Confessions of a Hopium Eater

From the August 2011 issue of Bazooka Magazine:
I was enlightened or warped, depending on how you look at it, by George Carlin at a relatively young age. One of the things I agreed with Carlin about for a long time was voting, on which he said:

"I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created."

Since all politicians seemed equally dishonest, I took Carlin’s advice and stayed home most election days. Then in 2000, the Supreme Court appointed George W. Bush to the presidency and it quickly became apparent that in some cases the lesser of two evils was in fact preferable. So I started voting for the person I thought would fuck up things the least and/or the candidate who could correctly pronounce “nuclear.” Until 2008, every vote I cast was against the other guy, not for the guy who got my vote.

In 2008, Barack Obama came along, and I actually believed that he’d do what he said he’d do. While I knew that many of his ideas could never actually be implemented, he made me believe that he’d at least fight for them, and for the first time I voted for a candidate rather than against his opponent. During the early days of the Obama presidency, my Hopium addiction was still strong enough to give him the benefit of the doubt, but after a while I managed to kick the habit of paying more attention to what Obama was saying than what he was doing.

Many who are still hopelessly addicted to Hopium are quick to point out the accomplishments of the Obama administration, but most of these are hollow victories. The Iraq war is over, but only on paper, and we’ve more than made up for the decreased fighting there in Afghanistan, not to mention our air and drone attacks in Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen. We’ve got universal health care, but in the form of a corporate-friendly mandate almost identical to the plan that the Heritage Foundation proposed during the Clinton administration. The administration directed the DEA to stop raiding state-legal medical marijuana dispensaries, but then changed its mind when it realized how much money these dispensaries were making without DEA interference. I guess they were worried about that money cutting into Big Pharma’s profits and by association Big Pharma’s campaign contributions. Obama’s few real accomplishments, like the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” were inevitable. They might have taken a few years longer without Democratic leadership, but they were gonna happen sooner or later.

It’s become abundantly clear that Obama, like most other Democrats, only differs from the Republicans on a few social issues. When it comes to economics, the difference between the two parties is so minor as to be almost academic. They’re both ultimately concerned with keeping their rich donors happy, the only difference is that the Democrats will occasionally hide their blind greed and self-interest by throwing a bone to a social program or two. It’s a lot like professional wrestling: To a progressive-minded voter, the Dems are the faces and the GOP play the role of the heels, but at the end of the day they’re all working to put on a good show (like The Debt Ceiling Showdown pay-per-view event) to keep the cash flowing from the rubes (us) to Vince McMahon (the Koch brothers, Walton family, and other billionaires).

Obviously, people on my end of the political spectrum aren’t going to vote for any of the criminals and maniacs that have a chance of getting the GOP nomination, so what the hell are we supposed to do? Much as I agree with Carlin on most things, on this particular point, I think he’s wrong, so I’m going to vote for somebody. The question is, who? My current plan is to vote for a third party candidate (a real one, not a Republican wearing teabags on his three-cornered hat).

Some people will probably counter this idea with the Nader argument and say that by “throwing away your vote” on some third-party candidate, you’ll help to put the GOP back in power. My counter-argument is “what’s the difference?” From where I’m sitting, I really can’t see much of one. All the worst policies of the Bush years have been continued under Obama. As for all the GOP policies that Democrats use to frighten votes out of people--cutting of social programs, outlawing abortion, passing DOMA--keep in mind that the Republicans controlled all three branches of government for most of a decade and didn’t accomplish any of these things. That’s because actual reform of this sort would cost them votes in the next election. Wedge issues like these are the steel cage ladder matches that keep us watching (and voting).

If you can’t find a third party candidate you agree with, just vote for the absolute most batshit insane person you can find. Under our current political system, third party candidates don’t have much chance of getting elected anyway, so you’re not really voting to elect anyone. Instead, you’re voting to show the major parties that you refuse to give your vote to someone who isn’t going to work for your interests. If enough people do it, maybe eventually they’ll take notice (at least until the Supreme Court decides that corporations get 1 vote for every dollar they earn or something). If a few third party guys get elected, even better. There’s always a chance that a handful sincere true believers and colorful nutjobs can at least slow down the bi-partisan corporate toadying and upwards redistribution of wealth that goes on in politics today. At the very least, having a few true loonies in office will make C-Span a lot more entertaining.

Open Letters To The Universe

From the August issue of Bazooka Magazine

There’s a lot of stupid shit going on lately, but I’ve been too busy (or maybe just too lazy) to cover it all in depth here. Instead, I’m going to use a contrived “open letters to people I don’t know” format that will allow me to hit the highlights while simultaneously annoying the Update Update guys. So everybody wins.

Dear Sarah Palin,
Did you really release a book called Undefeated? Seriously? That’s like Paris Hilton releasing a book called Unfucked. In both cases, the interwebs are full of evidence to the contrary.

Dear David Williams,
If you regularly report thousands of dollars in gambling losses on your tax returns, you can’t be against expanding gambling in the state of Kentucky. Our state could really use the jobs, tax revenues, and other economic benefits from gambling money that Kentuckians like you are giving to neighboring states.

Dear Bush Tax Cut Supporters,
Trickle down theory used to be confined to the fringes of the Republican party--even George H.W. Bush called it “voodoo economics”--but today even the allegedly but not really Liberal Obama administration pays lip service to the idea that giving tax cuts to the rich will create jobs. Let’s ignore the 30+ years of evidence that this simply isn’t true and think about it from the perspective of a business owner: Say you run a business making Gadsden flags.Your company is fully staffed with salespeople, office workers, janitors, and enough people on the production floor to turn out 1500 flags a month. Your biggest sales month is April (when all the tea partiers are gearing up for their tax day protests), when you sell about 1400 flags. The rest of the year, you average around 1000 flags a month. If the government gives you a tax cut, are you going to use that money to hire an employee you don’t need? Exactly. If we want the economy to improve, we need to put money into the hands of the morons who buy Gadsden flags, not inflate the bank accounts of the people who outsourced their jobs to China in the first place.

Dear Nancy Grace,
I hear there’s a dead white girl at the bottom of the Marianas Trench. Why don’t you go check that out?

Dear Hollywood,
Please make a buddy cop movie starring John Turturro and Alan Tudyk. Don’t let Michael Bay have anything to do with it. While you’re at it, stop letting Michael Bay make movies. Thank you.

Dear Michelle Bachmann,
Your husband is gayer than George Takei dancing on a rainbow in assless chaps. It’s probably best for both of you to acknowledge this now. Not only will it allow you to avoid the inevitable airport bathroom revelation, it will hopefully convince him to stop using federal money to torture openly gay people with his “pray the gay away” program. Maybe then he could start a faith-based initiative that would really benefit the country. I recommend a “Pray Michael Bay Away” program.

Insert Your Own Weiner Joke Here

From the July issue of Bazooka Magazine:

As you probably all know, New York Congressman Anthony Weiner recently got into some trouble for Twittering pictures of his, well, weiner. As a result, partially due to pressure from his own party (motto: Democrats: Spine Free Since ‘83!), Weiner resigned from his job even though he never even got laid. Personally, I think he should have kept his job. As far as I’m concerned, there are only about four instances in which a public official’s sex life should cause them to lose their job:

Illegal Activity: If a public official is guilty of rape, preying on children, keeping a woman in a pit, or any other criminal act, he should be forced to resign and face the same criminal penalties the rest of us would. The same applies to prostitution, unless the official has a record of supporting (and voting for) the legalization of prostitution. In that case, we can probably let it slide as an act of civil disobedience. Since texting pictures of Mr. Happy to other consenting adults is perfectly legal, Weiner’s innocent on this count.

Hypocrisy: If a public official is doing something that he publicly crusades (and votes) against, he should lose his job for misrepresenting himself to his constituents. Weiner has never presented himself as a moral crusader. If anything, his public persona has tended toward “douchebag New Yorker”--exactly the kind of guy you’d expect to think women would want to see pics of his dong. Since he’s also got a good voting record for supporting sexual rights, we can’t really call Weiner a hypocrite.

Improper Use of Government Resources: If a public official is paying for hookers out of his expense account or using government jets to fly his girlfriend to Paris, it should be treated just like any other kind of financial malfeasance. Obviously, there’s some gray area here due to the crossover between the public and private lives of government officials. In general, if the official could get away with using the resources on behalf of a spouse they should also be allowed to use them for their girlfriend, mistress, or hooker without getting into trouble. As far as I can tell, Weiner’s sexting took place at his home using private accounts, so he’s still in the clear.

Sexual Harassment: I’m making this category separate from “Illegal Activity” since its usually a civil, not criminal, offense. If someone in the private sector would likely lose their job for something in this category, so should a public official. Since so far none of the women Weiner was involved with have filed charges or requested restraining orders, I think it’s safe to assume that everything was consensual, so once again Weiner’s in the clear.

Unless one of the above criteria apply to an official’s sexual activities, they should be between the official, their spouse, and whoever they’re doing whatever they’re doing with or to. If their constituents don’t think someone who engages in such “immoral” activities can properly represent them, they can always vote them out or (if they feel the official should lose their job right now) attempt to force a recall vote. But, based on the Weiner case, we’ve apparently decided that officials guilty of doing anything other than missionary with their spouse are not fit to lead. In that case, there are a few other public officials that probably need to join Weiner among the ranks of the unemployed (and I doubt Larry Flynt will be offering these guys a job like he did Weiner).

Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia)
Newt was, of course, one of the “family values” Republicans that came into power during the Clinton administration. In fact, Newt loved families so much that at the time he was on his second marriage (to the woman he’d started an affair with while still married to his first wife). During his time as House Speaker, Gingrich started an affair (while still married to his second wife) with a new mistress, who would later become his third wife. While all this was going on, Newt led the charge to impeach Bill Clinton for getting a blowjob without a hint of irony. Newt eventually was forced to resign due to his hypocrisy and sexual improprieties, but now he’s back as a GOP Presidential candidate. Fortunately nobody seems to be taking him seriously.

Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
During the 1992 election, Inouye’s opponent ran an ad that featured an interview with Inouye’s hairdresser (taped without her knowledge) claiming that he “sexually forced himself on her” (or, in other words, raped her) in 1975 and sexually harassed her ever since (for some reason she continued to cut his hair). Nine other women made similar claims of sexual harassment by Inouye, but refused to come forward publicly. Inouye remains in the senate to this day, where he presently serves as President pro tempore.

Tim Mahoney (D-Florida)
Remember Mark Foley, this Republican Congressman who resigned after he was caught sending sexually explicit emails to a 16-year old intern (who, despite Foley’s anti-gay voting record, happened to be a dude)? Tim Mahoney is the guy who replaced him, running on a campaign that highlighted restoring morality to the office. Well, it turns out he’d had a whole buttload of affairs. His wife divorced him, but he kept his job.

David “The Diaper” Vitter (R-Louisiana)
David Vitter has consistently framed himself (and voted) as a Bible-thumping good ol’ boy. He’s against abortion and evolution, for abstinence-only education and school prayer, and he hates the gays. Vitter also likes to hire prostitutes to change his diapers, and has been involved in two sex scandals during his time in office. Nearly every time there’s a sex scandal, people call for Vitter’s resignation, but so far he’s remained in the Senate.

Weiner’s already resigned and probably isn’t getting his job back, but before the next sex scandal breaks, the American people and both political parties really need to decide what sorts of sexual activity are worthy of dismissal and apply those guidelines in a non-partisan way. If we decided that Weiner’s resignation was necessary, we need to immediately call for the four people listed above--all of whom are guilty of at least one of the criteria that I personally believe are grounds for being booted out of office--to resign (or in Newt’s case, end his campaign), along with numerous others who have been caught up in similar scandals. If not, we need to institute what Bryan Lambert at www.youaredumb.net calls “The Vitter Rule,” which states that “if what you're doing isn't worse than prostitutes and diapers, you get to keep your job.”

Race, History, and Cairo

This article originally appeared in the June issue of Bazooka Magazine

When the Army Corps of Engineers announced that they might bust the Birds Point levee to help relieve pressure on the flood walls of Cairo, Illinois, a lot of people complained. While there were some legitimate arguments against the plan--the possibility that it wouldn’t really do any good, questions about whether it would set off an earthquake, and the fact that ACoE’s plans don’t have a great track record for working out as expected, for example. Of course, most people didn’t go with these arguments. Instead, most people went with the same “Cairo is a shithole” argument that got Missouri House Speaker Steven Tilley into trouble. The argument basically went that the few hundred farmers in Birds Point (always presented as all-American family farmers, despite the fact that most of the land there is owned by corporate farms or long-time farming families, the current heirs of which rarely use tractors for anything other than photo ops) were more valuable than the few thousand poor people in Cairo who had let their city turn into such a shithole. A common sentiment was “Cairo can rebuild; the people of Birds Point will lose their homes,” which suggests that the people of Cairo are merely squatters who can’t possibly possess (or at least aren’t entitled to) the same sense of place as their counterparts on the other side of the river.

The class warfare angle here is obvious, and the discussions of Cairo I heard or read did include some of the typical “bootstrap” nonsense you hear from people who don’t understand the cash flow, psychological, or opportunity costs of living paycheck to paycheck. However, despite the fact that I often get upset with activists who turn class issues into racial issues--effectively leaving poor white people out in the cold--I think that in the case of Cairo, race is an important part of the discussion. Most people (at least where I grew up in Ballard County) who say that the people of Cairo are responsible for the town’s current state really mean that the black people of Cairo are responsible for the Cairo’s downfall. This assignment of blame to the blacks of Cairo becomes even more blatantly racist in light of the city’s history.

Despite being at the tip of a state that touches our northern border, Cairo has always been a Southern town. The sign at the city’s entrance once read “Where Southern Hospitality Meets Northern Industry” and, more recently, simply “Gateway to the South.” Given that Cairo is wedged between two former slave states and at the same latitude (37 degrees) as Richmond, Virginia (capitol of the Confederacy), this isn’t all that surprising. Although Cairo’s location as a river hub and the southernmost stop on the Illinois Central Railroad line made it a useful stop on the Underground Railroad, most slaves who entered Cairo were only passing through; Cairo residents at the time liked to boast that the town had a climate that wasn’t suitable to abolitionists. In 1860, only 55 of Cairo’s 2,000 plus inhabitants were black.

When General Grant made Cairo a base of operations for the Union Army, the makeup of the city’s population began to change drastically. In 1862, the Union Army set up a “contraband camp” where former slaves lived while the government decided how to deal with them and after the war Cairo became a frequent stopover point for former slaves leaving the south. By 1870, about 40% of the city’s population was black, and the African-American population stayed at around this level for the next 100 years (when the percentage of blacks increased mainly because of the number of whites who left the city).

Once the Union Army left Cairo, it didn’t take long for tension to start building between the newly-arrived black population and the good ol’ boys who had long called Cairo home. One of the most famous examples of racial violence in Cairo happened in 1909, when accused (black) murderer Will James was lynched and shot multiple times, burned, and dragged through the streets in front of a crowd of over 10,000 people. To add to the gruesomeness, parts of his body were taken as trophies and his burned head was hung on a post near the home of his alleged victim. The mob then tore through the town looking for his supposed accomplice (who might or might not have existed) until Governor Chalres Deenen sent in eleven National Guard companies to restore order.

In 1913, Cairo (which had had a black city councilman from 1885-1901) changed its government to a commission whose officers were elected at-large, effectively disenfranchising black voters, and the racial tensions continued. Even the passage of civil rights legislation in the 1960s didn’t do much to help the black citizens of Cairo. Most employers (including the city) refused to hire black workers, public housing remained segregated for nearly 8 years after the Department of Housing and Urban Development changed its policies, and a private school (Camelot) was set up mainly as a way to skirt school desegregation.

In 1969, a group called the United Front organized a boycott of white businesses that refused to hire blacks. They also organized protests and solidarity rallies and worked with the Kennedy-initiated Lawyer’s Committee For Civil Rights Under Law to challenge racial discrimination in the city’s court system, governmental hiring practices, and police department. This led to an increase in violence. According to a story in the July 1973 issue of The Veteran, “The white community responded to this action [the boycott] with gunfire, and within the past four years, the people of Cairo have been the targets of over 200 nights of fire-fights. The local police and a white vigillante [sic] group (White Hats) have, since then, fired into the black community with machine-guns, automatic carbines, high-powered rifles, sub-machine guns, and shot-guns. The black community has continued to defend itself.” Arson was also a common White Hat tactic, as well as the occasional bombing.

The United front continued its pursuit of equality for Cairo’s black citizens for over a decade, but during that time many of the city’s white businesses simply chose to leave town rather than end their discriminatory practices, causing further economic damage to an already struggling city. In 1980, a court decree ended the city’s at-large voting system and two blacks were elected to the city council, but by that time the damage was done. The newly-enfranchised black citizens of Cairo inherited a city with few jobs, no tax base, and extremely high poverty rates. As poverty (and the violence and crime that comes with it) increased, many Cairo’s remaining businesses closed their doors.

Ironically, Cairo today, with very few local businesses and many citizens already relying on social welfare programs, is one of the few cities that might actually benefit from a Wal-Mart. Unfortunately, the city (which can’t even afford gas for its police cars) is too broke to offer the kinds of subsidies Wal-Mart requires to set up shop. While the decline of river traffic, the railroad bridge at Thebes (which allowed rail lines to bypass Cairo), and other factors have contributed to Cairo’s demise, the white businesses who left town to avoid integration were the final nail in the coffin. Since they left because the black citizens of Cairo demanded equality, anyone who blames the current citizens of Cairo for the town’s downfall is, in effect, blaming the situation on a bunch of black people who got “uppity.”

Despite the crushing poverty and eroded tax base, there is still some hope for Cairo. Southern Illinois University has been working with citizen groups to preserve and restore historic buildings, Alexander County is attempting to secure funding to promote tourism, and last year Governor Pat Quinn created the Alexander-Cairo Port District, which will hopefully encourage businesses to locate in the area. If it all works out, maybe one day Cairo can once again become the hopeful place Twain wrote about instead of the run-down ghost town that Neil Gaiman so accurately described in American Gods. Personally, the very fact that two of my favorite authors have written about Cairo makes me think there’s something about it worth saving.

Five Fun Facts About Food Stamps

From the April issue of Bazooka Magazine:

In case you haven’t heard, Yum! Brands has been lobbying legislators to allow fast food restaurants to accept food stamps. WPSD posted a note about this on their Facebook page the other day. As you can probably guess, over 90% of the people who left comments ignored the fact that this change is being suggested by one of the world’s largest fast food companies (they own KFC, Taco Bell, Long John Silvers, and several other chains) in favor of self-righteous psuedo-Randian rants about the champagne and caviar lifestyle of the lazy bottom feeders and criminals who receive public assistance.

Most of these posts offered anecdotal evidence of people on food stamps abusing the system. Many also included a subtle racism that was hilarious until it occurred to me that some of the posters had probably reproduced. Then it was just sad. Since the average western Kentuckian seems to think of welfare recipients as a cross between Wayne Malloy (Eddie Izzard from The Riches) and Tyrone Biggams (Dave Chappelle’s crackhead character), I thought it might be useful to point out the following (apparently obscure) facts about people who receive food stamps and other forms of public assistance.

* A lot of people who receive food stamps have jobs. Sometimes more than one. I know it sounds crazy that anyone living the life of luxury that food stamps afford would see any need to work, but it’s true. Failure to acknowledge this fact was most obvious from the folks who complained about people using food stamps to buy easily-prepared foods like frozen dinners. The idea that somebody working two or three minimum-wage jobs might not have the time or energy to prepare healthy, home-cooked meals never crossed their minds.

* Not everybody who receives public assistance was born poor. The default assumption for people in this area seems to be that anyone who gets food stamps does so because they have chosen to remain poor and milk the system their whole lives. In the world of the self-righteous WPSD viewer, nobody has ever lost their job to a business closing or layoff, used up all their savings, and been forced to accept public assistance because staggering unemployment made it hard to find another job.

* When you sign up for assistance, you’re not required to sell off all your worldly possessions. This is kind of a corollary to the previous fact. People around here are apparently genuinely offended that people who get food stamps aren’t all dressed in rags and performing musical numbers like modern-day Dickensian waifs. Not only do people not consider the possibility that people may have owned things before they fell on hard times, they fail realize that selling the TV is only going to feed a family for a week or two. After that, you still end up on food stamps but now you can’t watch The Simpsons. Overall, it’s not really a wise uses of resources.

* The public library offers free internet. A few people who receive food stamps were brave enough to admit it in the WPSD comments (most of them were against Yum!’s corporate welfare scheme, by the way). The good Christians of the viewing area were outraged that anyone would be brazen enough to admit that they got food stamps but still had an internet connection. Not only does this kind of thinking disregard the fact that skipping the internet bill won’t feed a family for a month or that the interenet is a useful resource for looking for a job, it ignores the possibility that these people were using an internet connection that didn’t cost them anything. This is symptomatic of the larger attitude that anything a poor person owns is evidence of poor money management or criminal activity. There’s no chance that a poor person’s phone (which is almost required to get a job these days) came free with the service contract, or that the nice shirt they’re wearing came from Goodwill, or that the toy the kids are playing with was a Christmas gift from an uncle who’s doing well.

* Most poor people don’t do drugs. I saved this one for last because it kind of ties into all of the others, and the racism I mentioned earlier. The truth is that subjecting food stamp recipients to humiliation and probable civil rights violations through mandatory drug testing really isn’t going to save the government much money. It’s just going to cause some children whose parents have drug problems to go hungry. But when smug, well-off white people (and the poor teabaggers they’ve brainwashed) hear the words “public assistance,” they imagine a gold-toothed black man in an Escalade who lives off the dole while buying big screen TVs with the money he makes from drug dealing. This the the modern evolution of Reagans “welfare Cadillac” meme, which was never anything more than a rhetorical device intended to convince middle class racists to go along with his attempts to dismantle the social safety net. The guy you’re imagining is named Flavor Flav, and he’s a very successful entertainer who doesn’t need to sell drugs or collect food stamps.