Psychopolitik 2.0

As casually as our political elite treat war, you’d think it left no scars.  Reasonable people know that it, both physically and psychologically, transforms those sent to fulfill political goals by force, but it isn’t made plain enough how it inflicts pain on the families they leave behind.  This is but one tangible example:

A new study in the Aug. 1 issue of the Journal of American Medical Association reveals that many of those who suffer from armed conflict are living within the homes that deployed soldiers leave behind.

Rates of neglect and abuse of the children of servicemen and women rose 42% within the family when the enlisted parent was deployed on a combat mission, according to a new study led by senior health analyst Deborah Gibbs of RTI International, a research institute in North Carolina. Previous studies have shown an association between combat-related deployments and higher levels of stress in the family, and it is this stress that is thought to play a major role in the maltreatment of children by the parent who stays home. […]

The study suggests that Mom is the one taking it out on the kids. During the deployment of her soldier-husband, rates of child maltreatment tripled; neglect quadrupled; and physical abuse nearly doubled. (emphasis mine)

The abuse itself isn’t a surprise.  Some people simply crack up under the pressure.  What is though is that, as mentioned, the trend leaned so heavily towards when the husband is deployed rather than the wife.  Lashing out in general has been more of a male thing historically, is the discrepancy a matter of common characteristics with military spouses?  I’m seriously asking, if anyone has their theory.

From Presto, via Brad, found this site where you can make your own SouthPark character.

Brad’s trying to collect self-images of us anarchists, so here’s mine below. Click on it for full size.

BTW: yes, my eyes are usually that low. When having photos taken I’m told constantly “open your eyes!”, when they in fact are open.

Shorter WaPo: “What? People don’t equate politicians to saints? OH NOES! I CAN HAS ARMAGEDDON!!!”

In a week in which an argument between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) dominated the political headlines, a new survey offers a warning to all politicians that the American people have come to this campaign with a wholly cynical view of the political process.

The Battleground Poll is a long-running bipartisan project that has regularly taken the temperature of the electorate. The newest report, issued by Republican Brian Tringali of the Tarrance Group and Democrat Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partners, includes several startling indicators of a political system in distress.

Majorities of Americans believe that most politicians are not trustworthy, and they hold an unfavorable view toward them in general. That was in line with what many surveys have shown.

Even more striking was the answer to the question of whether Americans believe that their own member of Congress puts partisan politics ahead of constituents’ interests. Fully 71 percent said yes, and 63 percent strongly held that view. (emphasis mine)

Of all the things to complain about, they’re worried about people approaching politics cynically. IMO, that’s a GOOD thing, the more cynical the better.

For anyone out there who is having brainfreeze from that statement, think of what that term “cynical” means. The first definition in the dictionary says the following:

Believing or showing the belief that people are motivated chiefly by base or selfish concerns; skeptical of the motives of others.

Like it or not, this is how most people are by default. In everyday life, human beings mostly go about their business with the intent to help themselves, this is why it is considered such a pleasant* surprise when we help each other. Also, last time I checked, politicians were human beings, regardless of the power they claim. So naturally, it’s logical to assume that they have interests of their own. Unfortunately, as their positions within the State mean they’re assumed the right to use force to reach certain outcomes — in reality that’s all a government is — that means they can get what they want on your back, and have you punished for resisting them.

Now, remove yourself from the context of modern mainstream politics for a moment. Imagine you’re on an island with a few other people, and you want something. You can’t get what you want without hurting everyone else there, but you’re strong enough to kick their asses if they try to stop you. What would you do?

This is how government works. Consequently, this means that the type of people attracted to such power are the types that wouldn’t take anywhere near as long as you would to decide to use it. Some fool themselves into thinking that their interests are yours, and take offense to you complaining — “what is it with these peons? Can’t they seem I’m doing the People’s Work?” — while others admit they’re screwing you and do it as hard and fast as possible. This reality begs quite the question: why would anyone in their right mind assume that a collection of selfish people, with force behind them & no qualms about using it, would work in the interests of people that aren’t them?

Government never was, is not, and never will be a tool of the selfless, or even the merely generous. People who truly want to help others do not need men in uniforms with guns behind them to carry out such a desire, they do it themselves or with other like-minded people. The more that this is realized, and we stop assuming of politicians that they’re monks or something, the better, as we will take the initiative ourselves.

Cynicism is not a disease. It’s the cure.

(* - contrary to what some may think, libertarianism is not synonymous with Objectivism. I don’t think helping others is a sin.)

Jim Wilson peers into the gumbo pot of Scandal & spots some plump crawfish of Clarity.  Hope the kids ain’t allergic…

Interesting story here: A couple in North Carolina, to demonstrate their concern for what this country is becoming, put up a U.S. flag upside down — the classic distress signal, as anyone with half a brain knows.  As a preemptive clarification to morons who would think they were somehow being “unpatriotic” by doing so, they pinned signs to the flag explaining that it wasn’t an indication of disrespect.  A few bystanders looked at the signs, some offering their support, & then went about their business.

Oh, wait, that last part isn’t true, my bad.

What really happened is a cop showed up to tell them that their clarification signs themselves were considered a desecration.  He then assaulted them, and arrested them on charges of them assaulting HIM, as well as for — get this — pinning signs to the flag.
Times like this I wonder if I’m still even in the U.S….

When it comes to federal prosecutors, making personnel decisions based purely on politics is illegal. A law was actually passed saying so, a long time ago. However, most people wouldn’t see that as a big deal, either because the details are hard to keep track of or because out of justified cynicism they see it as typical ass-covering anyway, roll their eyes and go on with their lives.

Fortunately for the interest of justice, there’s much simpler reasons to turf Gonzales’ career — and maybe even have him locked up. Tim Lynch has examples.

Edit: in the same vein, Glenn Greenwald goes on a tear re: the Terrorist Surveillance Warrantless Wiretapping Program here.  I swear, the man unleashes ether like it’s as easy as breathing.

Gee, that “record high” didn’t last long, did it? It’s been a few days, and already with the latest drop there’s whining:

Dealmakers, investors and home owners in the United States are facing a grim summer as conditions for borrowers get worse.

Until recently, there has been a seemingly unlimited supply of cheap money to fuel leveraged buyouts and other takeovers. There was also an easy flow of mortgage money available before the housing market turned south and the crisis erupted in subprime mortgages made to borrowers with poor credit.

But now investors are showing a greater disdain for risky debt - and fears about a looming credit crunch have shaken investor confidence worldwide. The Dow Jones industrial average plunged 311 points Thursday - its second-worst day of the year - and sent global stock markets reeling. The Dow opened lower Friday as well but later stabilized and was little changed in mid-morning. […]

Tighter credit is troubling to investors for two reasons. It’s likely to slow the buyout boom that’s helped prop up stock prices. And it could raise the cost of borrowing for companies, hurting corporate earnings. To date, there have been roughly 20 buyout-related debt deals that have been postponed as credit markets have tightened.

Listen carefully here: If debt & easy credit are so important to growth that the slightest insignificant move away from it is painted as a crisis, then that growth was false in the first place. In the long run it’s for the best for this bubble to go away.

Frankly, I’m skeptical of the idea of credit itself to be honest with you. Ever since those first “you’ve been pre-approved!” notices for credit cards started popping up in my mailbox.

Denial: not a river in Egypt…:

US officials called security relations with Riyadh “very strong” despite a report saying Washington is frustrated with the Saudi role in Iraq, as Washington said it was readying a major arms package for Saudi Arabia.

On Friday the White House insisted the two allies are working closely to fight terror even as The New York Times reported that Washington believes the Saudis are trying to undermine the Baghdad government and have failed to stem the flow of volunteers joining the insurgency there.

According to the Times, the Saudis view Iraq’s Shiite prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, as an agent of Iran and appear to have stepped up efforts to weaken his government, providing funding for Sunni groups.

While not addressing the Times report specifically, White House spokesperson Dana Perino insisted Friday that Washington and Riyadh are working closely on security issues.

“We have very strong relations on counter-terrorism measures,” Perino said.

Let’s recap: most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.  The Saudi royal family has been funding Jihadi religious schools for years.  Currently, damn near HALF of the foreigners carrying out attacks in Iraq come from Saudi Arabia.  Yet we’re yelling at Iran & giving the Saudis weapons?

This would be like if I lived in between a neo-Nazi & an annoying yet not imminently dangerous evangelical, and I bought the neo-Nazi a gun after finding my lawn w/ a giant Swastika burnt into it.

*sigh*…Just another day in the New America:

LOS ANGELES - Federal agents raided 10 marijuana clinics Wednesday, the same day city leaders introduced a measure calling for an end to the crackdown on the dispensaries allowed under state law.

The bust netted five arrests, large quantities of marijuana and cash, and was the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s second-largest since California voters approved medical marijuana sales in 1996. The drug remains illegal under federal law.

DEA spokeswoman Sarah Pullen said the timing of the bust and the city’s action was “purely coincidental.” (emphasis mine)

No.  If they’d initiated the raid at 4:20 P.M., that would be a coincidence.   This is a deliberate, craven act of intimidation, a show of force against people for distributing a drug that, for all the bluster over the years against it, is statistically safer than Aspirin.

I guess it was only fitting that after Bush got a probing another poll came out.  They didn’t find his brain, but what they did find was rather interesting, if only for its futility:

President Bush faces growing disenchantment in his own party on the war in Iraq, with most Republicans — his customarily loyal base — now saying he’s not willing enough to change his war policies. Discontent runs so deep that six in 10 Americans would shift control of the war to Congress.

Overall, an overwhelming 78 percent of Americans in this ABC News/Washington Post poll say Bush is not willing enough to change his stance on the war, up from 66 percent last December. The biggest movement is among Republicans; 55 percent say the president is not willing enough to alter his Iraq polices, up 16 points. […]

Just 22 percent think the “surge” of U.S. forces is improving security, and 64 percent think it will not succeed in the next few months. Congressional Democrats, while also damaged by discontent with the war, lead Bush by 55-32 percent in trust to handle it. Thus the public by 2-1 says Congress, not the president, should have final say on when the troops come home.  (emphasis mine)

The US congress deciding when to wage war?  Gee, that sounds like a familiar concept, where could I have possibly heard of it before?  Something is popping in my head about “Article one, Section 8” for some reason…