Psychopolitik 2.0

In a previous post about U.S. bank failures, I expressed puzzlement at the quoted number of crapouts.  Thanks to Black Bloke, a convenient list has been brought to our attention.  Note that 10 so far have failed this year alone…

Anyone else think a monetary-themed Fail image would be appropriate?  Maybe a picture of one of the closed banks, or of someone standing by the door thinking “WTF?” w/ a short comment about the absurdity of a bank failing at having money?  Basically, a financial version of one of these is what I’m talking about:

Feel free to correct me if one has already been done.

Edit 090108: No bank fail image as of yet, but Mike points to this artistic rendering of another key to the current clusterfuck:

In the middle of CR’s reaction to Palin being McCain’s pick for veep, he says the following:

Age is obviously a major factor here. Yes, Obama is also in his forties, only a few years older than Palin. How young is too young? Where do you draw the line? 40? 35? Why not 30? This is obviously fuzzy and subjective. But generically I simply don’t think someone 44 years old is ready to be president. This is not Tbilisi, where the age guidelines for political and military leadership were lifted from the script of Logan’s Run.

Think about the people you know in their mid-forties. Or remember what you were like at that age. Or if you are that age, look in the mirror. I know a lot of very smart, extremely accomplished people in various professions who are Palin’s age (and I’ll be there myself in a couple of years). Purely in terms of “life experience” — and under that rubric is a mix of confidence, maturity, perspective on human existence, and the steady internal gyroscope that’s often a product of age — none would be ready to sit in the Oval Office. It’s almost strange to contemplate it.

With all due respect, WTF?  When did middle-age become the new 18?

Maybe I have a different perspective on it because I’m 26.  No, scratch that maybe, you’re damn right I do.

Philosophically I could care less, because by now I’ve solidified into the capital-A realm, and now see politics as little more than entertainment.  The furthest I engage is to inject a seed of my own view as if venom from a snakebite, with the same intended effect.  However, as a human being I still find the age thing odd.  Within the narrative of the political system we live under, the assumption that representation can be removed from a purely local level yet still be representation, this view of age effectively assumes a “democratic” version of a tribe of elders.  People on average do learn a lot over the years, but it’s by no means absolute, isn’t that one reason why we stopped with the elders arrangement?

Of course, one could make an argument that it’s representation by visual means.  Rates of voting in the U.S. skew much higher for people 50 and up, and the average age of a member of congress is between 57 (House) and 62 (Senate).  By such a loose standard as looking like the people that vote, they nail it on age.  No surprise there, chances are voting is the most activity you get these days if you look like this:

But that kind of representation argument just opens the whole can of worms that asks why more congressmen aren’t black, hispanic, women, or gay.  That’s not my point, so I won’t go there.

The key issue, IMO, is this: after awhile, people generally settle into their way of seeing the world.  Is it realistic to assume that someone born in the 40’s knows how people currently in their 20s & 30s think — or particularly gives a shit?  If you feel that they shouldn’t, why not?

To me, this is another example of why, beyond a purely local-decentralized form, representative democracy is a myth.  Any system with the balls to argue that on average a middle-to-early-senior age white male that has seen 6 figures is a more suitable representative for me than my own brother (thanks to the age requirement, he’d have to wait until 2012 anyway), I can’t help but laugh at.

Some brain-deflating material I was recently put up on:

One “major” candidate has as his drill-into-your-skull buzzword “change”, then switches to agree with the capitulation the rest of his party likes.  The other adopts “maverick” as his zombie term, and flips to blend in more with the flock.

One makes rhetorical pseudo-attacks on “old Washington” & picks as his running mate someone who’s been in the Senate since he was 11.  The other constantly barks about experience and picks a running mate with less experience than his opponent.

Both engage in arguments over who is “elitist”, despite the obvious answer that anyone with a chance in hell of political power is by definition part of the elite.

“Ok”, so the still insistent on embracing the election may say, “what about 3rd parties?”.  Well, the Libertarians nominated someone whose stated goal was “restoring confidence in government”.  As for the Greens?  Well…at least Roseanne endorses their pick.

Ain’t we got fun?

Perfect timing: Roderick Long, on Art of the Possible, describes what’s REALLY wrong with US healthcare policy, and provides example of true anti-state methods of addressing it.  May this kind of discussion spread…

Considering the purpose of the AOTP site, I’m kinda curious what the liberal “netroots” would say to such an agenda.

I know it smells good, but you might wanna put it out.  The incense, I mean:

Burning incense may create a sweet scent, but regularly inhaling the smoke could put people at risk of cancers of the respiratory tract, researchers reported Monday.

In a study of more than 61,000 ethnic Chinese living in Singapore who were followed for up to 12 years, the investigators found a link between heavy incense use and various respiratory cancers. […]

The researchers found that incense use was associated with a statistically significant higher risk of cancers of the upper respiratory tract, with the exception of nasopharyngeal cancer. However, they observed no overall effect on lung cancer risk.

Those who used incense heavily also had higher rates of a type of cancer called squamous cell carcinoma, which refers to tumors that arise in the cells lining the internal and external surfaces of the body. The risk was seen in smokers and nonsmokers.

Study participants who used incense in their homes all day or throughout the day and night were 80 percent more likely than non-users to develop squamous cell carcinoma of the entire respiratory tract.

The link between incense use and increased cancer risk held when the researchers weighed other factors, including cigarette smoking, diet and drinking habits. (emphasis mine)

Incense: yet another surprising substance that weed is safer than.

This recipe comes to us from Glenn Greenwald:

================================

Ingredients: millions of dollars in donations, spineless alleged representatives.

Directions: Blatantly ignore laws against warrantless surveillance.  Apply donations to spineless representatives until immunity passes.  Allow time to simmer afterwards, then throw party next to Democratic convention grounds.  Season with various pals of spineless representatives to taste.  For extra brazen flavor, have Denver police yank credentialed members of the press away from a “public” sidewalk nearby.

Serves absolutely no one but the political elite.

=========================

Not to nitpick, but Glenn could’ve thrown the cops’ earlier explanation right back in his face when he came by to shoo ‘em away.  He said as long as they were on “public” property they were OK, then later on told them to leave, though they were violating nothing.  Anyway, the multiple absurdities this shows — passes designating who counts as press and who doesn’t, “public” property that in practice is denied to the public at the drop of a hat — are just symptoms of the larger disease.

BTW: someone should ask whether the parties are “private” entities or not.  It doesn’t matter on the face of it, but the inevitable blank look that such a trick question would get in response speaks louder than words.  See, they can’t say they’re private because then they by extension admit politics is for personal gain, and if they’re public then they have no right to deny anyone access to anything they do.

Edit 082708 6:50 CST: Apparently “big media” reporters aren’t immune either.  Yet again, public sidewalk, reporter doing their job, police — and this time the handcuffs come out.  One of the officers involved even said the guy was “lucky” that they didn’t assault him.

Every election season, a commonly discussed tactic is to make appeals to “shared values”.  The whole I’m-just-like-you garbage, naturally to avert the type of fear I’ve described before of imposition from outside.  Let’s dispatch with this quick, shall we?

1) At the level politicians talk about, there is no such thing as “shared values”.  One can even argue there’s no such thing at ANY level, depending on definition.  To claim that you hold my values is a blatant lie, you have never met me, you don’t know how I was raised, you don’t know my life.

2) If you INSIST on the concept, then already you fail simply by virtue of running for office.  You value power, otherwise you wouldn’t bother.

3) Outside imposition is the entire point of politics, so though the target may be misguided the fear itself is justified.  If everyone holds agreement, then force is unnecessary, people will simply do what they agree on.

No one is going to run and admit “no, I do not share your values” precisely because that’d confirm the unspoken obvious — that popular politics is a contest where a few people take turns waving around the gun.

“New Plastic flavor HOT POCKETS!!”

Yeah, I know that means jack shit, I just found it funny.  Anything to ignore the 24-hour establishment love-ins going on.  Only thing I’ll say about the current “news” is that my 2nd choice after Richardson (which would fulfill Dave Chappele’s thing about the first black president picking a latino as “insurance”) was Tim Kaine, if only because when people say “Obama-Kaine” it sounds like a new street drug.  Now back to my regularly scheduled not giving a fuck…

In the middle of a filler piece from Reuters on what the upcoming election means for “patriotism” came the following double whopper with cheese:

Obama would be the country’s first black president and as such faces an extra hurdle as he attempts to persuade voters.

“There is a historic suspicion that African Americans are less patriotic,” [University of North Carolina history professor Richard] Kohn said.

Black Americans have fought in all the country’s wars but their loyalty has been questioned because many black leaders have criticized U.S. policies on race and some whites assume historic discrimination against them, which includes slavery, would have undermined their commitment to U.S. ideals. (emphasis mine)

Lemme get this straight: acknowledging the fact that, on a historical scale, it was relatively recent that blacks were seen as normal human beings, and prior to that many of the same people who spoke so elequently about the rights of man defended the racial status quo tighter than a Gary Payton era Sonics halfcourt-trap, “some whites” are SURPRISED that warming to the “mainstream” takes so long?  And Reuters needed to consult a college professor to confirm their fear?

If I roll my eyes any harder, they’re going to fall right the fuck out of my head.