. They've mismanaged an illegal war, lied to the American public, displayed incompetence in the reconstruction efforts of Afghanistan, Iraq, and New Orleans, among other things, all leading to dismally low approval numbers. (Sidenote, those 27-31% of people who approve of Bush's job performance, must really, really, really suck at theirs.) The Washington Post ran a great series of articles chronicling Dick Cheney's abuse of power and stranglehold on Beltway insiders.

If impeachment charges were brought against this administration, I think you would be really surprised as to who would not vote for it - every Republican (except Chuck Hagel) and Presidential Candidate/Junior Senator from NY, Hilary Clinton. If Bush and Cheney were ousted, Congress will hand the first female presidency to Nancy Pelosi. (She's third in line as Speaker of the House). Republicans don't want to hand the White House over to a Democrat, as it is. But to a woman? The only other vagina from California that frightens them more is her.

Republicans want to show that this administration is not the norm as far as Republicans go, which is why they will be positioning themselves farther and farther away as November ‘08 gets closer and closer. And for Hilary? If Nancy Pelosi becomes president she would steal all of the anticipation and excitement that the Clinton campaign is trying to build with the American public.

For Republicans, this could actually be a blessing in disguise. If they gave Pelosi the presidency, they could lay blame for the country’s problems on a female Democrat in the White House. If she does well, she will most likely run for election in the presidential campaign, pitting her against Hilary. Either way, this keeps the Clintons out of the White House – which is ultimately what Republicans want.

Save me.

Lately I feel like ranting. Yesterday I projected my anger onto the hipsters. Today's rant is a shout out to those ignorant right wing Christian conservatives.

I'm reading "God is not Great: Religion Poisons Everything" by Christopher Hitchens, who by the way, is an excellent writer. The book is excellent in its defense of atheism and in its case of why religion basically sucks.

Here's what I don't get about these self-proclaimed religious folks who want us to believe Jesus was The Truth. They mostly blame the Jews for his death and regard Judas (who, just like Jesus, was Jewish) as the ultimate traitor. Apparently Jesus, is the son of God but also God. Now, wouldn't it be in God's plan to have his son/himself die for all of our sins. If that's so, then why so much anger towards the Jews. In order for Jesus to die for all of humanity's sins, he needed to be sacrificed. That's where Judas comes in. He gives The Truth up to the Romans to be crucified. If Jesus had lived out his mortal life into old age, what would have come of humanity's past, present, and future sins?

Another thing, where do Christians get off telling me Jesus died for my sins? Doesn't that mean I can openly sin now without repercussion, since Jesus absolved me?

Jesus died for my sins, which is why I can take a bong hit for Jesus and still be saved.

Straight from the Hip

Most hipsters I know or know of come from, at the very least, middle class backgrounds. They wouldn't be able to sit around pretending to be poor if they didn't. Or else they would be poor and would need a job. More than any contemporary subculture, hipsters are the bane of my existence. I can't stand them. I know that I'm generalizing in this post and I suppose I could be a bit more open minded. But I can't. I hate them for their superficiality and their patronization of lower classes.

My qualms with hipsterdom are many and varied but here are a few. They're poachers. They like to think of themselves as anti-establishment and anti-status quo. Many hipsters come from middle/upper class backgrounds yet strive to give the impression that they come from more "modest" backgrounds. We all know that your faux poverty status is artificial. Furthermore, they poach styles and traits from working class/lower classes in order to "not be mainstream" Take for instance the ubiquitous Pabst Blue Ribbon on tap at your local hipster joint. Trucker hats are another example. (I confess, that I used to have one, a few years ago. But it was poached. Literally.) Hipsters try to identify with lower classes through the most superficial means that it becomes patronizing. Whether the intent to patronize is there or not, I can't say, it's still degrading nonetheless.

You can always tell that you're nearing hipsterdom when you start to get whiffs of that arrogance they all exude. I'm not talking about their physical smell that comes about from not showering. What I'm talking about is the attitude most hipsters have towards anyone who likes anything they do. As soon as something they like becomes popular, it's uncool to them. Anyone who likes anything mainstream is already not cool.

The best part about hipsterdom, and I'm sure that most hipsters appreciate the irony (they love irony, by the way), is that they're rebelling against something they don't want to change. If they actually acted out against what they say they oppose, there would remain nothing left for them to be in opposition to. Hence, as much as they hate the established, commercialized status quo, they need it to thrive in order to complain and bitch and moan and go about their ironic hipster ways. Basically hipsters want to emulate the counterculture of the 60's without changing the political or social atmosphere. I once read a quote stating rebels complain but revolutionaries act. They don't act out against anything because they're narcissistic. What they care about is being cool by isolating themselves through shallow trends.

The main pet peeve I have with hipsters is being labeled as one because I enjoy independent tastes. I like indie music and films, I prefer not to shop at commercial chains, but I do out of convenience and the like. Independent expression and individualism are great things to any culture. Many significant cultural achievements stem from such characteristics. The great thing about independent labels (be it music or film), is that they provide an outlet for a niche demographic. Before the birth of the user driven internet, most people only had a few choices for the music they wanted to hear or the movies they wanted to see. Now, with Web 2.0, basically anyone can make music or movies, allowing for an exponential increase in creative output. What this means is that I (and everyone else) have many more options to choose from than the previous "status quo" fare. This does not mean that we are hipsters.

Apparently, the first commandment of hipsterdom is: never admit to being one. By that logic, hipsters don't exist. How cleverly ironic. Going with the irony, hipsters probably support the war, like George Bush, are racists because most people aren't, support the genocide in Darfur, want global warming, like cancer, hate Conan O'Brien, and enjoy this rant. So hipsters, as Wayne Campbell once said: Game on.

Sour Apple

I love Apple and their products but they seem to be trumping consumers lately in the name of capitalism. Jobs has reigned the company in from the cult it was to a mainstream electronic product powerhouse, (case in point the change in name from Apple Computers to Apple, Inc.)

ANYWAY - my old Dell crashed and with it the few songs I purchased through itunes. My ire for Apple stems from their policy to only authorize the songs on 5 computers AND that you have to repurchase the music if you don't back it up to an external hard drive! It's a pretty counter effectual policy for anti-pirating. Here's what the support page says, (and is it just me or does Apple seem to be pretty blunt and a little smug telling me I need to buy the two cd's I already bought again?)

"Why do I need to back up my music library?

Be sure to make regular backups of your music files (in your iTunes Music folder) by copying them to an external hard disk or other media. Otherwise, if your hard disk becomes damaged or you lose any of the music you've purchased, you'll have to buy any purchased music again to rebuild your library."

Butt Out

The Motion Picture Association of America has decided to rate movies more aggressively based on the use of tobacco. Classic and historical films like Casablanca (or any other with Bogart for that matter) may now be re-rated as R. The only ones that may be saved from this demise, are portrayals of historical figures who actually smoked. The defense of this action is that smoking in PG and PG-13 movies influences children/adolescents so much, that they won’t be able to contain their urges to light up. The Smoke Free Movies campaign is the main proponent of the ban saying (via Slate) that smoking in movies can be attributed to hundreds of thousands of children smoking. Hundreds of thousands? From movies? I have an extremely difficult time buying this figure. What about this figure seems so unbelievable?

Rather, I think kids are exposed to tobacco in many other ways that validates its use to them, other than it being portrayed in movies. Parents and relatives have to be the biggest influence. Tobacco is sold in convenience stores. It’s advertised Even though many progressive cities and states have implemented various smoking bans, people still smoke on the street. When kids observe it as a normal occurrence, it becomes a standard in their mind.

If tobacco use in movies leads to an automatic R rating, what next? Why not label movies with any use/reference to alcohol, trans fats, weapons, and kids not wearing bicycle helmets R as well. My favorite childhood movie, the Disney version of Robin Hood, has a scene at the fair (when Robin wins the archery contest) where Little John stuffs Sir Hiss into a barrel of ale. When the snake is removed, he visibly drunk to any adult. The Simpsons reruns , shown on syndication at times when children are most likely to be watching has countless scenes of Homer drinking duff beer or going to Moe's, the local tavern. Barney, Homer's best friend, is in a constant state of inebriation. To the best of my knowledge, Robin Hood is still rated G and the Simpsons are watched by young adolescents.

Most movies with references/depictions of sex and drugs or drug use are rated R, but we all know that kids under 18 experiment with both. Granted, one may be due more to a biological curiosity rather than an on-screen influence or straight up curiosity but given that fact, what will banning smoking from non R films do? In my opinion, nothing. The kids who are going to smoke are going to no matter if they see it in movies, on television, or on the street. It goes back to the rebellion factor at that age. If something is illegal or they are told not to do it by schools, parents, and society in general, it's a huge thrill to defy the rules.

If people really want to stop kids from smoking, increase the legal age of purchase to 21, increase the taxes on tobacco, and start taking kids on field trips to the cancer wards at hospitals.

Addendum

The stupid Washington Post gave a horrible review of the PBJ concert. You can read it here. Or courtesy of NPR, you can listen to the concert I was at. You decide.