The Last Post on the Bugle

A McCain presidency would send a strong message to the world: despite the embarrassing state of our health care, and the appalling nature of our national diet, we Americans somehow still manage to get very, very old.

Cindy McCain taking pointers in presentation from Roberta McCain.

McCain looks for women that remind him of his mother – to the point of embalmment.

Whenever young people, either alone or in pairs, shoot up their place of study, their rampage is followed by tiresome, unimaginative debate. One side, the Joe Liebermans of the world, decry the degeneration of youth culture, and it’s apparently devastating effect on young minds. The other, the more conscientious types, take the more irreverent position, and point to the arsenal of weapons stockpiling in suburban playrooms.

What rarely receives mention, and blame, is medication. Many of the most high-profile school shooters of the last decade have enjoyed quite an unhealthy relationship with dangerous pharmaceuticals. The catch of these pharmaceuticals, is that their side-effects wildly betray their original function.

“A man who killed five students and himself during a shooting spree at an Illinois college had stopped taking medication and become erratic in the last two weeks, buying two guns used in the bloodbath just six days ago, officials said on Friday.”
Reuters

Besides his eventual affinity for guns, the only thing that Stephen Kazmierczak had in common with the Harrises, Klebolds, and Seung-Huis of the afterlife,was his medicinal diet. Eric Harris started off with Prozac, and ultimately upgraded to zoloft. Dylan Klebold, like Seung-Hui a decade after him, was also a regular consumer of Anti-depressants (what brandname exactly, was never disclosed by police).

Now, the obvious counter-argument to blaming medication for this kind of violence, is that all of these men were crazy enough to qualify for the prescriptions they received. Unfortunately, anti-depressants are wildly overprescribed in America; mild depression often serves as a sufficient precondition for heavy medication. My own shrink was no different. After 3 short visits, the honorable gentleman was convinced that my social ineptitude and short attention span could be cured with the drop of a pill.

“There is something to be said here about the word “depression,” which has almost entirely eliminated the word and even the concept of unhappiness from modern life. Of the thousands of patients I have seen, only two or three have ever claimed to be unhappy: all the rest have said that they were depressed. This semantic shift is deeply significant, for it implies that dissatisfaction with life is itself pathological, a medical condition, which it is the responsibility of the doctor to alleviate by medical means. Everyone has a right to health; depression is unhealthy; therefore everyone has a right to be happy (the opposite of being depressed). This idea in turn implies that one’s state of mind, or one’s mood, is or should be independent of the way that one lives one’s life, a belief that must deprive human existence of all meaning, radically disconnecting reward from conduct.

A ridiculous pas de deux between doctor and patient ensues: the patient pretends to be ill, and the doctor pretends to cure him.”
Theordore Dalrymple

Widespread debates on violence only seem to stir up in America, when lone gunmen shoot enough people to get the attention from the media that they never received from their peers. After the shots are fired, and the bodies are bagged, different groups hype their main concerns, with differing levels of self-interest. The fact that medication is rarely mentioned, might well have to do with the indisputable power of the pharmaceutical companies in America. It might also have to do with the fact that medication is so deeply intertwined with American existence, that both sides in the debate can agree on it’s necessity. Of course, gun control should remain the central issue in this debate (after all, its hard to stab your way through a full assembly hall) but the liberal distribution, and reliance on these heinous chemicals also deserves mention.

PS: I’m not a member of the church of Scientology.

“He beat me. I certainly would be glad to get his advice. I don’t think I’d want to revisit how he did it. And I mean that. Not about South Carolina. I mean I don’t feel like reliving my defeat,” – John McCain on Karl Rove.

Sounds like somebody is coming to terms with their illegitamite child.

“These kids get drunk off hope and change, and before you know it they’re doing…these things; handing out pamphlets, calling relatives to follow this man as well. It’s like Waco…but this time David Koresh…he’s black.”
Sheriff Ben Adam of Waco, Texas

In yesterday’s op-ed piece in the New York Times (the quite aptly titled “Hate Springs Eternal“) Paul Krugman did himself few favours. Anyone who thought that Mr. Krugman was unduly harsh to Barack Obama in the past, now has a full page of evidence to support that view. Krugman’s intellectual dishonesty boggles the mind. Under the impression that the media are unfair in their criticism of Sen. Clinton, he actively tries to correct this imbalance by attacking her opponent with a similarly unsupported slant.

It is unclear what Krugman aimed to do with this piece. The central claim of the article, that Obama’s supporters are behind much of the venom in the campaign, receives no relevant proof in his arguments. He just plants this assertion on the page, as if his liberal conscience should be assurance enough that it is indeed legitamite.

The most vicious attacks he can point to, all emanate within the media. Krugman seems to be implying, that because these outlets attack Hillary disproportionately, they are by default supporters of Obama. This is, a completely faulty argument. The kind of argument, which, in a fair society, would only find expression in the form of excrement smeared on alleyway walls. MSNBC are as much surrogates of Obama, as Krugman is a surrogate of Hillary’s. As for Hillary’s real surrogates, the Bob Johnsons, Tom Vilsacks, Andrew Youngs, like the Iraq War, they receive little mention in Krugman’s writing.

Obama must be glad to see his most credible adversary make such an unfortunate fool of himself.

The donkeys of conservative European punditry are mad at the Archbishop of Canterbury, because of his recent comments on sharia courts in English mosques. His colleagues are calling for his replacement, after all, he is the principle leader of the church of England, and thus wields considerable power. What worries me is not the position taken by said archbishop, it is the power intrinsic in the position he holds within church, and, as a result, State.

Why should his comments come as such a surprise? After all, despite doctrinal differences, most Abrahamic faiths agree on more than they disagree on. I would argue that most pious Christians of good conscience, have more regard for a practicing muslim than for a theoretical atheist.

One of the main differences between Christians and Muslims these days, seems to be that Muslim leaders seem to have more control of their flock. Next to natural demographic shifts, it is also this aura of certainty and heavy-handed leadership that has lead to the swelling of Islamic ranks within Europe through conversion. Despite what Americans might believe about Europe, a lot of Europeans are still, very much, men and women of god. Religiosity requires a certain submissiveness, and submissive characters oftentimes fiend for less carrot and more stick; for such people, Islam, and especially it’s popular image, have much to offer. Arguably more than Christianity, a faith blurring with capitalism, and seemingly drowning in paedophilia and doubt.

Hence, reports of Islam rivalling Christianity as the predominant religion of Europe aren’t solely the products of Xenophobia, they are also the results of sober calculation. Moreover, the xenophobia lies in the fear of this development. Personally, I am not so worried. As far as I’m concerned, religious people can plaster the streets, bleeding from crosses or kneeling on rugs, as long as I am allowed to whore about and indulge while they fast and abstain.

Yes, I’m very much a live and let live guy, and sharia law, as it is practiced already in many mosques in England, doesn’t threaten this glorious lifestyle. Like the Beth Din courts upheld by European Jews since the Middle Ages, these ‘courts’ (where Allah, peace be upon him, is both judge and jury) merely resolve petty civil and financial disputes, and don’t affect the lives of infidels. They don’t involve themselves in prosecution of any sort. The archbishop merely argued that these already existent courts be acknowledged, and integrated into the system so they stay under state control. This, of course, doesn’t calm the, usually so tranquil, European conservative mob. They argue in their newspaper columns and coffeklatsches, that once you loosen up the law for minor insertions of sharia, the consitution becomes fertile ground for the same Sharia’s feared “penal code”. According, to their “logic”, demographic shifts could allow such a “Machtergreifung” to happen within fully democratic terms.

Such conservatives also tend to characterize immigrants as perepetually coming in “floods”, “waves” or “invasions”; basically, whatever image they can conjure up to suggest both conspiracy and uniformity. These same xenophobes might find it hard to consider that these invaders are a tad more differentiated; in fact, many of them might be quite unenthusiastic about life under the Sharia penal code. After all, their personal experience of such laws, might make them altogether appreciative of their limbs and sinfully uncircumcised spouses. I would argue (for no particular reason except that I am extremely opinionated) that the extremists we really have to worry about are the converts. Converts, generally, have too much to prove. They try too hard to make up for their lack of natural fieriness. (case in point: Assam the American)

The beforementioned conservatives, have pamphlets for both the poor (the sun, Bild) and the rich (Spiegel, Times). In these publications they are rarely concerned with religion as a whole, they focus solely on the evils of Islam. At the same time, they often decry the moral depravity of contemporary society with the same peasant seriousness as any Mullah or Omar. Their habitual “we are capitulating”-bullshit is as disturbing as it is intellectually lazy. Note their obsessive use of the habitual, ill-defined “we.” “We” I often take to mean us “Christians” and, herein lies the great hypocrisy. Many European societies from Denmark to England have tighter bonds between church and state then, the oh-so-conservative United States. In England the Queen is both the head of church and of State, she can veto whoever the people choose as their prime minister. Now, she generally doesn’t decline the peoples choice, and so, this power is often considered purely theoretical, but, as long as its on the books this bond exists. In countries like Denmark and Germany, part of a citizen’s taxes unwillingly end up as tithe to the church.

As long as European conservatives aren’t dedicated to the complete secularization of their own states, they have little right to whine and worry about islamization and the inevitable capitulation to it. Unless you work to completely severe the bond between god and country, and create lasting institutions to protect this secularism, you can’t complain if your state is islamacised, once a significant portion of the population is Muslim.

David Shuster is a hollow character, who went with the irreverent flow at MSNBC and got carried away. What he said about Chelsea Clinton was tasteless, but, in the context of pigheaded American punditry, forgiveable. Unfortunately, artificial controversy is easy to whip up and hard to control in America. Something is said, someone gets offended, and before you know it everyone is dismayed, alleging, suggesting, decrying, until another empty face disappears from the screen.

At the same time, I am not shedding a tear for Mr. Shuster. He should have lost his job a long time ago, more specifically, after the release of the documentary “Control Room”. In the brilliant film about media coverage of the Iraq War, Shuster is shown being just another patriotic hyena, conditioned by the governments drumbeat to war, cheeringleading for our boys. In those days, he was just another Junior reporter at MSNBC. Despite his failure to do anything but toe the government line, he somehow rose through the ranks of the channel in the years that followed.

In Control Room, Shuster is shown jublilantly celebrating as “our boys” entered Bagdhad. The talking head gets to open his mouth as well. Joking about Iraqis looting in the streets after the regime fell, he quips happily “looks kind of like wheel of fortune.” His other big moment in the film, is when he speaks with great condescension about his Al Jazeera colleagues and their “rebelliousness”. Shuster attributes the superiority of American coverage of the war to “200 years of free speech.” How unfortunate, that he was on the wrong side of history.

Whoever still has any pleasent feelings for this man, shouldn’t be too worried. His face is sure to reappear sometime soon on a screen near you, once the public has forgotten his infractions. It shouldn’t take more than a news cycle or two. Until then, his body will be frozen to preserve it’s natural nothingness, and he will await ideological injection in some secret lab in Burbank, California.

General election polls, at this point, are not to be trusted for a whole lot of reasons. Just take into consideration the differences in turn-out between the democratic and republican contests, and it becomes clear that John McCain’s advantage in match-ups with Barack and Hills is not to be taken seriously.

A lot of voters I know, are so empassioned by Barack Obama that they proclaim that they wouldn’t vote for Hillary if she won the nomination, and I’m sure some of the Hillary-drones feel the same way. Because, a lot of this is hot air, and many of these voters will turn out for whichever democratic nominee, the polls are currently innaccurate.

At the same time, I think that Hillary-enthusiasts are more likely to be swayed to vote for Obama than vice versa. This has much to do with the different conduct of the two campaigns, Obama supporters (especially African Americans) are more likely to leave this primary season with a general sense of disillusionment if their candidate of choice isn’t the nominee.

Hillary could beat McCain, Barack Obama will.

Barack’s current platform translates easier into a platform for the General Election than Hillary’s. After all, “experience” is an altogether unsuitable mantra, when running against the oldest presidential candidate in American history. “Change” seems much more apt.

McCain is closely associated with the surge, John Edwards cleverly branded it the McCain doctrine. Since then, McCain has been at his most hawkish, embracing another 100 years of American occupation in the country. While this may appeal to some republicans, it is ultimately a gamble. McCain’s credibility is closely aligned with the stability of the most volatile region in the world.

The surge may have improved the conditions in Iraq superficially, but violence is still rampant, Baghdad is still the most dangerous city in the world, and political reconciliation is as unlikely as ever. Many Americans see just enough betterment in Iraq for it to no longer be their primary concern.

If this is success, then, besides being the product of incredibly low expectations, it is also immensely fragile. As soon as this lull discontinues, McCain’s “100 years in Iraq” will be immensely unpopular, and his stance will reemerge as a liability. Who better to exploit that than Barack Obama, the anti-war candidate? On Iraq, similarly to many veterans of the war, Hillary has no leg to stand on. Hillary has been vague, at best, about her withdrawl plans. She has mentioned withdrawing within 6 months of her presidency, but only “if it’s reasonable to do so.” Similarly, McCain wants to withdraw when he thinks its reasonable to do so, and he is thinking along the lines of 100 years. After all, that’s how long he’s been fighting his personal battles.

This leads us to another one of McCain’s central problems; he tends to get very, very angry. Americans surely want a tough president, but it is unlikely they want an unpredictable one, who succumbs to his temper so easily. Obama, on the other hand, has shown himself to be extremely cool. Mrs. Clinton has thrown some scathing jabs at the man while they were on stage together, and he has remained remarkably calm, without seeming weak in the slightest. Under attack, Obama tends to stir, while McCain tends to boil. Another clear contrast that would seem to work in Obama’s favour.

Obama makes McCain look ancient; a problem in itself for a candidate who is constantly being asked whether he is “too old.” As far as oratory goes, Obama is vastly superior to McCain, their Super Tuesday victory speeches couldn’t be more different in quality.

To sum up, which match-up could possibly present more obvious, advantageous contrasts than this one? Obama vs. McCain, would be old vs. young, effortless vs. tortured (literally), hopeful vs. bitter, anti-war vs. pro-war; to fall back on a stereotypical, slightly inaccurate historical comparison, it’ll be JFK vs. Nixon all over again. Hillary has none of these advantages. Regardless of what the polls say now, I can’t see McCain doing very well if he goes head-to-head with Obama on the “Electromechanical television set” (McCain).

I salivate at the thought.

This is what happens when policemen get bored. The job itself tends to attract people who, more than anything, want respect. As this video shows, it doesn’t take much to put a dent in this fragile sense of authority. Americans respect their local officials too much. According to national folklore, criminals are innately dangerous and aimlessly destructive, and policemen are all that stops them imposing their evil upon us. Hence, we should be as patient and forgiving with our police, as we are unforgiving with the men they protect us from. After all the moral grey area they inhabit, serves as a buffer zone between criminal chaos and righteous serenity.

I think that a healthy society should be more weary of abuses of official power, than petty criminal infractions. After all, if our society is built on the assumption that certain people assume the moral highground of official power, our society’s credibility suffers more when these officials infringe on their power, than when powerless individuals break the laws these officials uphold. The few common values we share as a society become increasingly hypocritical to citizens constantly confronted with corrupt politicians, and violent policemen who seem immune to serious prosecution, while drugdealers are demonized and waste away in state dungeons.

An economic depression occurs when people lose their belief in the worth of money. A state’s monopoly on violence suffers similarly when people become disillusioned with the fairness of law. Our uncritical worship of our police forces, paired with our unforgiving stance on criminality, further bolsters the fringes and margins of society.