Editor's Note

This blog has moved

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Vermouth) — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:20:00 +0000

This blog is now located at http://blog.zebrameat.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://blog.zebrameat.com/feeds/posts/default.

YEAH BABY! Let's do lunch.

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Vermouth) — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:38:00 +0000

Uh... not much to say about this video. I think the point is made rather clearly.

Class in America

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Vermouth) — Mon, 16 May 2005 16:21:00 +0000

The New York Times is publishing a series on class in America this week. The first article in the series appeared on Sunday under the heading "Class in America: Shadowy Lines That Still Divide." There were four criteria the authors (and presumably scores of researchers) used to set their definition of "class" --- occupation, income, education, and wealth. To be fair, they regard this as "one way to think of a person's position in society." Unfortunately, because they chose, or were forced, to use these four quantifiers in their studies through surveys and data compilation from various sources, the entire study seems almost entirely to miss the mark in terms of what really matters in an analysis of class in America.

Class in America escapes precise definition for two reasons. The first is that the mainstream media cannot undertake any kind of discussion of class without alienating a significant segment of its audience and advertising base if it does not use statistical analysis (as the Times so exhaustively has) backed up by surveys from people of all levels of the society. The main thing wrong with this approach is that "class" is not determined by "the people" themselves; it is, by definition, determined by the historical elite of the society. Perhaps in the colonial period of our country's history, the four criteria the Times uses may have made sense as real determinants since colonists were coming from the same area of the world --- many from the same country. But, when the American society began to exhibit a specific culture of its own (which, with the advent of television, has become something different from what it was prior to the latter half of the twentieth century) as successive generations of elites were born into the society and subsequent waves of immigrants came to America, the four determinants quickly began to break down. The main determinant that remained was, and still is, the elites' power to control placement of any striver to the upper echelons of "American" society.

The other main reason class in America escapes definition is that, as a country, we have done our level best to pretend that class does not exist here, especially in the form our founders were trying to advertise an escape from. And "advertise" is the key word here because they have (eventually) built an infrastucture (the vast American media) based on the flow of information which, for the most part, only they can manipulate, simultaneously keeping themselves "elite" and promoting the idea that there is no "elite" in America, just fame and money earned by the sweat of one's "American Dream."

I could go on at book length about this topic. Suffice it to say, the above paragraphs encapsulate my view on the subject. If the Times is ignorant enough to go ahead and trod this well-worn, dead-end path, so be it. Any real discussion of class in America will have to begin with a real admission of its existence. And that means the Times will first have to admit that it IS an "elite" entity which has long been, and continues to be, in the business of telling the American public which classes they belong to, though obviously not through the democratic-style statistical analysis they purport to be using this time around. I'm not kidding when I say a still better way of determining class in America would be just to research and write about what words people use to communicate and how they pronounce those words when they speak them aloud.

Give 'em Enough Rope...

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Vermouth) — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:41:00 +0000

The New York TImes reported today that Dr. Bill Frist, the Senate Majority Leader is lending his voice to a publicity video being distributed by Christian activists starting on April 24 --- a day the Christian PR machine has deemed "Justice Sunday." The poster promoting the televangelical event carries an image of a white teenage boy quizzically looking at a gavel in one of his hands and a bible in the other, accompanied by the taglines, "Public service? Faith in Christ? He should not have to choose." and "The filibuster against people of faith." Well, last time I checked, we still had separation of church and state in the U.S., so the answer to the poster's question is really quite simple. The teenage boy doesn't have to choose, he can have both. And, constitutionally, he is bound to separate one from the other if he ever decides to become a public servant.

Dr. Bill Frist, by lending a hand to these Christian PR specialists, seems to be coming dangerously close to violating the oath of his office. One can only assume that the broadcast will be an attack on Senate Democrats' use of the filibuster in opposing religionists nominated to federal court judgeships by the Bush administration. If Frist seems unfamiliar with constitutional law, at least he is intimate with the rules of the Senate which he is threatening to change if these nominees continue to be held up by filibustering tactics. A look at the Senate's website shows a little history of the filibuster and one such rule change (cloture) that affected it. Of course, Dr. Bill is probably well within his purview to junk tradition and try and get a majority of his colleagues in the Senate to change their rules. That's not what's so ironic here. Lately in this conflict, he has been likening this proposed rule change to some kind of constitutional duty that Democrats are obstructing, saying things like:

"It's consistent with the Constitution, where we are as a body to give advice and consent, and the only way we can give advice and consent is an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate."

Both bodies of Congress have always been full of this kind of maneuvering for partisan power. It's funny to see so many scholars flexing their head veins over these issues. What's not funny is the extent to which people like Dr. Bill Frist are willing to go to ignore the sacred separation of church and state and come out in the media supporting extreme religious positions which are blatantly toying with the U.S. Constitution.

It seems to me that we should all be more worried about this fanatic minority trying to take over our government by successfully purchasing the souls of ambitious politicians like Dr. Bill Frist, rather than quibbling about Senate rules, the "nuclear option," and how many times the filibuster has been used by each party. John Dean, our favorite second act American, thinks Dr. Bill may hang himself if he actually did try to exercise the nuclear option, but in the meantime enough rope is being furiously manufactured for the rest of us.

The 21st-century fascist youth poster boy is staring us right in the face, and he has a gavel in his hand. Isn't it clear that Dr. Bill Frist should not be giving political speeches on TV with these people?

Encomium to Popes John Paul I and II

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Vermouth) — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:13:00 +0000

News of the Pope's death, his funeral arrangements, the reading of his last will and testament, paeans to his life in the mainstream press, throngs of mourners descending on Rome from all over the world, jockeying by members of Congress to be included in the official U.S. delegation to his funeral --- it has all caught me in between two states of mind, I and II.

John Paul II was high priest of the Catholic church for much of my life, and will retain a place in my mind somewhere between entertaining media figure (video scenes of the Popemobile) and principled politician (his strong opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq). I agreed with his pronouncements probably half the time; the other half I found antithetical to the progress of a modern world. And, unfortunately for many of us who live in the developing world where papal pronouncements are taken as the Word of God, his dogmatic positions were probably quite destructive, especially in the areas of individual rights and the fight against AIDS.

As a young teenager, upset with a beauty and goodness that had seemed to abandon America sometime around 1974, I distinctly remember being disappointed when John Paul II ascended the throne in '78. I'd already been captivated by the humility exhibited by John Paul I in his short and reluctant reign as king. He was a humble Northern Italian man who for some reason I thought might bring some beauty and goodness back to me --- if only in the form of tolerance for other world religions and individual free will. Alas, he died suddenly of a heart attack only 33 days into his papacy, and the compromise that had led to his ascension was nullified by the conservative wing of the church in the personage of John Paul II.

Here was a guy from Poland, completely opaque to me as a young American on the other side of the Iron Curtain, taking over for a kind Italian man whom I thought embodied the best of Europe's qualities of enlightened thought. But, who could've known then that a divided Europe would open itself up so widely in the coming decades? To the point where John Paul II would no longer seem like just another beaten-down, paranoid guy from Eastern Europe?

Well, he kept his religion beaten-down and paranoid, but at least he got out there in the world and met some real people, and for that I am grateful. By doing that he made us all come a little closer together in some small way.

So, after all the moneyed religions of the world end up fighting themselves into oblivion, we'll still have the memory of that Polish dude who you could actually hang out with, even though he had some pretty seriously misguided religious beliefs. I shed a tear for the disrespect he showed the modern world, but another one for the legacy of his personal friendship to the wider world.

A Pyrrhic Victory, but for whom?

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Vermouth) — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:59:00 +0000

Fanatical Christian activists want the Federal judiciary to decide whether Terri Schiavo's right to due process under the U.S. Constitution has been violated by her own state's judiciary. Sound complicated? They succeeded in getting the Republican president to sign into law a measure demanding just that. The measure was sponsored by a Republican senator, and then passed by a Republican-controlled House --- not exactly what one might expect from the supposed defenders of states' rights. A federal judge ruled this morning that Terri Schiavo's parents had failed to prove "a substantial likelihood of success" if their case returned to court, and refused to order doctors to reinsert her feeding tube. The Bush administration, of course, then told the press they were unhappy with the ruling. This is all they needed to do. Now, they think, they can take another Senate seat from the Democrats in Florida.

Much had been made of the Democratic response to the congressional measure --- either outrage at the weakness displayed by Democratic senators for letting it pass without delaying tactics (it would have passed anyway), or satisfaction that they were instead letting the measure go unchallenged so that the Republicans would effectively hang themselves if the federal judge assigned to the case ruled that Congress had yet again exceeded its authority in even proposing such a law.

I fear the fault, dear Democrats, lies not in your stars but in yourselves. You think you have been taken hostage by ignorant zealots all over the country, and that there is nothing you can do about it now. I agree. But, just wait. You will see the only power left to you in the form of parliamentary procedure evaporate even further, as these minority activists install their toadies in the rest of your seats, one by one. No one's going to vote for you anymore if you don't stand up for what an overhwelming majority of the country thinks is right.

What's so bad about steroids?

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Vermouth) — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 23:59:00 +0000

The House Committee on Government Reform apparently thinks that steroid use in professional sports is unethical, at least enough to call a hearing on the matter yesterday. Why? What is unethical about a paid athlete wanting to perform at his absolute peak? I'd say it's more like a sacrifice of one's body for his fans and employers. One House member intoned that "steroid use is a crime." It's obviously not, per se. Not that we could expect much better from the used car salesmen who seem to make up the lower body of Congress.

The risks associated with steroid use are well known by now, as is modern medicine's ability to control dosages and combat side effects. If an athlete wants to enhance his performance knowing full well he could be risking:

- Impotence, baldness and breast development in men
- Masculinization of the body in women
- Acne and cysts
- Heart attacks and stroke
- Liver cancer
- Mood changes, irritability, and aggression

among several other recognized side effects, such as suicide, why not? I won't even go into the obvious fact that most of the aforementioned side effects are at best anecdotal. An athlete pretty much becomes a hero in my book if he's willing to take any kind of risk with his body for my entertainment, and presumably his multimillion-dollar earning potential. Those side effects aren't anything I'd want to risk being afflicted with, especially because I view sports as a fun way to keep my body and mind productive and resilient. But professional sports? Isn't that a different matter?

Don't scholars and yuppies take amphetamines and anti-depressants as performance-enhancers? Don't professional musicians use the beta-blocker Inderal? These are all prescription drugs being taken for off-label purposes. What about the odd teenage girl risking auto-immune disorders and cancers by having silicone-filled sacs surgically implanted in her chest? Heart attacks? Breast cancer? Let's not even get into Viagra or the Pill.

One difference in the case of steroids, it seems to me, is that their use hits a nerve with our society's naive need for hero worship. Professional athletes are gods and we pay them accordingly, and gods should not need enhancement, even if the drugs in question are legal and FDA-approved. (Every time an anabolic steroid is added to the list of Schedule III controlled substances, another two compounds, or techniques, are invented to replace it.)

Speaking of naive hero worship, what about adolescents using steroids? Isn't it strange that even with a study that seems to bolster the case for increased suicide in a "subset" of adolescents on Prozac, the National Institute for Mental Health guides doctors and families to make their own decisions, and basically continues to encourage the use of the drug. From the NIMH web site:

"In the recently completed Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study (TADS) funded by NIMH, suicidal thinking generally decreased during treatment with fluoxetine [Prozac], but 15 of the 216 youths on fluoxetine (6.94 percent) had a suicide-related event, such as a suicidal attempt or threats, as compared with 9 of the 223 on the inert placebo pill (4.04 percent)."

That's an INCREASE in suicidal tendencies on Prozac in the study. Again, from the NIMH web site:

"Fluoxetine leads to significant improvement of depression overall. The drug, however, may increase the risk for suicidal behaviors in a small subset of adolescents. As with all medical decisions, doctors and families have to weigh risks and benefits of treatment for each individual patient."

More pressure on doctors to prescribe anti-depressants translates to more profit for the pharmaceutical companies. NIH obviously wouldn't give the same advice for kids (and their twisted parents) wanting a better chance at kicking rival-team-ass. So, steroids become evil in the eyes of Congress, even though they're far less risky than alcohol for instance. It's simple: steroids are cheap and readily available. The drug companies hold no patents on them. There is absolutely no way that congressional hearings would be called on this matter if steroids were proprietary drugs.

Chastizing Putin

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Vermouth) — Sat, 26 Feb 2005 00:01:00 +0000

It boggles the mind that President Bush could stand on the dais next to Vladimir Putin in Bratislava yesterday and declare that "I've got a very good personal relationship with President Putin, and that's important. And it's important because it enables me and our country to remind President Putin that democracies are based upon rule of law and the respect for human rights and human dignity and a free press."

At this juncture; during a U.S. military occupation of Iraq; amid revelations that the U.S. military and other intelligence workers have systematically tortured prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan; amid revelations that the Bush administration has illegally, and again, systematically, paid American journalists to report propaganda for its policy initiatives (the "No Child Left Behind" Act as endorsed by Armstrong Williams, and the Medicare prescription drug benefit as "reported" by Karen Ryan, to name just two); amid revelations that much of the USA Patriot Act which the administration worked so assiduously to pass has been found unconstitutional (the list could go on for a number of pages); I find it unbelievable that President Bush could cite any recent American examples backing up his reminder to Putin.

When I read President Bush's quote, the only thing I'm reminded of is that he and his administration have done more to undermine democratic values here in the U.S. than any other force in the world today. Speaking as one of "our country" I'd like to take this opportunity to issue the same reminder to President Bush. He can only be grateful that the majority of citizens in "our country" are paying little or no attention to his outrageous and inflammatory remarks.

Blizzard at the Ritz

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Vermouth) — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:03:00 +0000

Here in New England there was a 24 hour-long blizzard yesterday. My girlfriend and I walked the few miles over the river to Boston, and stopped for tea at the Ritz. It was the only place we could find open. Sitting in front of the fire with hot chocolate and a plate of artisanal cheeses, I started ruminating on the sights we'd seen on our way there -- individuals, couples, and families digging out their cars; students attempting to make their way to the libraries at MIT; people like us having fun in the snow with skis or snowshoes; and just an all-around vibe of "we'll accept the hand we've been dealt by nature because there's no other choice (flights to Jamaica have been cancelled for the time being anyway) and nature itself is the most compelling DVD rental today."

On our way down Mass Ave., we noticed the only vehicles on the road besides the plows and police happened to be BMWs, Mercedes, Audis, high-end SUVs, and of course the Hummer, which if you're quibbling, is more low-end or prosumer assault vehicle than SUV. (It's a safe bet they carry just as much armor as 88% of the Humvees in Baghdad.) At first, I thought these fools might all be out there, flouting the state of emergency, just to prove their expensive vehicles were up to the task. But then there was the idiot in the orange Dodge Viper going nowhere, very fast, in the middle of Charles Street, blocking two emergency vehicles on their way to Mass General Hospital, and it became a little clearer that just maybe these people, the idling rich, were the ones with garages and hired snow removal service, and that they had no job to do digging out their cars and no worries about losing a precious parking space. This theory made much more sense. They just wanted to be out there enjoying nature's movie (or video game) with the rest of us, but for whatever reason needed to maintain their comfort levels adjusted to electronic whim. Just pull back into garage when game over, OK?

On our way back across the river, after the expensive vehicles had tired of their fun (and the Patriots game had begun), we noticed new legions of entrepreneurs out in force -- gangs of teenagers with shovels roaming the streets looking for a lucrative rumble with someone's driveway, and in many cases, succeeding. They continued making money today, when the lazier people, and the more infirm, decided it wasn't just the football game that had kept them from shoveling the night before.

The occasional blizzard says a lot about the state of the village. Through all the camaraderie on the streets, one can still see a little of the competition -- that small redistribution of wealth nature often brings -- that keeps us all going, essentially just trying to survive, as we call it family fun, or a way to earn a quick buck, while we forget for a moment the critical football game on in another city close by, where the sun just happens to be shining on fields of green (cleared of snow by some 700 people with shovels moments before game time).

Passing All the Bucks

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Vermouth) — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:04:00 +0000

Amazing though it may seem to anyone paying attention, President Bush, in an interview on Air Force One last Friday, stated that he and his administration should not be held accountable for mistakes or misjudgements made in the planning of the Iraq war or its continuation to the present because "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me, for which I am very grateful." Some kind of logic, isn't it? In the same interview he said he would not press the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the U.S., knowing full well that this is the issue that really won him the election.

I suppose this is an example of him spending the famous political capital he says he earned back in November. Of course, we all know he nearly lost the election because of his and his administration's repeated gaffes in Iraq, and won only because various fundamentalist christian organizations turned out voters to support his call for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning gay marrriage back in July during the campaign. I'll never forget that day either. I happened to be walking through the house on my way to mail a letter, and caught him on T.V. in the White House announcing his support for the amendment. It was a very short address. When he finished speaking, various reporters raised their hands and shouted questions as he turned around and left the room without acknowledging any of them. On the C-Span mic one reporter was heard to say, "Is he coming back?" Of course, he didn't. It was as if Karl Rove had sent him out to do his dirty work for the first time, and like a schoolboy made to write on the blackboard, he could not look anyone in the eye that day. Well, maybe he did come back last Friday to answer the question once and for all.

This day's news will thus begin our regular attempt to act as one small outlet putting into plain English obvious facts and conclusions about the administration which anyone paying attention must know to be true, but which cannot be reported in the mainstream media because they come off as some kind of skewed partisan analysis on account of the administration's blatant and brilliant twisting of fact. By now it has become old cliche to say that we have fully entered the world of Orwell's doublethink and Newspeak here in the U.S., but that doesn't mean we should let it continue to happen. Here's one such outlet not afraid to belabor the point. And that is precisely the point. If you are paying attention, it will no longer be enough to continue paying attention, you'll have to start belaboring all such obvious points along with the rest of us belaboring points of truth to combat the opposite. Perhaps then the emporer's garments will begin to reveal themselves as the nothings that they already are.

Let it be said now, Zebrameat is, and always will be, a non-partisan publication devoted to criticism of whichever party happens to be in power.