Good question . . .
Today I spotted this question on Reddit.com:
Why does America refuse to trade with Cuba because they are communist but import a shitload of stuff from communist China?Good question.
Missing sorority sister spurs Onion news report
The Onion Network News is always on top of important breaking stories, such as this report concerning a missing sorority sister:
Thousands Of Girls Match Description Of Missing Sorority Sister
Religion: It’s almost like being in love
You know how it is when someone is in the first throes of infatuation. We call it "love," but it's very different than the kind of relationship that eventually develops. Or doesn't develop. Think of all of those young couples "in love" who are at each other's throats only a couple years later. While they are in the romantic love stage, they are "caught up in the emotion." Their lover can do no wrong. Their lover is perfect. Their lover has no faults; oh, sure he or she has idiosyncrasies, but nothing that could possibly impede this relationship. At least not until the fairy dust settles and they are able to start seeing each other as flawed human beings, sometimes horribly flawed. Amazing as it seems, strong emotions can cause massive distortions in perceptions. They can make A look like Not-A. Strong emotions can also completely shut down our ability to think self-critically. How is it possible that perceptions and understanding can be massively distorted by emotion? How is it that a violent drunkard kleptomaniac can initially seem like a nice fellow? That's evolution at work. As Robert Wright once wrote in The Moral Animal, emotions are "evolution's executioners." We have deep instincts for falling in love, for losing control, for blinding ourselves to the other's faults so that we will make babies. I should restate this. It's not that evolution is trying to do anything at all. Evolution is not conscious and it has no plan. On the other hand, we are survivors at the top of a long branch of the tree of speciation. You and I and all of our ancestors have survived Nature's amoral pruning, millennium after millennium. We are extremely lucky that we evaded the weeding phase of breed and weed. The unrelenting reproductive urge, the one thing that every one of our ancestors had in spades, has been passed on to us or we wouldn't be here to ponder anything. ALL of our ancestors had it and acted on it: the compulsion to reproduce--the urge to merge. This ancient instinct is ubiquitous, even though, once in a while, a cigar is only a cigar. What is the most efficient way to make animals reproduce? How about this? Blind them to each others' faults and make them horny. [More . . . ]
It’s in the First Amendment
This exchange between Republican Senate Candidate Christine O'Donnell and her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons, is surreal. Here's how it went, as reported by CBS News:
Coons said that creationism, which he considers "a religious doctrine," should not be taught in public schools due to the Constitution's First Amendment. He argued that it explicitly enumerates the separation of church and state. "The First Amendment does?" O'Donnell asked. "Let me just clarify: You're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?" "Government shall make no establishment of religion," Coons responded, reciting from memory the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Coons was off slightly: The first amendment actually reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.") "That's in the First Amendment...?" O'Donnell responded.I thought this had to be a spoof from the Onion when I first read it, but you can watch the video if you want proof--if you can stand to watch it. I do sympathize with Chris Coons. This is also a tragedy for America. All of the candidates running for office should be be best and the brightest. They should be familiar with the facts regarding the issues on which they opine. O'Donnell seems to have the factual competency of a fourth grader.
On reclaiming the United States
Last week, I had the opportunity to attend a fund-raising Gala for Missouri GRO (Grass Roots Organizing). GRO is an impressive progressive organization. It was founded by a small handful of rural activists, mostly women who, according to a history of the organization written by Tony Pecinovsky, "wanted more accountability from politicians and big businesses alike." Most of its members are people who live in rural Missouri, "people who live in small towns not necessarily known for their progressive politics." GRO is part of a nationwide network of progressive organizations, National People's Action, that has coordinated local activist organizations pushing hard for health care reform, Wall Street financial reform and other important issues. GRO is anything but shy. Consider this account (from the literature handed out at the gala event last week):
GRO carried out a winter-long anti-payday lending campaign that backed QC Holdings [Owner of the company that runs one of the biggest payday lending chains in the country] into a corner of public scrutiny and legislative pressure. On April Fools' Day we learned the Missouri legislature gave the payday loan industry a solo "hearing," led by theVice Chair of the Financial Institutions Committee, who owns a payday loan store inCabool, Missouri. The industry went totally unchallenged. They took over our public domain. So we decided to take over QC Holding's private domain in corporate words, Overland Park, Kansas. . . . We mobilized all150+ of our people up 15 floors on elevators to take over the corporate penthouse suite of the Missouri's largest payday lending operation.
In short, GRO has made a lot of noise where corporate power is runing amok. Because of this moxie, GRO has earned the respect of many in Missouri and outside of Missouri. At its fund-raising gala last week, GRO filled a large downtown St. Louis hotel ballroom with supporters who gathered to hear the keynote speech delivered by John Nichols, Washington Correspondent of The Nation Magazine. Nichols is also co-founder (with Robert McChesney) of Free Press, one of the country's leading media reform organizations. Prior to speech, John Nichols gave me permission to videotape his speech so that I could make it available here at Dangerous Intersection. In Part I of his speech, Nichols makes the argument that we do not really have a debt crisis. He passionately explains what kind of crisis we actually do have. In Part II of his speech, Nichols takes a hard critical look at the United States Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. FEC. Nichols reminded the audience that the first American tea party was an anti-corporate tea party. Toward the end of Part II, Nichols argues that in order to take our country back, we will need an anti-corporate revolution-- we will need to go around the "corrupted" United States Supreme Court by organizing at the grass roots and enacting a Constitutional amendment declaring that "No corporation is the equal of a citizen" and "Citizens are supreme."