Can I get an Amen?

"We get excited for the lord."

Indeed. The above was the explanation by a pastor for the rocking out of his Sunday morning service. And when I say rocking out I mean full on drums, keys, and singing. Did I mention the pastor is also the super of my building? Or that his church is beneath my apartment? Specifically, the drums are just below my bedroom. Sweet.

For those that know my views on such ecclesiastical matters, the irony is just too delicious.

Thank god Sunday only comes once a week.

From Russia with love.

Leave it to Russia to come in after the worst of the Iraq debacle, make nice with the current administration, and thus become inexorably tied to the infrastructure in the eventually stable, by current standards anyway, country.

Forgiving billions of Saddam's past military expenditures (why the "new" Iraq would be held accountable is beyond me), Russia now stands poised, via their state controlled petroleum giant, Lukoil, to cash in on the "liberation" of Iraq's vast oil reserves.

But wait, wasn't that part of the, albeit unsaid, deal for the U.S.? Weren't we--oops, I mean American oil companies--supposed to reap the benefits of the new "open" market in Iraq? (At least that's what a good deal of the oh so artistic signs at every anti-war rally have suggested; i.e., "No Blood for Oil" and "Lick my Bush"...OK, maybe not the latter.) We footed the bill and now comrade Putin, after being against America's involvement in Iraq every step of the way, comes in to lock up yet another country in the regions oil game.

Well played, Putin, well played.

Diamonds are for suckers.

Are you a sucker?

One of the first good examples of the unique and innovative power of adversing on early consumerism, specifically the ability of media to influence valuation of intrinsically unvalued items, the diamond industry created a niche within an already established market of pretty stones by creating, maintaining, and selling a myth. A segment of commerce itself a brand. Sale by selling. Winning hearts&minds.

Does the Patriot's loss mean the end of American hegemony?

As for the football, I do enjoy watching, But to me it does seem a bit odd for some to be so emotionally dependent upon the outcome sports event. The extreme joy or sadness seem a bit silly. Then I remind myself: well, what else would people care about so vehemently if not sports, or tv, or celebrity of some sort? Would people start caring/thinking about more "important" (to us intellectuals) things? Would that make things better? Probably not.

Interestingly, I've known many "crazy" sports folks who otherwise are quite smart and informed people. Yet, if their team looses, it can ruin there whole week. A question a few of my friends and I have had over the years in response to such things (I'm sure we're not the only ones to think it): How many women get physically, or at least mentally, abused due to a loosing sports event?

I would say part of the whole thing has to do with the gambling aspect, which seems pretty endemic within sports. I find people, myself included, like to feel like an authority on something, anything in their lives. Just listen to sporting conversation. Besides creating a context for dialogue for various types of folks (a positive effect, especially here in NYC), mostly sports talk revolves around projecting future outcomes or rehashing previous events, hence the phrases "Monday morning quarterbacking." Gambling is a way to prove the validity of one's forecast, as well as accentuate the thrill (or misery) of the outcome. Of course, this ties into the most commonly noted and felt aspect of "fandom" (fan, short for fanatic), which is the enmeshing of ones life with something outside ourselves. Past ( as nostalgia), present (as victors or vanquished), and future (as retaining glory or struggling for it); for many, as with human relationships with dogs (I'll leave this for another time), the we-feeling of the group, family, etc. is not only necessary to function but has a centripetal affect on potential sociopathic behavior. Yes, despite the negative in the abuse of a spouse, I believe better one in the home than many in the mall...or at the Super Bowl.

It's 10 o'clock, do you know where your children are? (or: Out with the old and in with the new.)

Top three stories of the local Fox news broadcast:

A man in a small town Missouri council meeting went on a shooting rampage killing 6 people, including two police officers. The "blood bath" included the wounding of the mayor and several others.

According to the FBI, a lone white male is in custody for apparently getting within in visual range of the Super Bowl Sunday with the intent of going on a killing spree. He was found with a gun and about 200 rounds of ammunition.

Prosecutors for New York's southern district announced the roundup and indictment of several dozen members of the Gambino crime family. Captured were the top three of the organization: the boss, his consiglieri and top capo. As well, members in Italy were also rounded up in connection with cross Atlantic drug trafficking.

Now, you tell me: they're called "organized crime" for a reason, no? Which do you prefer?

Best name of a witness to a mall stabbing, ever. (or: "Happiness Is a Wam Gun.")

Irina Slutsky. Sorry Rus/Ukraine-philes, but it's good one.

Apparently, she was doing her part for the economy a few years back at the more up-scale indoor mall, near to where I grew up, when a knife wielding black woman started stabbing rich (presumed) white women. Can anyone say relative deprivation? I suggest we deal with the increasing wealth asymmetry before no white woman is safe to stroll the climate-controlled halls of capitalism.

Don't remember how I found this, but the story was posted on a pro-gun discussion board. Like with any violent attack that makes headlines, NRA folks feel the need remind us that if only helpless Ms. Slutsky had been packing, at least some of the carnage would've been avoided. Poor Irina, she'll never be able to lie awake at night with the warm, cozy feeling that she killed (or maybe just wounded) a, most likely, mentally disturbed individual. Damn you MD liberals!

George of the Jungle

Don't ask why. According to Smithsonian's Human Origins Program, and after checking a few other places, the consensus seems to be that the first woman, the mother of us all lived a little less than 200,000 years ago, in Africa. First, I didn't know the Smithsonian had such a program. After that sank in, and remembering that the Smithsonian is a federally funded institution, I thought it a bit incongruous that not far from the National Mall downtown is another federal building where the President of the United States lives. Despite the venerable, old buildings dedicated to "science" and "reason," our dear, simple Bush believes that all that evolution stuff is just a bunch of bull-puckey (i.e., hooey). Although, perhaps he's not "touched" (i.e., retarded) as much as uninformed. Not stupid but unintelligent. In which case, I recommend Jr. makes a visit to the National Museum of Natural History. I went there throughout my childhood and found it very informative. The big displays and models really drive home things like carbon dating that books and TV leave flat and unstimulating. Well, George, get stimulated.

Hooked

An interesting step on the path to understanding the physiology of addiction, here in The Economist, which can hopefully influence drug policy reform as well as future treatment alternatives. Only once addiction and drug abuse/use are understood as functions of both environmental and biological factors can we begin to alleviate the damage done communities and individuals--in part because of an uninformed bias among different substances, and the arbitrary moral distinctions that follow.

Jumping through hoops.

Now they've really gone and done it. The Clinton's have proved via the presidential medium that men and women are different, sexual stereotypes are true, and that people like it that way. Swollen-eyed and of shaky voice, poor Hillary finally caved under the pressure. After years of subverting the gender role, she got girly. Things weren't going her way, so she pouted. On TV. In front of the world. She's running for president. Of the United States. Of America. Can you imagine Ron Paul doing that? Not that I would mind. (I'm just trying to piss off his "enthusiastic" supporters.)

But here's the awesome part: it totally won her New Hampshire primary. Big time. Apparently women who were against, undecided, or weren't even gong to vote came out in droves for their girl. When have you ever heard Hillary referred to as a girl? (OK, my father doesn't count.) All weekend long, most coverage was about the first black president. I was getting kinda misty, myself. Left over were two underdogs, real man of the people populist--supposedly real this time--and the beginnings of a Clinton pity-party. Misty again, over here.

Just as Clinton the first filled the, cough, big shoes of the philandering, smoking, musician stereotype and only became more popular, Jr. has just surged in popularity in not the most establishment friendly of states. For not even crying, almost crying. What would've happen if she had cried? I think the whole state would've voted for her. Hell, I'd have voted for her.

It sure was effective. I were a scenic, I'd say this perhaps not so authentic display was her trump card she's been holding onto since her run at senator that she didn't have to play in New York. Until now, "The Heartbreak in Iowa." Even so, maybe she didn't really want to use it. Maybe she'd hoped she wouldn't have to, ever. Maybe a piece of me hoped that too. But hey, maybe that's not why she won, right?

I hear Obama plays a good game of hoops.

I've heard better rants...

about the time wasting, mind-numbing, dumb-fuckedness, and most importantly, uselesness of the TSA. My father's ongoing one, for example. But nice to hear it from an actual pilot.

Maybe we should start a grassroots movement:

Down w/ the TSA!

I'll make the bumper stickers. You bring the toothpaste.

Oswald as unacknowledged Leftist hero?

Let me start by saying I think it is an interesting thesis, and makes a good argument about the movement of the left, well, to the left and about the way in which Oswald's agenda was manipulated. That said, the problem, like most partisan critiques, is that it is blown out of proportion. Meaning, though this does describe a certain, splinter mentality of the left, it is not the whole left--not even the academia left.

I feel I can speak to this, attending a school renowned for its "crazy" leftists, in the dept that should and does indeed harbor them. Now having had most of the tenured, "known" prof's, I can say they're there, that they are all not the same (i.e, have different attitudes on issues), and that there are those that aren't on the left that openly disagree w/, and even jest about, their colleagues. For example, my International Relations teacher this semester is a Jamaican born, American who is a working variously as diplomat, negotiator and consultant to African countries. On the left? Most likely. A realist of the necessity and benefit of an American hegemony at the moment? Yes. Derisive, when pressed, of certain radical ideas? Yep. Once she even mocked, as I do occasionally, my beloved Marxist/hippie prof, Berman (speaking of which, he never once mentioned the goto, hated Chomsky). But, usually it's more for his hippie (I use this word grudgingly, he's actually one of the most educated, knowledgeable people out there) optimism--he's no radical hater of America. In fact, he just put out a book about the good old days of pre-Disney New York, specifically Times Sqr. One of the main themes in his classes is how NY is/has been a great nexus of international metropolitanism, uniting all different folks, ideas, cultures, etc...see, hippie optimism.

Anyway, I'd like to go on about the rest of my encounters w/ the faculty (good and bad) to expose, I believe, more of the depth in "liberal" academia than the Melkin-aphites grant it. But, since most of your eyes are already glazing over and you're moaning something like "oh, Dan" I'll finish w/ my thesis: You/those people (include yourself if the shoe fits) need to start differentiating between radicals and liberals. Seriously, this is like poli-sci 101, people. They mean different things, I won't condescend to explain. To be sure, the line does blur--but there is a line! As well, the lines across the spectrum blur.

Case in point: name the one and only candidate for President that opposes the "validity of deploying U.S. military power" (not just Iraq) and for the most part is not only "ambivalent"but disdainful about the "worth of traditional American institutions?" Not a Democrat or a liberal. Give up? Ron Paul, the psycho I happen to agree w/ on one thing, as you all know: the lameness and ineffectiveness of the drug war. Update: excuse the language, but, HOLY SHIT! I just heard an audio of Paul himself saying that he thinks Lincoln was wrong to have fought the civil war--whaat! Makes you wonder if he's not a plant to make the right look bad. Good luck w/ the black vote, buddy. By logical extension, I take it he was against intervention in both world wars. Except maybe the Pacific, since, you know, we were attacked and all.

As with "god," "crackpot" is a word and the argument ends there. (Sorry, paraphrasing an obscure lyric, but hopefully you'll get the point.) So, please, only use it if necessary, for certain people and ideas, not entire generations or movements--that's too easy. (Example: universal healthcare does not equal communism, sorry.)

Because they don't hate us enough already...

It's finally happened. Forget about diplomacy, bring home the troops for Christmas, and fear not the $100 barrel of oil--Messiah has arrived to save the day. Well, MTV anyway. Yes, the epitome of America's "shit culture" (yes, I've trademarked it) has come to the Middle East. According to MTV they are hoping to "break boundaries without disrespecting their tradition and culture," (thanks AP). Hmm, how exactly do you crack an egg and cook it up without disrespecting the mother hen? OK, yes I just compared Arabic culture to a chicken, but you get my point. Either it will be so watered down that it will have no challenging content or it will cause a stir, thus radicalizing as much as it indoctrinates. Speaking of which, I'm all for using culture, in addition to other forms of soft power, to bring about positive modernization in places that frankly need it. I'm just not sure I want Arab kids emulating hip-hop stars, no matter how timid, talking about rims, and watching reality TV. Look what it's done here, where we actually have options other than either MTV and Madrassas.

In reality, the many millions of viewers have not only been westernized already but are avid fans of hip-hop--why else would MTV launch this channel if not to capitalize on a booming market? Willing allies in the "war(s) on terror" they aint. Most of the viewership and the station itself will undoubtedly be centered around Dubai and the other more western-friendly Emirates. Remember, this is the playground of the Middle East's wealthy, male elite--'what happens in Dubai, stays in Dubai' (not mine, but wish it was). I wonder, though, if these oil baron-sheiks really want their daughters asking them why they have to wear their burkas.

Interestingly, to celebrate the channel's launch MTV brought out two of their biggest stars: Akon and Ludacris. I'll let the Dubai City Guide describe the breathtaking scene.

"Senegalese-born Akon wowed the audience with two songs from his best-selling album Konvicted [like convicted for drinking alcohol or being gang raped], including his recent hit single ‘Smack That’ [as in 'smack that ho' or 'smack that ass'] and ‘Don’t Matter.’ Ludacris pumped up the crowd with hit songs like ‘Pimpin’ [my ride/that bitch/your bitch/(again) that ass] all Over the World’ and ‘Money Maker.’" I suppose the sheiks are down with that last one, though...