NEW BLOG

So as I announced before the weekend, I am shutting this blog down. I am moving on. It's not you, blogger, it's me. I swear. Anyway, the new and improved site (which is still getting the kinks worked out) can be found at http://delightfultact.wordpress.com Same sardonic style, different address.

the last straw

i cannot take blogger anymore, it's horrible formatting coupled with its constant bugs makes it an inconvenience that is adding pressure to my otherwise hectic life. by the end of the weekend, there will be a new address. stay tuned

The Rationality (or lack thereof) of the American Legal System

Hard to believe, but check this out:

Faced with the inability of two bickering attorneys to resolve even the most innocuous scheduling questions without his intervention, a Florida federal judge yesterday ordered the two to meet on the steps of the federal courthouse and resolve their latest quarrel by playing "one (1) game of 'rock, paper, scissors.' "

Read the court transcript to this Solomon-like resolution here. Editor's Note: This makes me feel one hundred times better about giving up a week of my guaranteed-to-be-fun summer in DC to study for the LSAT.

Gay Marriage: The Daily Show Take

Jon Stewart is at it again, this time discussing Gay Marriage with Bill Bennett: Stewart: So why not encourage gay people to join in in that family arrangement if that is what provides stability to a society? Bennett: Well I think if gay..gay people are already members of families... Stewart: What? (almost spitting out his drink) Bennett: They're sons and they're daughters... Stewart: So that's where the buck stops, that's the gay ceiling. Bennett Look, it's a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man and a women. Stewart: I disagree, I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish. Here's the clip

Democracy Land!

Help the intrepid voter dodge special interests and party politics make it to Democracy Land! Editor Note: Delightfully Tacky, yet Unrefined is not responsible for intrepid voters lost to special interests and party politics during their perilous journey to Democracy Land.

Heil Jefferson!

From the Daily Show's Jon Stewart:

"Thomas Jefferson once said: 'Of course the people don't want war. But the people can be brought to the bidding of their leader. All you have to do is tell them they're being attacked and denounce the pacifists for somehow a lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.' I think that was Jefferson. Oh wait. That was Hermann Goering. Shoot."

And Iran (Iran so far away...)

Among President Bush's best creations added to the American vernacular during his presidency were the terms "lockbox", "strategery", and of course, "Axis of Evil". Ever since Bush branded North Korea, Iran, and Iraq with the name in 2002, one of the nations has been forcibly occupied, the other has tested several long and mid-range missles over the Sea of Japan, and the third is currently pursuing nuclear technology and spitting anti-semitic dogma. Makes for interesting parlor talk, if not fodder for journalists and policy advisors in Washington. I think we need to reassess our grouping of the Axis of Evil, being as we have seen the reprucussions of a full scale invasion of one of the essential members. While we are currently stuck in a quagmire in Iraq, we still have a chance to salvage our foreign policy abroad. North Korea is engaged, on and off, with the six-party talks in Asia. While there is much international pressure on the Stalinist regime, there is little direct action the United States can take in the matter. Why? Nuclear weapons, of which North Korea has several. Kim Jong-Il has been called irrational and eccentric, but how about this one: shrewed. Seeing both extremes, the Bush administration turns to Iran, the nation caught in the middle. Observing the fate of its Middle Eastern neighbor at the hands of the American "devils" and fueled by strong Islamic Jihad idealism, the secular regime in Tehran has openly expressed its desires to, among other things, develop a nuclear arsenal and, as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad so eloquently put it, "wipe Israel from the map". Unrelated, perhaps, but nevertheless a disconcerting idea. Now before the Texas gunslingers in Washington decide to saddle up and turn Iran into another smoking rubble in the desert, I must bring attention to a statement made by a Washington Post Columnist:

In the middle of a tirade about the pointlessness of talking with the Bush administration, a senior Iranian official I met in Tehran last month abruptly paused and asked if he could speak off the record. Then he said: "What we need is an American president who will follow the example of Richard Nixon going to China."

Amidst the incessant screaming coming out of Tehran and Washington, increasing gas prices, and mindless killing in the Middle East, I wonder how long it will take the administration to cease to view Iran through the lens of the "Axis of Evil", but rather as a legitimate global player. I like this comparison to China because of its appropriate analogy: consider Maoist China in the early 1970s, an ideocracy much like Iran that heavily predicated its society and government on the principles of a religiously revered figure. Backwards ideals were rampant throughout the countryside as most of the country had recently suffered from the backlash of Mao's zealous Cultural Revolution, leading to the isolation of the intellectual class and the overall deterioration of Chinese society. But after years of isolation and increasing pressure from the Soviet Union, the United States did the unthinkable: opened relations with Communist China. Soon enough, an embassy was built in Beijing, the Soviet Union collapsed, and now half of my wardrobe is now made in China. The liberalization of China is occuring at the moment, but we can see the difference between now and the Maoist camps of the late 1960s. Democracy is a slow blooming flower, but it needs open attention to blossom. Why can't this be a plausible path for Iran? With increased political pressure from most of the world and hightened sectarian violence in Iraq, it seems appropriate that the United States do something, well...bold. Playing by the book has gotten us nowhere but deeper in the cesspool, and now its time to think, as they say, "outside the box". Engagement, not concession, should be our strategy. International organizations and treaties should be used to pressure Iran to regulate its budding program and hold it responsible for any aggressive actions it might carry toward Israel or Europe. Nuclear non-proliferation should remain a priority of every nation; America should take this not as their burden but rather as their impetus for engagement. Iran should not be subject to American scrutiny, but the whole world. It is not productive to isolate an already angry nation in a dark closet, but rather bring it out and rationalize. The freedom and democracy that America wishes to bring to the supposed dark corners of the Earth cannot possibly come from a gun (or from a whimsical farce of a parliament in Iraq), but rather from within. Democracy, I believe, it an inevitability and it comes with global engagement. It is time to move past President Bush's antagonistic and simple minded conception and give Iran a chance.

Soccer: the sport of love and brotherhood (unless you are black, Asian, or Muslim)

The aggregate productivity of the world will begin to go down a significant percentage and will continue its downward spiral into the nadir of sloth and oblivion when the World Cup begins in Germany this Friday. Millions will rejoice and neglect any sort of obligation they have to work or school as the world's true game commences with its global tournament, full of excitement, historic rivalry, and emotion. Soccer has been the universal equalizer, it seems. Religious strife, genocide, war, and pestilence are all eliminated by twenty two players, three referees, two goals, and a ball. Even Bono, the pop world's equivalent of Mother Theresa, has said the World Cup "closes the schools, closes the shops, closes a city and stops a war." ESPN has already attempted to capitalize on soccer's global appeal and simplistic nature by commercializing its indirect good will, describing the cease fire in Ivory Coast (now known as Cote D'Ivorie) because, "as everyone knows, a country united makes for better cheerleaders than a country divided." While this is a heartwarming story, this World Cup is already facing international scrutiny. FIFA has had to address the growing trend of racist actions and crimes at soccer games. Germany, once the bastion of xenophobia and racism in Europe, is now attempting to promote racial harmony in the one global event that should echo such noble ideals. Europe has traditionally been a xenophobic area, and its closed identity is glaringly obvious during international events such as the World Cup. Scars from colonial pasts and whispers of racial genocide echo through European soccer stadiums, ghosts of darker times. Already there have been anti-racist commercials and billboards running throughout European television, bringing awareness to a darker side to a wonderful sport. European soccer stars of black, Middle Eastern, and Asian decent have been harassed and attacked by European soccer fans over the past few years. Barcelona star Samuel Eto'o, originally from Cameroon, has walked off the field mid-game amidst jeers and infamous "monkey chants". Even French star Tierry Henry is subject to the detrimental scrutiny, being harassed by neo-fascist fans and met with the same monkey jeers. Rowdy soccer fans have attacked players on the field and on their respective benches. Soccer fans have always been a little irrational but for the non-soccer mind imagine this: Oakland Raider fans adorned with tattooed swastikas and burning flags, chanting fascist slogans. Whoever says Europe is this bastion of freedom and tolerance has probably not seen this ugly side of the continent yet. It is an absolute shame that a place of such culture and history can still be so backwards with its thinking. Granted, there was no civil rights movement in Europe, and because black and Muslim immigrants make a very small percentage of the population, such actions might go unnoticed in local competitions. But with hundreds of millions of people set to tune into live broadcasts from Germany, FIFA and the EU must prepare to protect the players on the field and punish those who attempt to propagate such horrible circumstances. I believe in the game of soccer because of its universal appeal; it is the only sport that anybody in the world can play, despite social standing, religion, or race. Soccer does not require an ice rink, a basket, or a net. It does not even require a goal or a real ball; a nice pair of rocks and a melon has done just fine in most of the world. I believe that soccer is a beautiful game that can, indeed, unify this world in a common identity. Europe has 14 of the 32 teams in the World Cup. While they account for almost half of the qualified teams, Europeans must realize that this is by far not their game. Soccer has trascended barriers and borders to the rest of the world. For the first time in history, five African countries have qualified, complimenting the four teams from Asia. Granted, these racist soccer fans are bad apples amidst an overall tolerant and progressive European Union. But once play begins on Saturday, the "footballers" have to feel secure on the field so they can devote their full attention to the game and their teammates. I think an analogy is in order here, and soccer provides the an apt one: we need to focus on our team and, simply put, shooting the ball in the metaphorical goal of life. Once we are distracted by messages of hate and intolerance, we lose sight of the beautiful game we are engaged in. And what a goal it is (pun intended), and an attainable one at that. And for the optimists out there, remember that the game is never over until the referee blows the whistle. Soccer, the multi-faceted metaphor that can be applied to the individual or the nation, soccer's indirect gift to mankind in addition to golden goals, lovely crosses, and Ronaldinho. Perhaps all of the world's problems would be solved if we saw world as a soccer ball instead of a globe with continents and political boundaries. Whatever the case, for the next month, I expect to hear nothing from the world except for the sound of emotional cheers, chanting in multiple languages, and crying, both for the heartbreaking defeat of the team most beloved and the victory that seemed all but impossible a moment before.

Jesus loves you, but everyone else thinks you're an asshole

If you did not realize it already, we live in a pretty twisted world. Case and point, young little Micaiah Phelps-Davis did not spend his Thursday afternoon in early April playing baseball or skateboarding. Rather, the fourteen year old was busy holding a sign in front of Walter Reed Army Medical Center declaring that "God blew up the troops", clearly within sight of the wounded soldiers inside. I would like to think that this was a misguided practical joke, until I see the ever more present joke, as sombering as it might be: his mother, at his side, with another sign thanking God for "maimed soldiers". This is the lovely sermon taught by the Westboro Baptist Church from Kansas, who recently have publicly condemned the United States for its immoral character; God, they claim, is punishing the nation for its unethical behavior. "Every soldier in that building has been maimed by the Lord," proclaims Rebekah Phelps-Davis, the mother of young Micaiah. "A direct judgment upon this nation for its perversions and its rejection of His word." Wait, I thought the "Vengeful God" of the Old Testament was replaced by the "Merciful God" of the New Testament. I guess "Vengeful God" is heading on his reunion tour, flaming beard and all. Across the street, supporters of the soldiers held signs with such slogans as "God Bless" and "Thank you". They would respond to the Westboro jeers of "God hates America" with the universally appealing "U.S.A!" I've seen similar actions at A's games, but it usually involves copious amounts of alcohol and not intoxicating amount of religious fervor. I cannot help but vomit in my own mouth at the thought of these nihilistic idiots from backasswards Kansas that came out to a military funeral and held signs that proclaimed "God loves dead soldiers". This is a church that preaches intolerance and prejudice, hatred and contempt. They hate their own country; ironically, the very same tolerant nation that allows them to babble such intolerant nonsense in the first place. They proclaim they are trying to save the nation, a place full of sinners where more people know less about the sermon on the mountain and more about Brokeback Mountain. They have said God hates America, Canada, and Sweden among other places. But not once have they said any place (or person for that matter) that God loves. Well, maybe Westboro, Kansas. This is exactly what I cannot stand: people who think that freedom of speech means the obliteration of any sense of moral boundary or taste; just because we have the right to say anything doesn't mean we have to or should. Freedom of speech does not equal the elimination of tact. If you are curious and would like to check out their website, which has a lovely Chuck E Cheese ring to it, go to www.godhatesfags.com. The website has a schedule with upcoming funerals for US soldiers, photos from previous rallies, and Bible quotes that reaffirm their intolerance. Whoever says intolerance is dying in this country is oblivious to groups such as this, who claim that they prayed for a large tsunami to hit Southeast Asia. Lovely thought, I'll bet Jesus just gave God a high five as thousands of brown babies were sent to the horrible pits of hell to burn for all of eternity. I know I am not alone in my belief on this matter; for the first time in a long time, I side with the religious majority in this case. I can confidently say that, despite our religious and moral differences, intolerance and blind hatred are tenents that all ideology try to absolve. Obviously the Westboro church is a very extreme polarized example of intolerance, but they inadvertently provide a nice example for the nation. They expose our own imperfections and show people the extent of hatred. Ironically through intolerance, the Westboro church can indirectly build tolerance. Whenever these idiots are mocked on political talk shows or in the newspaper, it reinforces a greater unity within our country. Yes, we are banding against a group of cretins, but its because we see everything we do not want to become within their ranks. We see what we can possibly turn into, and we are disgusted. This is probably the closest thing we have to Al-Qaeda in this country; a group that has hijacked religion to justify its own intolerance and subsequent actions. Such apocalyptic groups have no sense of reason and no sense of fallibility. The sobering thing about all of this is we are led to believe that religious extremism is a poison suffered by "everyone else" when it is right in our backyard. The lesson is in fact close to home and it reiterates a historical truth: it is human beings, not religion itself, that hijacks faith for selfish gain and self-promotion of self-righteous dogma. Despite the fact that I am no Christian, I understand that these idiots do not represent his word. Nor do Al-Qaeda represent the gentle words of Muhammad and Islam. If people want to know where such ignorance and intolerance comes from, they need not look further than the mirror. For loss of better words, allow me to be audacious for a moment and use a double entendre from Cunninlynguists: like poisoned communion wine, nobody can stomach their blessings.

What about them Nationals?

If I haven't made it clear yet, I love baseball. Baseball gets a bad rap, I don't know why. Maybe its because people perceive it as slow. Or dull. Or uninteresting. I've heard complaints that it does not have enough action. Not enough home runs, I heard one friend say. Not enough power. OK son, go watch reruns of the home run derby and chug a red bull, cause this is baseball, not the X games. Baseball is about the nuances. A good pitch for a strike. A tough grounder turned into a nice 6-3 putout. The pressure of a full count in the late innings. But what about the experience of going to a ballgame? Dare I say, you are not an American until you have experienced the atmosphere of the ballpark, exuding all the warmth and comfort of a summers night (or day), hot dog relish and all. Last year saw the arrival (or should I say return) of baseball to our nation's capital. People were elated, and why not: shouldn't the national pastime have a team in the capital? It would only be appropriate. And for a while it seemed like the Nationals were the team of destiny. That is, until the inevitable choke. Every team hits it hard at some point in the season. At the All Star break last year both beltway teams were first in their respective divisions; both hit the wall in August and fell faster than a drunk at Mardi Gras. A thought from a Washington Post Blogger:

When baseball returned to Washington last year, 33 years after the previous team, the Senators, was carted off to Texas, we were all ecstatic, and went to games, and watched our Nationals camp out in first place in July and remain in contention until the beginning of September, at which point Atlanta won the division for the 1,745th consecutive year. (The last team to beat Atlanta in the National League East was the Visigoths.) This year the novelty's gone, and it's hard to avoid noticing that we're a mediocre team playing in an old stadium with terrible food. Will Washington have the patience to support a losing team? This is a town obsessed with poll results and approval ratings, a town in which one of the highest compliments is "electability."

Will baseball remain popular in the district? This is a tough town (not New York tough) and people want results. So how are the Nats doing this year?

Right now the Nats sit in a comfortable fourth place (Editors Note: lowly Florida decided to pursue the "Major League" agenda and lose enough games to get a stadium deal in Las Vegas. Ironic that in "Major League" the Indians were proposing to move to South Florida) and sit 11 games behind first. But its a long season, and anything can happen. Just ask those White Sox fans from last year. Or those Red Sox fans from two years ago.

Wading through the stream of consciousness, part 2

I was on my evening run today and I thought of something that brought minor distress to my otherwise content existence and was immediately added to my list of pet peeves. Do you ever notice that in films that feature denizens from other nations or past empires, their speech, when not subtitled and conveniently provided to us in English by the sympathetic producer, is heavily accented to their respective place of origin? For example, when the Arab sheik speaks to his Arab horsemen (implied within the film to be in Arabic), they speak with a heavily Arabic accent (whatever that may sound like), or when the Japanese samurai prays for a blessing from his ancestor, he speaks English with a heavy accent, unable to pronounce his r's. While this might be Hollywood's convenience for the movie viewers, as an intelligent person I take offense. If these people are among their respective kind and we understand that they are speaking their native language but for sake of the film we remove subtitles and simply provide the dialogue in English, it seems reduntant to add the accent. I think the sheik can speak to his minions just fine, without heavily accenting his own language. In attempting to be diverse, Hollywood is in fact being insensitive. The German Nazi captain knows how to speak deutch just fine, so don't affect his "wocabulary". Unless, of course, you're making a Hogan's Heroes remake, in which case Colonel Klink can be the walking stereotype he was meant to be. A nice assessment from none other than Hogan's Heroes:

The show made no attempt to resolve the language problem of the Germans and the Allies. All the German characters in the show simply spoke English with a German accent, although they used certain stock German phrases like "Heil Hitler" and "Jawohl, Herr Kommandant". Because many of the plots involved prisoners impersonating German military, it appears that all of the prisoners spoke perfect unaccented German, and that none of the guards found this to be remarkable. It is possible that only the core group of prisoners involved in sabotage and other activities were the only ones who had this talent, and that they did not share it with the guards in their prisoner guises. If it provided grist for humor, the linguistic difference was exploited: in one episode, a guard was asked if he would say which cell a person was in, the response was "nine", and Carter thought the guard said "nein".

Example number two: Alexander, a terrible historical epic, that features King Phillip of Macedonia speaking with a British accent but his wife with a heavily Eastern European one. Great, and Alexander, through his cultural confusion, wound up speaking with a hint of an Irish accent (more so perhaps because it was Colin Farrell). Whatever the case, I know that these actors were perfectly capable of speaking correct English, so why can't they do just that. We might be Americans, dumb and simple as we are, but don't patronize us Hollywood with your sly nuances. To be blunt, it's insulting, and the last thing I want to feel when I'm at a movie this summer, inevitably featuring actresses in svelt attire seducing men with more sex appeal than I can imagine, amidst completely ridiculously egregious yet fascinating situations that I can only dream of (or pay eight fifty for to see), is bad about myself.

Bush: The best President since Clinton

Beats the hell out of my assessment of former Presidents, but alas...I am delightfully tacky:

Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worstever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by thenonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure." Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration's "pursuit of disastrous policies." In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton -- a category in which Bush is the only contestant.

Check out the rest here

A Step in the Right Direction...

Going on what I have been talking about in my past tirade on Democrats, I found an interesting article from the New Yorker. While I find the publication rather pretentious at times, here is a great quote from a lengthy but informative article:

The Democratic Party’s challenge, though, is not only to recalibrate itspositions on abortion and national security but also to persuade voters that Democrats have something essential to offer: an aptitude for governing. Moderates argue that a year after Katrina Americans are searching for plausible and competent leadership. (Michael Dukakis, who in 1988 campaigned against charisma, may have been a prophet without honor.)

It goes on:

But, the argument continues, candidates must express concern for thewelfare of their audiences, have a vision of an equitable society, and, perhapsabove all, learn to speak without condescension.

Read the whole thing here if you have time.