When you take rancid partisan politics out of the process, you can balance the budget in three days, according to Gloria Shur Bilchik, of Occasional Planet. Bilchik was commenting on a recent story appearing in Esquire Magazine.
A chuckling acquaintance recently talked up a television show called "Bully Beatup. The idea of the show is that victims of bullies report the bullies to the producers of "Bully Beatdown." The show's host, Jason "Mayhem" Miller, offers the over-confident bully $10,000 to get into a cage with a highly-skilled mixed martial artist. In sum, then, the idea is to see a highly-skilled fighter beat the shit out of a neighborhood bully. There are some rules:
Each fight features two three-minute rounds: the first consists of grappling (no striking allowed), and the second round involves kickboxing. The bullies begin each round with $5,000 in potential earnings; each time the bully taps out in the first round, $1,000 of his potential earnings go to the victim, and if the fight is stopped in the second round by KO, TKO, or referee, the bully loses the entire sum. In the unlikely scenario that the bully can KO the MMA fighter, he wins money in addition to his first round earnings and the $5,000 from the second round.If you're in a mood for schadenfreude check it out. This episode lays out the method of the payback, and presents the case of "Vince" the nightmare roommate. A highly confident 6 foot 7 Vince ends of facing an imposing fighter named Michael Westbrook, formerly an NFL wide receiver with tae kwon do and other martial arts training. I suppose that we need shows like this to serve as a counter-weight to less visceral approaches to conflict, such as love thy neighbor. This show is painful to watch, even when the bully gets what he has coming, but immensely memorable.
At "The Small Business Water Cooler," St. Louis attorney Rick Massey focuses on topics that can "help ordinary people in their struggle to get ahead in a world dominated and controlled by wealthy corporations." He is frustrated at the ubiquitous disorienting message of hate, and he proposes a simple litmus test:
Our greatest threat as we go forward is not the Mexicans that come across the border to work so they can feed their families; it is not the gays who would be quietly forming their own families and getting on with life but for the meddling of others that cannot rest as long as they are not telling someone else what he or she can and cannot do; it is not the Muslims that want to build a community center in New York; and it is not that vast crime-wave of people chemically altering their mood by smoking a plant that is infinitely less dangerous than its legal alternatives: alcohol, tobacco, and the abuse of prescription drugs. The greatest threat we face is that we forget that we are human beings; we will all die someday, and that in the meantime we are all pretty much in the same boat. If we don’t care for one another there will ultimately be no one to care for us. What happened to our internal system of red flags? What happened to our natural tendency to instantly question the messenger when the message is one of hate, intolerance, and blaming others for problems we can’t seem to resolve ourselves?Rick raises a good question. Why are so many of us so willing to tolerate messages of hate, intolerance and blame? I have no definitive answer, but my prime suspect is the mass media, which seems to gather bigger audiences with us versus them conflict pornography. The rest of us watch these concocted stories and we get a warped view of the world. If everyone else is doing it, why not? Rick seems to be suggesting a litmus test that is incredibly simple: Severely question messages of hate, intolerance and blame. Really, it's that simple.
Writing at The Nation, Jonathan Schell tells us that it is not true that there is "nothing new" in the Wikileaks Afghanistan releases. In fact, we know that it's not true by the behaviour of the U.S. Army; it considers Julian Assange to be a " "threat to the U.S. Army." If the release of information is a big yawn, how can Assange be a "threat"? I agree with Schell that Americans should be applauding Assange for giving us some truth about the big dirty lies we've been hearing from the U.S. government when it comes to our adventures in Afghanistan:
Among the flood of Afghan war documents there happens to be a report on one more instance of a man who, finding himself threatened with participation in the evil-doing of a malignant system, opted to withdraw. In Balkh province, a little more than a year ago, the report disclosed, Afghan police officers were beating and otherwise abusing civilians for their lack of cooperation. The police commander then sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl. When a civilian protested, the report stated, "The district commander ordered his bodyguard to open fire on the AC [Afghan civilian]. The bodyguard refused, at which time the district commander shot [the bodyguard] in front of the AC." At the time these documents came out, the official reaction to them, echoed widely in the media, was that they disclosed "nothing new." But let us pause to absorb this story. A police officer, unwilling, at the risk of his own life, to be a murderer, is himself murdered by his superior. He gives his life to spare the other person, possibly a stranger. It is the highest sacrifice that can be made. The man's identity is unrecorded. His story is met with a yawn. But perhaps one day, when there is peace in Afghanistan, a monument will be erected in his honor there and schoolchildren will be taught his name. Perhaps here in the United States, when the country has found its moral bearings again, there will be recognition of the integrity and bravery of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange. For now, the war- and torture-system rolls on, and it's all found to be "nothing new."
A letter I received from Free Press a couple weeks ago lays out some very disturbing things that are happening because of government policies are failing and our public officials are timid. They would rather let corporations put their profits ahead of the public interest. Here are a few of the examples laid out in the letter I received:
The Federal Communications Commission currently does not have the power to protect Internet users or make rules for the communications networks of the 21st-century. It is unwilling to reassert its authority to do so. Google and Verizon have made a pact that could end net neutrality, and with it, the Internet as we know it. But the FCC chairman hasn't said a word against-or taken action that could stop-- this dangerous deal. The Comcast-NBC Universal merger threatens to create one of the largest media empires ever, with vast control over content and distribution. Yet government agencies appear poised to rubberstamp the deal.Free Press indicates that net neutrality is the biggest battle we are facing right now in media reform:
Nowhere are the stakes higher than in the fight to secure the open Internet. The largest phone, cable and Internet companies are funneling millions of dollars a day to politicians and into a massive lobbying campaign to win policies that will turn the Internet into their own private highway.The letter is a request for contributions to allow Free Press to continue fighting these battles. I would highly recommend anyone who is concerned to visit the Free Press site and consider contributing.