Now, if the occupiers could only attract the Crips, MS-13, and the Aryan Brotherhood.
An extremely important article. This kind of far-sighted thinking should be the definitive characteristic of a genuine counter-elite.
The term Nationalism—as it is known outside of the West—is mostly synonymous with the anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist sentiments of the 19th and 20th century, that is to say Nationalism from the perspective of an Asian, African, Middle Easterner or Latin American is not merely an affirmation of ethnic and cultural identity, but also the rejection of White colonial or imperial authority, and to a certain degree, white culture.
However, there is also a paradox involved in the sense that the development of modern economic, technological and, to a lesser extent, political institutions are also synonymous with the concept of Westernization. For if truth be told, the White/Western World invented most of what people would now call modernity. In other words, the White/Western World was the template for what the rest of the world wanted to be, despite negative attitudes to Western projections of power.
So when white people created modern society, the rest of the world wanted copies of those societies for themselves. When white people embrace “Democracy,” the rest of the World sort of embraced “Democracy.” When white people created the internet, cars, and the bourgeois lifestyle, the rest of the world also adopted the internet, cars, and the bourgeois lifestyle. And when white people embraced multiculturalism and mass immigration, the rest of the world em . . . eh . . . we’re still deliberating that one.
So Nationalism in the traditional sense of the word, as perceived by a person of a non-western background, like myself, is something which is intertwined with both the rejection of the West, and the paradoxical imitation of the intellectual and technological achievements of the West.
I call this the “Go Home Yankee, And Take Me With You” Syndrome.
Now, there are many accounts on how this particular phrase developed here in the Philippines, but the most common among them was that back in the nineties, one of the protesters of Uncle Sam’s foreign policy was holding up a sign that said, “Go Home Yankee and Take Me With You.” And though it was taken to be a joke, it’s implications are much more serious than what some people think.
Of course, the Philippines is not the only country to have this kind of mentality. This type of intellectual dissociation exists among different nations all over the world, particularly in relation to the Western World. What this means, in my estimations, is that the concept of nationalism, which most non-white nations still adhere to, is largely outdated and is incapable of meeting challenges that the intellectual and economic proponents of globalism and modern soft-marxist liberalism put forth.
So what I am saying is that what is happening in the West (e.g. Hate Crime Legislation, Political Correctness, Deindustrialization, Mass Immigration and Multiculturalism) is a prelude to what may happen to the rest of the world. Already there are small indications that the rest of the world may alsoend up following the same path as the Western World if present trends continue.
The value of the New Right in both the US as well as in Europe is that it offers a serious intellectual critique of the modern zeitgeist which goes beyond the post-nationalist paradigm. So even if the goal of these movements is the preservation of the white race, the restoration of national sovereignity in Western Nations and an intellectual revolt against the established intellectual dogma, it also offers the intellectual template for many non-white nations to resist the globalist agenda, and to offer new ideas in relation to government and society.
Interesting article. A synthesis of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street is probably what the grassroots following of an anarchist led pan-secessionist movement would look like.
Now I know that I am asking for it by simply bringing up the idea that there may be some similarities between the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements. How do I know this? A few days ago, I put the following status up on my Facebook Page and the comments flew. Some took issue with any kind of comparison, while others argued about the true nature that each group held.
I know there are ideological differences, but at some level, shouldn’t Tea Party folks be outraged by what’s happening to Occupy folks? See comments
Now I knew that this comparison will draw some heated conversation, but this idea really does intrigue me. Others have also been writing about the commonalities between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street here and here, so I want to flesh this out a little more to see if we can find some agreement on the nature and feel of both movements of people. I realize that some probably think this kind of reflection is a waste of time. After all, one group is “right” and the other is “wrong” and by doing this I am giving more legitimacy to a movement that does not deserve it. Maybe so, but I also think it is important for people to understand that most monolithic movements, as they are portrayed by media, supporters and detractors are probably not as all-good or all-bad as they would like us to think they are. And if we are going to find those moments of faithful compromise where the common good is put before ideological loyalty, we must be able to engage in this kind of thinking.
So I begin by suggesting some similarities. Keep in mind that I have been to both a Tea Party Rally in Cincinnati, OH as well as Occupy SF this past week, so my information is mostly from what I have read, talked to people about and experienced in person. Here we go . . .
As I mention in my two prior blogs, the OWS movement will leave a legacy of accomplishments — mainly related to consciousness raising and movement building – even if the actual occupations shut down tomorrow. There is still lots of furious debate over #OccupyWallStreet’s long term goals, which roughly center around the dismantling of the corporate state, the establishment of an alternative, non-corporate economy, and the development of an independent media that reflects the interests and concerns of the 99% of us who aren’t millionaires and billionaires. Yet we are unlikely to see major policy or infrastructure changes until our new movement hits the 1% where it really hurts — in their pocketbook. Prior to Tuesday’s violent police attack on Occupy Oakland, I had the sense that the authorities were quite comfortable with thousands of us camping out in city parks every night — so long as we weren’t interfering with business as usual.
As a P.T. (often referred to as perpetual traveller, permanent tourist or prior taxpayer), I have travelled to nearly 100 countries. During those travels there has always been one defining moment, upon entry into a country, which shows that the country is what is generally thought of as a “third world country”.
It is the moment when, upon arrival, you are charged a fee to enter the country. The reason generally being that the government of the country has so destroyed the economy and/or they have so little understanding of what creates wealth that they think that the way to make their country prosperous is to charge a fee upon entry rather than allowing people to enter freely and transact, trade and spend their money in the economy. Either that or the government is so desperate for money that it uses this as a significant source of revenue.
They have this in Cambodia, Indonesia, Bolivia and numerous other similar countries. And now, they have it in the US.
In Oakland, California, where I live, the Occupiers have been struggling to keep their ground on Ogawa Plaza, a piece of public property in front of City Hall. On the night of Tuesday, October 25, I saw from my apartment, miles northeast of the action, dozens of police cars zoom in from a neighboring jurisdiction. I looked at an online police scanner where the Oakland police department described the situation as a riot and requested a multi-county tactical response. Hundreds of police, donning intimidating riot gear, swept in to confront the crowd on the streets. There was no riot, however, as almost all the protesters were peaceful, the only ones acting out with petty violence being loudly chastised by the crowd. The most belligerent participants by far were law enforcers, who responded to thrown bottles and civil disobedience with tear gas and rubber bullets. One man, Scott Olsen, was hit with one of the police’s projectiles, his skull fractured. Thankfully, he is now reportedly in fair condition. You can tell from the videos that the police were not exactly using restraint with these weapons. They even threw percussion grenades at the protesters who came to Olsen’s aid. What began as a typical overbearing government response to protesters in the name of public health now offers a peak into the full threat to liberty that we face in modern America.
When it comes to the rights of the protesters vs. the police, we have to side with the protesters. Some of the particulars were different in his time, but we should remember that Murray Rothbard argued that the occupiers of People’s Park in Berkeley were in the right and the police who beat, gassed, arrested and injured them entirely in the wrong.
Beyond this human rights issue, how freedom lovers should regard the Occupy movement, now alive in over a hundred towns and cities worldwide, depends largely upon whether we see it as a radical rebellion against the establishment or an uprising on behalf of more statism. But there’s also another consideration: whether there exists an opportunity to reach out to the disaffected and explain to them why only true liberty will remedy the grave economic and social problems some of them at least partly diagnose correctly.
In a recent discussion, someone proposed “a political system comprised of professionals rather than career politicians.” Policy-making bodies, she suggested, might be equally divided between professionals and elected politicians.
The problem with such a proposal is that there’s no such thing as neutral or disinterested expertise. How do you prevent a professional culture from representing an institutional mindset? At any given time, a professional culture has a lot invested emotionally in defending the existing paradigm against challenges, as Thomas Kuhn noted in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Professionals are no more immune than anyone else to having their unconscious assumptions shaped by situational and power considerations. Anyone who’s seen academic department politics can tell you that. As a grad studient, I was in places where every single office door had the same Doonesbury cartoon mocking the irrationality of political hacks — but when it came to bureaucratic infighting, I’d put them up any day against a couple of MBAs warring for a corner office.
Early 20th century Progressivism was an ideology of engineers and professionals who saw the replacement of “politics” with disinterested expertise as the solution to everything. In the late 19th century, giant institutions like corporations, centralized government agencies, giant institutionalized universities and charitable foundations revolutionized society. And Progressivism was the ideology of the new class of white collar professionals who managed those giant institutions.
The first corporate managers came from an industrial engineering background, and saw managing large institutions as analogous to managing a production process on the shop floor: Treating the entire thing as a system to be rationalized. The logical next step was for these same professional managers to treat society itself as such a system.
The problem with this is that the professionals’ conception of “efficiency” reflects a lot of unconscious assumptions influenced by their own institutional background. The most rational and efficient solutions they choose, oddly enough, will just happen to be “reforms” that can be carried out by people like themselves acting through the same kind of institutional framework as they currently govern. One reason our society has increasingly become so complex, so centralized, so institutionalized, and so dependent on the hegemony of professionals, is that “properly qualified professionals” see increased institutionalization and hierarchy — under the supervision of professionals like themselves — as the solution to everything.
There’s a saying — attributed to Bucky Fuller, I think — that society can’t solve problems on the same level of thinking that created them. C. Wright Mills coined the term “crackpot realism” for this tendency. When a giant, centralized, hierarchical institution, governed by Weberian/Taylorist “rationality,” is the tool you’re working with, you tend to be like someone with a big hammer who sees everything as a nail.
And when policy is made by people who operate on the unquestioned assumption — unquestioned because it never occurred to them that it might be questionable — that large bureaucracies administered by professional managers and experts are the best way to organize things, it’s no surprise that society is increasingly dominated by such an institutional framework.
By the very nature of things, in any society, the range of “moderate” or “mainstream” reforms are those that can be carried out largely within the existing structure of power, with only secondary tweaking of institutions at most, by the kinds of people who are currently running things. A “radical” or “extreme” proposal is one that will require major changes to the institutional framework and can’t be carried out by people like those currently running things. That’s something that won’t change under a technocracy.
And who decides who the professionals are? Do the politicians appoint the 50% of professionals to sit on the council with them? Or do the professionals promote their own successors by cooptation, like the Soviet politburo?
For example: I’ve repeatedly seen apologists for the USDA/agribusiness complex claim Norman Borlaug saved millions from starvation, citing him as an authority on the worthlessness of organic agriculture. But I’ve also seen experts like intensive horticulturist John Jeavons demonstrate that everything Borlaug thought he knew about organic farming was wrong. So who’ll be the “professional” making agri policy?
As James Scott pointed out in “Seeing Like a State,” high-modernist ideologies like “professionalism” tend toward authoritarian hubris on the potential for social engineering. There are ways of reasoning with a political hack, based on self-interest. But how do you deal with a “disinterested professional” who sincerely believes she knows what’s best for you?
Campaign finance reform is something of a tricky issue. It spotlights some of the problems of applying free market principles in an unsystematic way.
For many libertarians, efforts at campaign finance reform with an eye toward curbing the influence of corporate donors, are worrisome on their face. They seem to strike at the right of individuals, legal or actual, to do what they want with their money, including supporting political candidates in any amount they desire. Since a business entity is just a voluntarily assembled group of free individuals, the logic goes, it too — through its political action committee — ought to be able to donate as much or as little as its members see fit.
The problem with that position is that it trivializes, even ignores, the extent to which the power of big business, the inviolable “private sector,” hinges on state-granted or -protected contraventions of the free market. To the extent that corporate power and riches depend on special privilege, libertarians ought to be more circumspect in their endorsements of judicial decisions like Citizens United v. FEC.
When political commentators on the left talk about “getting money out of politics,” about tighter regulations on campaign contributions and spending, conscientious libertarians should take a moment to think about the big picture. As a matter of course, a free society means the freedom to direct the fruits of your labor where you will, but — it is important to point out — we aren’t living in anything like a free society.
Avoiding myopic, reflex reactions based on a pale excuse for our philosophy, libertarians ought to embrace a robust view that reaches out to those who see the problems with corporate dominance over the political process
Groups like Rootstrikers treat the Occupy protests as a chance to circulate a substantive message for reform. The underlying attitude of Rootstrikers, that the marriage of money and politics amounts to an extreme social evil, is dead on target. They accept that the formula of money plus politics is a recipe for disaster yet insist that only “corrupting money” ought to be removed from politics, that “good government” is possible given the right legal refinements.
What makes Rootstrikers frustrating is how close they come to fully understanding the problem and appreciating the nuances of the big picture. Rootstrikers is a project of Democracy Fund, a group dedicated to the worthy goal of “curb[ing] the undue influence of corporate lobbyists over the U.S. political process.”
In his book, Republic, Lost, Rootstrikers founder and Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig writes that “the problem with Congress” is “the product of an economy of influence,” rigorously probing the issue of the revolving door connecting corporate lobbying to DC policymaking.
I recommend the book as an exhaustive, thoughtful study of the ways that intersecting and interconnected mechanisms of power create the abuse and injustice we see all around us. But for all of the accurate diagnoses and understanding contained in Lessig’s and Rootstrikers’ message, the ingenuous trust in government itself remains.
Rather than following the arguments regarding the capital/state nexus to their logical ends, Rootstrikers fail to recognize that — even assuming that publicly-funded campaigns would cut against the broad problem of special interest corruption — it is the state that is the ultimate source of the trouble.
As long as there are favors to dispense, privileges grounded in authority and force, a small, inner circle of the rich will purchase access to them at our loss and their advantage. This is not the nature of the current manifestation of the state, but of the state itself.
Market anarchists argue that economic decisions ought to be made by free individuals governing their own lives outside of violent imposition. Both the benefits and the costs of those decisions would be born by the people making them, not externalized upon unsuspecting and innocent taxpayers.
The state is, by definition, a vehicle for corruption. It allows a small group of people to use violence to stack the deck and constrain economic activity in their favor. If you want to strike the root, it is the intellectual and philosophical foundations of statism that you must attack.
Hardly a week goes by without me seeing another think piece on the question: “Are we winning the war on drugs?”
That depends on who “we” is. The War on Drugs has certainly served some very powerful interests in our society. Between the Drug War and the War on Terror, we’ve militarized police culture with SWAT teams, turned the Fourth through Sixth Amendments into toilet paper, and created the biggest prison-industrial complex in the world. From the standpoint of those who push the Drug War the hardest, these are all — as Martha Stewart would say — good things.
The Drug War has handed over the entire country to organized crime gangs fighting over control of the drug trade. And one of the biggest gangs involved in this turf war is the one in police uniforms. Big city (and increasingly, small city) law enforcement is a wretched empire of entrapment, warrants sworn out on false pretenses, perjured testimony by jailhouse snitches, coerced plea bargains, and civil forfeiture robbery.
Internationally, by far the biggest drug cartel of all is the CIA. It’s used the global drug trade, from the Golden Triangle to the Northern Alliance territory in Afghanistan, to fund black ops that wouldn’t even pass the smell test of the U.S. Congress — and that’s saying a lot.
Just consider the real story behind Afghanistan. One of the reason the Taliban was so unpopular, and the population was so eager to throw off their rule, was that they really did hate drugs — they virtually stamped out the poppy cultivation that had been a main source of income for dirt-poor Afghans. Meanwhile, the opium trade flourished in Northern Alliance territory (a lot like the good ol’ boy sheriff here in Arkansas who turns a blind eye to the farmer with a mortgage who cultivates a little wacky weed to make ends meet). And now that the Northern Alliance has become the Afghan national government — that’s right, you got it — Afghanistan is once again the center of world opium production. If you believe Our Troops are really trying to stamp it out, you probably still look under your pillow for a dime from the Tooth Fairy.
So the Drug War is every bit a success in furthering the interests of America’s real government: The unholy alliance of the intelligence community, the drug cartels, the big banks that launder drug cartel money, and the domestic police state apparatus.
My guess is that the most hard-core drug warrior politicians, sincere or not, whether they’re aware of it or not, get most of their campaign funds from laundered drug cartel money — just as bootleggers used to be the biggest campaign contributors to teetotaling Baptist preachers running for office.
I would guess, further, that any major party presidential candidate who offered a credible promise to end the War on Drugs would find himself buried deeper than Jimmy Hoffa, with more fingerprints on the operation than a million Warren Commissions sitting for a million years could make sense of.
So in the War on Drugs, the important thing to keep in mind is that the public isn’t the customer — it’s the product. On second thought, maybe you better forget it and go back to watching “Dancing with the Stars.”
UPDATE — Downey Police Chief Rick Esteves announced in a statement on Tuesday that the police officer involved in the shooting of Michael Lee Nida has been placed on paid administrative leave.
He also offered his condolences to Nida’s family and friends.
The release also revealed that the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department is completing the investigation and then sending it straight to the District Attorney to “avert any conflict of interest.”
PREVIOUSLY — Downey police officers admitted Sunday that they shot and killed an unarmed man in a case of mistaken identity, reports CBS Los Angeles.
The victim, Michael Lee Nida from South Gate, is survived by his wife of fourteen years and their four children. Tuesday would have been his 32nd birthday, according to KTLA.
According to a statement released Sunday by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (they are currently investigating the case), Downey police officers in the area were responding to reports of an armed burglary when they spotted Nida, whom they thought was acting suspiciously.
Officers tried to detain him, but he got away three times. During a short foot pursuit, an officer shot Nida, who later died at a local hospital. The officer who shot him claimed that Nida had turned toward him “in an aggressive manner,” leading police to believe he had a weapon — but none was recovered at the scene.
Nida’s family members told KCAL9 that the victim was at a nearby gas station in the area with his wife when he decided to cross the street and head toward a tobacco shop. It was then that he was spotted by police officers and chased down. Nida’s sister, Terri Teramura, told KCAL9 that Nida had been shot at least five times in the back.
The two suspects originally sought for the armed robbery are still missing, according toNBC Los Angeles.
This is the second time this month that Downey officers have fatally shot someone. A homeless man from Huntington Park was killed after charging at officers with a pocket knife, according to The Downey Patriot.
Those who wish to give to Nida’s memorial fund to help with burial costs can send donations to:
Michael Nida Memorial Fund
P.O. Box 3272
Huntington Beach, CA 92605
As a vigil was held for a two-time Iraq war veteran whose skull was fractured allegedly during a clash between protesters and Oakland police, Wednesday night’s Occupy protests could be a bellwether on whether police have agitated or suppressed the movement, analysts said.
“The police chose to make the situation more contentious. Now the question is whether they were right in their calculation,” said Michael Heaney, assistant professor of organizational studies and political science at the University of Michigan.
“Have they suppressed the movement or have they galvanized it?” Heaney said.
Already, the Oakland violence has prompted a warning from police in New York that they will pursue legal action against any protesters who injure police officers. Separately, the Atlanta mayor accused the movement of becoming violent and ordered arrests late Tuesday night.
Scott Olsen, a protester who’s done two tours of duty in Iraq and is now involved in Veterans For Peace, was critically wounded during an Oakland police raid by police projectiles. When people tried to help him, an officer lobbed a flash bang grenade right into their group. Olsen is currently hospitalized with serious injuries and is reported to be in critical condition.
The high court in London is to hear a case over the use of uranium-enhanced weapons by U.S.-led forces during the infamous Iraqi Battle of Fallujah in 2005. This, following a number of reports alleging their use was much more widespread than originally thought. RT talks to Christopher Busby, the co-author of two such reports and a visiting professor at the school of Biomedical Studies, the University of Ulster.
General Strike: November 28, 2011!
The only thing we have left is our labor. This is what we must withhold.
The debt “super committee” makes its budget recommendations on Wednesday, November 23rd, the day before Thanksgiving.
We know that the recommendations will include deep cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.
We know that the Republicans in the Senate and House will overwhelmingly approve of the austerity package that is sure to come from the super committee’s recommendations.
We also know that the Democrats will by and large fold and accept the austerity package.
We know that Obama will approve of the budget recommendations. (Otherwise, he would have invokedthe 14th Amendment and lifted the debt ceiling.)
Likewise, we know that as of November 23rd, ironically the day before Thanksgiving, the austerity package will be forthcoming and that the vast majority will now pay an additional price for the criminality of the corporate, military and financial oligarchy.
Villagers in Afghanistan say they were forced to walk ahead of Afghan and U.S. Soldiers along roads in areas believed to be mined by the Taliban.
National Public Radio reports villagers said the Afghan and U.S. troops pulled them from their homes one evening in early September and forced them to walk in front of the troops for more than a mile in the Panjwai district, southwest of Kandahar city.
No one was injured, but if the incident happened, it would appear to violate the Geneva Conventions governing treatment of civilians, NPR said.
The Panjwai district had been a Taliban stronghold until the U.S. troop surge in 2010 started to displace insurgents, NPR said. The Taliban now use roadside bombs and suicide bombers to fight there, said Faizal Mahmud, the deputy head of Panjwai’s council of elders.
Ex-Goldman Sachs director Rajat Gupta, pictured at the World Economic Forum on Jan. 28, 2010, in Davos, Switzerland
According to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Gupta was charged with six counts of securities fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud.
Gupta surrendered Wednesday morning.
“Today’s surrender is the latest step in an initiative launched by the FBI in 2007 targeting hedge fund insider trading,” said FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Janice Fedarcyk.
Gupta’s attorney, Gary Naftalis, said that “the government’s allegations are totally baseless.”
“He did not trade in any securities, did not tip Mr. Rajaratnam so he could trade, and did not share in any profits as part of any quid pro quo,” Naftalis said in a statement.
Gupta appeared in court Wednesday afternoon and pled not guilty to the charges against him.
CNN) — Authorities made a series of arrests at Occupy Wall Street protests in California and Georgia on Tuesday and Wednesday, with clashes in one city that involved tear gas being used on demonstrators.
Police said they fired the tear gas on protesters in Oakland, California, after the crowd threw paint and other objects at officers.
Among the injured in the clash was a two-time Iraq war veteran, Scott Olsen, who sustained a skull fracture after allegedly being shot in the head with a police projectile, according to Iraq Veterans Against the War.
Olsen, a former Marine, was in serious but stable condition Wednesday afternoon at Highland General Hospital in Oakland, said Dottie Guy, a member of the veterans group who told CNN by phone that she was visiting Olsen at the hospital.
Among a growing number of war vets participating in the Occupy movement, Olsen was peacefully marching from a downtown library toward City Hall in an effort to reclaim an encampment that had been cleared out by police, the veterans group said.
During Tuesday’s clash in Oakland, plumes of smoke could be seen in the city as about 500 people defied calls to leave an area of downtown Oakland, according to police. Protesters had camped for weeks in several areas in the city, including near City Hall, police said.
SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. (MarketWatch) — The theme: Repent. Haunting images of fanatical serial killers warning, “The End is Near, Repent!” That message seared my brain as the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” rode into “Dexter’s” dark world, the Miami Metro Police cable TV series. Now duty calls Dexter, CSI blood splatter expert by day, serial avenger by night.
Yes, the Four Horsemen, again. The perfect biblical metaphor for today’s bizarre world, where irrational ideologies prey on us, driving America deep into a dark world we’ve seen before: Goethe’s Faust, Dorian Gray, Dante’s Inferno.
Are things worse than we think?
Evan Newmark talks to Euro Pacific Capital president Peter Schiff, who fears as bad as we think the global economy is, things might, in reality, be even worse.
How else to accept today’s bizarre plot line: A decade ago Republican George W. Bush took our great nation into a $3 trillion war on lies. Today that party is mindlessly controlled by a cultish anti-tax pledge made to lobbyist Grover Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform group, who once proclaimed: “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”
Yes, drown. Kill. Folks, this insane plot line has advanced into a no-compromise, scorched-earth vow to do everything necessary to drown the presidency and reinstall another conservative who will return America to the Wild West policies that sabotaged it in the Bush/Cheney years.
Very Sincere Too
October 25, 2011
Of the various books I have inflicted on the world, my favorite is Au Phuc Dup and Nowhere to Go, the print version of which is a mess. The Kindle version is fine. Should anyone be interested, a sample chapter, clickable, is available under the cover on the right-hand side of your screen.
Like a wolverine digging at a rabbit’s hole, this column seeks truth, wherever it lies. (Of course, if truth lies, how can you trust it? These are deep waters.) To this end, I have been reading feminists about what slugs men are, and bandits, and slaves of vanity, and cause loose fillings and sunspots and roach infestations. In the past I dismissed these tiresome viragos as mere creatures of bile and ill-breeding. This time, I thought, maybe I should listen to them. After all, ugly short-haired unmarried women are people too. Pretty close anyway.
AsI pondered, I was overcome by the consciousness of sin. Yes, I thought, it is true. We men are the slaves of vanity. I wanted to deny it, but I could not. The facts cannot be evaded: We, sorry male malfeasors all, are hopelessly vain.
Confess it, fellows: Men spend millions on boob jobs, on moisteurining lipstick that gives us the freshness of the roses of morn, on perky push-up bras that divide and lift at the same time. Yes, we do. Television groans under ads for new, new shampos that make our thinning hair swirl like corn silk in gentle zephyrs. Whole generations of Africans have died in the diamond mines of Kimberly so that we men could have gauds and baubles and dingly-dangles to put in our ears. Oh, the shame of it.
October 25, 2011 “Global Post” — SIRTE, Libya — An analysis of video obtained by GlobalPost from a rebel fighter who recorded the moment when Col. Muammar Gaddafi was first captured confirms that another rebel fighter, whose identity is unknown, sodomized the former leader as he was being dragged from the drainpipe where he had taken cover.
A frame by frame analysis of this exclusive GlobalPost video clearly shows the rebel trying to insert some kind of stick or knife into Gaddafi’s rear end.
Pictures and Videos should only be viewed by a mature audience
Atlanta (CNN) — A federal government advisory committee voted Tuesday to recommend that males ages 11 to 21 be vaccinated against the human papilloma virus, which is blamed for thousands of cases of cancer among women and men.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said the vaccine series can be started as early as age 9.
Twelve members of the committee voted in favor of a recommendation that 11- and 12-year-old boys be vaccinated; one member abstained.
In a separate vote involving males age 13 to 21, eight voted in favor; five against, and one abstained. The same recommendation said men ages 22 through 26 may be vaccinated.
Much of the debate focused on whether it would be cost-effective to vaccinate boys against HPV. The vaccine is administered over a six-month period in three doses, each of which costs about $120.
Dr. S. Michael March, clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California and a member of the group that devised the recommendations, said the cost to vaccinate 11- and 12-year-old boys would be $38 million. “We have the money, we just have to set the priorities,” he said. “If we don’t, I don’t know who will.”