Different Kinds of Idiots

In the simplest terms, I’m glad nobody noticed the revival of this blog; that would only make this latest re-interment more embarrassing.

Even so, this second burial enjoys an advantage over the first in that this most recent closure comes out of a happier frame of mind. Rather than the old bitter taste on the tongue, I’m shutting down My Very Brain in the knowledge that a one-man blog is not the way I want to communicate with the world. Much like it’s author, this site was more than a little aimless.

I do, however, want to leave this space with the one thing I’ve learned since starting blogging - and it’s not the bitter parting shot it may seem to be.

Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, Perotists, Libertarians, Snake-Handling Evangelicals, Malthusian Eco-Terrorists: they’re all just different kinds of idiots. I’ve never met a human being who wasn’t, in some way, an idiot. The smarter idiots understand this and therefore approach the world with some vital saving quantity of humor and humility. As for the multitude of idiots in denial, you're better off not engaging them in conversation.

(##########)

Today's Top 3: McCain, Free Trade Push-Back

And thus a concept was born....or rather borrowed, and abbreviated, from my other site. I need to keep reminding myself this is a blog, more of a message board that I want to visit for purposes of blabbing as opposed to writing seriously; the latter activity rightly belongs in outlets with a higher bar to publication, editors, fact-checking, etc.

So, without pounding that soapbox any longer, here are the three most interesting items I came across today:

- OK, not totally done pounding: As I'll often do, I mined the shit out of Arts & Letters Daily (LINK), which yielded, among other items, a nice review of a book titled The Cult of the Amateur. The premise is pretty simple: the democratization of information ain't all it's cracked up to be.

- Free trade enjoys about as broad support across the political spectrum as about any concept out there; a hell of a lot of numbers back it up and blah, blah, blah. The remarkable thing, though, is the extent to which free trade, as prescribed by the World Bank/IMF outfits, have largely throttled growth in South America and Africa; an article in Foreign Policy looks at this puzzling phenomenon by considering "Developmentalism" as more of an ideology than functioning policy. A second piece, and just about as much fun in this context, looks at how today's richest economies grew by doing just the opposite of what they're demanding developing countries do today. Or, as that article puts it:

"In 1841, Friedrich List, a German economist, criticised Britain for preaching free trade to other countries when she had achieved her economic supremacy through tariffs and subsidies. He accused the British of "kicking away the ladder" that they had climbed to reach the world's top economic position. Today, there are certainly some people in rich countries who preach free trade to poor countries in order to capture larger shares of the latter's markets and to pre-empt the emergence of possible competitors. They are saying, "Do as we say, not as we did," and act as bad samaritans, taking advantage of others in trouble. But what is more worrying is that many of today's free traders do not realise that they are hurting the developing countries with their policies. History is written by the victors, and it is human nature to reinterpret the past from the point of view of the present. As a result, the rich countries have gradually, if often sub-consciously, rewritten their own histories to make them more consistent with how they see themselves today, rather than as they really were."

- Finally, John "Straight Talk" McCain is toast. Why is that something to celebrate? He leeched every last drop of authenticity from his body to curry favor with elements of the Right he decried not so long ago. The attire of a presidential candidate shouldn't require knee-pads; good for the conservatives and independents who throttled McCain's campaign by stiffing him.

(############)

I have a plan...

...for running this site (not that anyone will see it take effect). But, if it does pay off, I'll be able to start pimping the thing once again.

(########)

Conservatives' Blind-Spot

I can't recall a Supreme Court ruling in the past few years that has spawned the kind of sustained commentary I'm seeing in the wake of the ruling that struck down Seattle, Washington and Louisville, Kentucky programs for "voluntary" diversification (I use scare quotes there because the case itself suggests an element of the involuntary). A piece I read on Slate today about how conservatives co-opted Brown v. the Board of Education is only the latest.

The most striking thing about this ruling, however, is the way it highlights the conservative habit of voting/ruling/legislating for the world as they want it to be as opposed to the world as it is. No single line captured this mentality better than Chief Justice Roberts' admonition that, "The best way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating of the basis of race."

Never has a statement been all at once so true and so irrelevant. Discrimination happens, whether by self-selection among people simply more comfortable around "their own kind" or by the serial inequalities that separate the day-to-day existence of the different racial/ethnic groups in America. The logic of this ruling, effectively, wishes all that away, even if it offers remedies (e.g. the suggestion of placing schools in mixed neighborhoods or re-drawing district boundaries).

Thanks to the remedies, the ruling enjoys a leg-up on the Greatest Delusion that energizes conservative voters: the wholly unsubstantiated, yet deeply rooted, belief that, we can stop human sexuality by either not discussing it or encouraging abstinence. Calls for public virtue similarly fall in the first encounter with reality; there's just something about human nature.

(###########)

Roberts Is the One You Watch

Just a quick one here...

A couple weeks of Supreme Court verdicts have sufficiently shocked a chunk of the country, thereby reminding people that George W. Bush's elections had consequences, whatever you think of them. The scary thing to me personally, though, was the ease with which I was able to predict how nearly every single ruling the Court made would come down (one exception) when I saw them listed prior to the docket.

Can I prove this? Of course not...it's not important that you believe me on that.

The point is, the Roberts Court has proved ominously predictable; if that doesn't suggest an ideological bent - as opposed to a "strict constructionist" one - I don't know what does. As the Center for American Progress pointed out, perhaps this "isn't so surprising. But the moment for me came with Samuel Alito's elevation to the Court.

For all that, Alito wasn't the one who made me nervous. He's kind of the frontal assault on liberal jurisprudence. Roberts is the one you need to watch; he duped plenty of people during the nomination, but he's the judicial equivalent of the one who smiles to your face as he sticks the knife in your back.

Naturally, politics plays a role in all this. The Left is definitely antsy; speaking for myself, the Court's rulings have so far smacked around both my libertarian and liberal impulses. But who didn't know this was coming? In the grand scheme, and assuming the country is trending left in general, odds are the Court's rulings will only deepen those trends.

But is the country trending left? Can't say for sure. I know the Republicans aren't the flavor of the month; the question is when they get back in the rotation.

(#########)

Odds 'n' Ends: A (Dumber) Wiki; 9/11 Bikini Conspirators

Some days, you just have to celebrate the junk out there.

For instance, the always useful b3ta.com (who made this catchy thing, for instance) directed me to a new "wiki" project, The Uncyclopedia, which looks like a spontaneous, collaborative comedy stunt. And, of course, it's got the obligatory entry to Chuck Norris.

Anyway, there's a place to kill time for ya.

Speaking of places to absolutely murder time by the legion, it's hard - very hard - to top Youtube. And, thanks to wonderful, wonderful technology (which means I have no idea what Americans will do for entertainment in the power-free days after the Apocalypse) I can embed stuff in this site. For instance, a video clip by some dude named Mark Dice, who spreads the weird word that 9/11 was an inside job...using women in bikinis. It's odd, assuming 9/11 was an inside job, that "The Resistance" seems so preoccupied with women in bikinis...then again, there's that whole thing about the proper response to tragedy being laughing or crying...anyway, enjoy the video.



Should this offend me - or anyone for that matter? Not that I can think of. Does the fact that 38% (or whatever the figure cited in the video) believe 9/11 was an inside job affect my life? I doubt it. The women the crew gets to repeat the propaganda don't seem overly bothered.

For the record, though, I highly doubt 9/11 was an inside job...though, with that weird bastard Dick Cheney running the show...well, I'm sure he's thought up stranger things.

Thanks, by the way, to Reason's Hit & Run blog for introducing me to the bikini-clad 9/11 conspirators.

Ah, enough of that. I'll wrap up this one with a Lily Allen video. Damn, this song is catchy...even if I can't quite peg the title.



(###########)

Cheney: Impeach? Hmm... Stop? Oh, Hell Yes

Slate fronted an item today calling for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney...love the photo, by the way.

In a sharply titled column - "Cheney Unbound" - the staid 'n' steady David Broder, after listing the various outrages Cheney has committed against the spirit of an informed public reaches the conclusion that Cheney's modus operandi "was not illegal, and it was not unconstitutional" - and I suspect he's correct on that score.

All of this follows from a, frankly, kick-ass Washington Post series that demonstrated that Dick Cheney does, in fact, run the country. What's that, you say? Bush still makes the final decisions? And that he has overruled Cheney in the past. Perhaps - but only after selecting options from a menu written by Cheney.

If you want the gory details on how Cheney does what he does, the Post series will get you there. And, as you read it, the overwhelming impression is that Cheney's pervasive, persistent arrogation of powers to his office occurs with the president's blessing; as such, it follows that the president possesses the power to stop this at any time. He won't, of course, because he's a small, lazy man.

Bruce Fein, the author of Slate's piece (and, apparently, a conservative) makes the case that Cheney's power-grab - and it is that; we elected Bush to run the country - violates the Constitution. He also enumerates the myriad bad, bad ideas spawned by Cheney to fight terrorism - methods that, no doubt, will allow members of the security apparatus to read this message and act on it...assuming they're insane and have absolutely nothing to do - positing those are no less illegal. Hence, impeachment.

The thing is, I don't think impeachment is necessary, never mind possible; unless I miss my guess, the impeachment and conviction of Cheney through the current Congress is about as likely as me spontaenously growing hair and winning the lottery. But someone whatever entity possesses standing - and, here, I believe Congress plays the role (don't know that; don't care to know) - needs to challenge every half-baked executive order and crack-pot supposition forwarded by the Office of the Vice President in federal courts. I don't give a flying fuck what happens to Cheney, but his various horrible, horrible ideas need to be stopped ASAP.

The good news: the first steps in this process have been taken. It's time to step on the gas, though.

One last thing: should the Democrats - hell, the sane portions of the country - get tarred with charges of irresponsibility what with the war on and all, don't listen to that hokum. We're managing this war with the functional equivalent of our left pinky toe; moreover, checking King Dick and returning the executive to a functioning system of checks in balances is more important to this country than the War in Iraq.