Of Punk Rock and Politics



Recently I began posting on the message boards at conservativepunk.com and gopunk.com, two great websites. It’s a fun way to debate the issues with people who share my combined interest in punk and poli sci. Not everyone on the boards is conservative, but that’s what makes it interesting, and I suppose that’s what keeps me coming back. If you visit these boards you’ll find all of the common political issues: abortion, the war on terror, the role of government and so on, but I’ve noticed that the thing that seems to come up more than anything is the relationship between conservatism and punk rock.

Quite often, messages are posted by newbies complaining of the apparent oxymoron between the words “conservative” and “punk.” Some of these people are merely annoyed, but many are furious and profane, unable to contain their fury over the heresy of suggesting that a filthy rightwing neocon can call himself “punk.” The often-incoherent rantings of these punk rock purists are humorous for the most part, but the purists do raise a valid point: Conservative punk IS an oxymoron.

Is that to say that we in the “conservative punk” boat are fooling ourselves? Not at all. The reason “conservative punk” is an oxymoron is because the word “conservative” (and arguably the word “punk”) has no meaning, at least in terms of American politics. As a basic definition, a conservative is someone who wishes to preserve the values or tenets of a given tradition or traditions. That’s partially true for American conservatives, but the same can be said for American liberals. Are Democrats conservative for wanting to preserve the constitutional right of free speech? Are Republicans liberal for wanting to overhaul the tax code? Here’s a brain teaser for you. If you support a woman’s right to choose and oppose a hunter’s right to own guns, you’re considered liberal. BUT, if you support a fetus’s right to live and a prison’s right to kill, you’re considered conservative. Apparently the “conservative-liberal” labeling isn’t an exact science. Very few people, regardless of their political affiliation, are consistently pro-choice, and very few consistently support the sanctity of human life. I suppose that’s why I lean libertarian. I find the hypocrisy on both sides of the fence to be nauseating.

But anyway, my point in all of this is that “conservative” and “liberal” as political labels in America are completely arbitrary. If you want further proof, look no further than our European neighbors, who more typically define a liberal as someone who opposes big government, and a conservative as someone left of center. This used to be true in America as well. Two of my favorite political thinkers are Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. If you read the writings of these men, you will find passionate objections to taxation and government intervention, and a belief that government has no moral right to make demands of its people. Thoreau even spent a night in jail for refusing to pay taxes. If you didn’t know better, you might think these guys were the 19th century equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, and yet they are considered great liberals. During their time, they were even considered radically liberal. This is why many so-called conservatives in America prefer to identify themselves as classical liberals. Today’s conservative is yesterday’s liberal, further demonstrating the arbitrary nature of such labels. In general, the labels today are based on political litmus tests, and not on any genuine definitions.

So if you want to get literal about it, then yes, conservative punk is an oxymoron. But we have already established that conservative is an arbitrary word in this case, so literal definitions have basically no merit. In many cases, a conservative punk is simply a punk or punk enthusiast who believes in limited government. So if you replace the word “conservative” with “self-reliant,” conservative punk becomes self-reliant punk, which doesn’t sound quite so contradictory.

Some have argued, though, that it is anti-punk to support the evil, warmongering Bush administration. This is absurd because it suggests that punk can be defined by a narrow ideology, which in fact is the antithesis of punk. There are many definitions of punk, but most are in agreement that independent thinking is a prime ingredient. By suggesting that one is not punk because one fails to see the world through the eyes of another who is considered punk, punk rock culture ceases to have meaning because it becomes the very thing it opposes: a narrow ideology. The Clash had a very different agenda than The Sex Pistols, and The Ramones had virtually no agenda at all. Then there are the straight-edge groups like Minor Threat who remain in a league of their own.

In 2004, Fat Wreck Chords released two CD/DVD sets entitled “Rock Against Bush.” The purpose, as spearheaded and organized by NOFX vocalist Fat Mike, was to unite popular punk rock bands in a campaign to remove George W. Bush from the White House by rallying support among young voters. The CDs sold well, but obviously the campaign’s primary objective failed and the youth voter count remained about the same as usual. Big-name bands like Green Day, Blink 182, The Offspring and No Doubt all made contributions to the campaign, which gained an impressive amount of press during the months leading up to the election. It was this movement that spawned the conservative punk counter movement, which is notable because punk rock itself began as a counter movement.

While Fat Mike and his cronies cozied up to extremist groups like PETA and railed about corruption in the Bush administration, there were those of us who shook our heads. It was inevitable that we would ultimately unite and speak out against what we saw as complete lunacy. While the Punk Voter crowd raised money for multi-billion-dollar-a-year lobby groups, the conservative punks stood up on their own; while the Punk Voter crowd threw their support behind big government policies, the conservative punks stood up on their own; while the Punk Voter crowd allied itself with the Democratic Party, the conservative punks stood up on their own. So who are the real punks these days?

For the record, I am a long time fan of Fat Mike, and I have long enjoyed listening to his music. If he lays off the Bush-bashing, I might even continue to support his band in the future, but let’s not turn punk into the same narrow box that the Republican and Democratic parties have become. We may differ on what it means to be punk, but it’s definitely not about that. If anything, we should learn from the failings of the two major parties.

Scientology Update



I'm sure that by now most of you have seen (at least in part) Matt Lauer's Today Show interview with actor Tom Cruise. If you are like me, you were frustrated by Cruise's cockiness as he berated Lauer over the issue of psychiatry and medication. Look, I've tried to keep a sense of humor throughout this whole Tom Cruise ordeal, but my patience has just about run out. This guy has every right to his opinions, but someone should seriously slap him senseless. In the interview, he comes off with lines like "YOU don't know the history of psychiatry, I do," "You're glib," "You don't even know what Ritalin is." He used these empty, unsupported and arrogant lines to instantly dismiss every suggestion host Lauer placed before him, without actually offering examples to support his cock-of-the-walk (pun fully intended) assurances of his immeasurable genius. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. According to Cruise, "If you start talking about chemical imbalance, you have to evaluate and read the research papers on how they came up with these theories."

What a dick!

If only Tom Cruise knew as much about L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology (for more on that, see previous post) as he claims to know about psychiatry. It leads you to wonder how such an astute researcher as Cruise could have missed his church's legacy of harrassment, abuse and murder. He can tell you the history of chemical imbalance reseach (at least he says he can; for now we just have to take his word for it) and yet somehow he missed all of the incriminating FBI files, rap sheets, documents, letters, memorandums, lawsuits, autopsy photos, criminal investigations and coroner's reports relating to his beloved "church" and its founder.

Wake up, Tom! If you're such a smart guy, take a critical look at your own religion. If it's the reincarnation and universal spiritual oneness that appeals to you, become a Buddhist. You don't NEED the Church of Scientology, and in fact you're far better off without it! And one more thing. If it's research you want, here's a bit of research for you: According to the International Suicide Statistics Resource Page (befrienders.org/suicide/statistics.htm), more than NINETY PERCENT of suicides in the world are due to mental disorders, and according to Kevin Caruso of Prevent Suicide Now, 25-50% of people with bipolar disorder attempt suicide. There are no guarantees (nor any likelihood) that Scientology can help people in these conditions, but medication has meant the difference between life and death for millions.

Lastly, I want to say a few words about chemical imbalances, since Mr. Cruise brought it up. In my previous post, I kept my descriptions relatively simple and elementary since I had so many topics to cover and wanted merely to make a brief point. It was not at all my intention to suggest (as some have) that depression-related disorders are caused simply by a serotonin imbalance. Again, I was trying to be brief, and make the point that neurotransmitters play an important role in human emotion and physical sensation, merely as a way of demonstrating how the scientific approach to determining and treating illness differs from that of L. Ron Hubbard as described in "Dianetics." In fact, diagnosable mental illnesses are more likely the result of relationships between hundreds of different neurotransmitters, the finer details of which are still up for debate. So to play devil's advocate for a moment, Cruise has some validity in questioning the methods of psychiatry, because a) most drugs were discovered by accident, b) drugs are in no way proven to cure mental illness, c) we do have a serious problem in this country with polypharmacy, prescription drug abuse, unnecessary diagnoses, etc... and d) psychiatry is a practice, in which subjective decisions are made and disagreements are often reached. Nevertheless, he does NOT have the right to judge others for choosing to utilize the resources of modern science to treat their ailments.

Psychiatry isn't perfect, but it sure as hell beats the dangerously-unscientific L. Ron Hubbard approach. More than ninety percent of suicides in the world are due to mental disorders, and undoubtedly many of them can be prevented with the proper medication. We may not have all the answers regarding the relationship between drugs and mental disorders, but we do know that modern medical science offers solutions where Scientology offers only fifty-five-year-old assumptions and suggestive babble. Religion in general has always been an effective tool in helping people to overcome addictions, emotional difficulties and even diseases, but faith is not a cure-all and modern medication is a life-saver for many people. Heavy documentation suggests that an absence of medical treatment for certain people can result in mortal tragedy. One such example can be viewed here: http://www.preventsuicidenow.com/steven-hrabovsky-kleine-suicide.html. Steven Hrabovsky had his whole life ahead of him, but he neglected his bipolar disorder medication until finally his depression defeated him. He committed suicide at the age of 19. There are many people like Steven, but guys like Tom Cruise don't seem to care, or if they do care, they just don't get it. So Tommy, please lay off the medical profession and go back to doing what you do best, which is reciting lines written for you by other people. For more, please read "The Problem With Scientology" (below).

And please visit http://www.freekatie.net/

The Problem with Scientology



“The only way you can control people is to lie to them. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them.”
-Lafayette Ron Hubbard, 1952

Scientology is big business these days. Movie stars like Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Kirstie Alley swear by it, and we all know that the intelligence of celebrities far surpasses that of us mere mortals. There are thousands of Scientology churches in countries across the world, and millions (perhaps billions) of dollars are generated each year in books, tapes, donations and dues. I wish I could give you an exact figure, but despite its tax-exempt status, the Church is very protective of its financial records, and has used the courts to secure its confidentiality.

Truth be told, I really don’t care what people put their faith in. It’s not something I lose sleep over. However, seeing as how Scientology has once again made its way onto the front pages (thanks to Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes), I thought I would say a few words, not because of the “faith” of Scientology, but because of the more serious implications of its influence.

The seeds of Scientology were planted in 1950 when renowned science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard published his first related book, “Dianetics.” It should be noted that the subtitle of “Dianetics” is “The Modern Science of Mental Health.” Now, when something is regarded as an article of faith, there is no reason to try and debunk it. Science cannot verify the existence or non-existence of a spiritual concept. However, once the word “science” is entered into the equation, as with “Dianetics,” the item in question immediately becomes subject to analysis, scrutiny and criticism. Unlike religion, science is not subjective.

“Dianetics” contains about six hundred pages of psychobabble, but I’ll try to sum it up as briefly as I can based on my personal reading. According to Hubbard, our greatest enemy is the “reactive mind,” or what he calls the engram bank. In a nutshell, the engrams are negative mental images of physically or emotionally painful sensations based on past traumatic experiences; the sensations remain in the reactive mind and persistently serve as objects of torment. In other words, they linger in the brain and continue to create physical reactions despite being nothing more than mere memories. Hubbard’s solution, then, for everything from depression to arthritis, is to “attack” (his word, not mine) the engrams, and destroy their proverbial grapple hold. Sounds pretty scientific, right?

Well, let’s put aside for a moment the fact that L. Ron Hubbard was in no way a scientist, and let’s look at the nature of science in general. In order for something to be considered scientifically sound, it must be capable of being tested and repeated under specific controlled conditions. The problem with Hubbard is that he deals almost entirely with abstracts, with no verifiable explanations as to how he draws his conclusions. Now I don’t know about you, but when I read a book about medical science, the first thing I do is look for the Ph.D. or preferably MD next to the author’s name. Hubbard’s ignorance of scientific and medical concepts is evident throughout his book.

But believe it or not, it gets worse. “Dianetics” was published fifty-five years ago, and no portions have been updated or revised, since the Church of Scientology considers it heresy to tamper with the sacred words of its founder L. Ron Hubbard. Think about that for a second. Would you feel comfortable being treated by a doctor who learned everything they know from medical books published in the early 1950’s? Personally, I’d run for the hills to avoid the shock treatment! Doctors spend half their lives reading medical journals just so they can keep up with the fast-changing research and technology. But even if science came to disprove Hubbard’s every word beyond a shadow of a doubt, the text of “Dianetics” could not be altered. That, my friends, is not science.

If someone were to actually test Hubbard’s theories, they might start by measuring changes in the brain’s neurotransmitter levels as people “attack their engrams,” so to speak. After all, Hubbard’s belief is that emotions and physical sensations of pain are the result of engram reactions. But I’m guessing Hubbard didn’t know a lot about neurotransmitters (back in 1950, who did?), because their very existence debunks every important element of Hubbard’s pseudoscience. For example, if a person’s pancreas fails to create a sufficient amount of insulin, that person is diabetic and in many cases must ingest insulin dosages to make up for the loss. That person cannot simply will his or her pancreas to speed up the insulin assembly line. The brain’s neurotransmitters work largely the same way. You may be able to change your basic thought patterns by following the Dr. Phil model, but if you struggle with some medically diagnosable mental illness or deficiency, all of the forced positive thinking in the world is not going to throw your serotonin levels into balance. It just doesn’t work that way. THAT is science, and that is why Scientology is such an incredibly dangerous philosophy.

As actor Tom Cruise recently illustrated through his officious criticism of Brooke Shields, Scientologists oppose the use of drugs to treat imbalances. Remember, according to Dianetics, YOU have the power to stomp out the madness within, and so basically, if you understand Dianetics and you’re still bipolar, it’s your own damn fault. So knock off the lithium intake, druggy! This is why the Scientologists have such a powerful vendetta against the psychiatric field. In fact, here’s a quote from Hubbard’s own mouth, from “Project Psychiatry,” 1966: “We want at least one bad mark on every psychiatrist in England, a murder, an assault, or a rape or more than one...This is Project Psychiatry. We will remove them.” As Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up! And if you think that sounds out of character for Hubbard, just do a Google search for “scientology fair game.” It’s actually much, much worse than you think.

What is “fair game,” you ask? Okay, this is where the story gets weird. In 1967 Hubbard issued a letter regarding how Scientologists should deal with “suppressives,” or those critical of or hostile to Scientology (including former members). In it he writes, “SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.” Hubbard loyalists will point out that he rescinded the fair game policy a year later, because of “bad public relations,” but that’s absurd. In fact, he only ended “the practice of DECLARING people fair game” (emphasis mine). If you read further on in his cancellation letter (available in its entirety, along with the original, at fairgamed.org), he writes, “This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.” Sure. Congress doesn’t technically DECLARE war these days, but that doesn’t stop us from blowing the hell out of people we don’t like. Do a quick search online and you’ll find dozens of L. Ron Hubbard quotes in which the man encourages violence, harassment, and abuse. In other words, he’s not someone you want at your dinner party.

But wait, there’s more! Yes, there’s actually more than I can write in an entire volume, but this is important. After you’ve read the fair game letters and shaken your head in disbelief, surf on over to thesmokinggun.com and read Hubbard’s rap sheet and FBI files. Now let me digress for a moment and say that I really don’t enjoy taking this route. Believe me, I do feel like one of those James-Carville-variety scumbags digging up dirt on a political candidate, but there’s a reason here. L. Ron Hubbard is revered by millions to a messianic level, and most of them don’t know what he’s really about. The reason people like Christ, Muhammad, and Buddha are considered such profound figures is because they are believed to have lived extraordinary lives. Such is not the case with Hubbard, and if people wish to devote their entire lives to his teachings, it is necessary and even crucial that they understand what he truly represented.

Now back to the FBI files. According to one such file, dated February 15th, 1963, “Hubbard’s wife charged in a divorce suit that ‘competent medical advisors recommended that Hubbard be committed to a private sanitarium for psychiatric observation and treatment of a mental ailment known as paranoid schizophrenia,’” citing a 1951 issue of the “Times Herald.” Furthermore, the FBI files reveal that Hubbard was deathly afraid that communists were after him, and also that he had spent time in a mental hospital. I repeat: According to the FBI, L. Ron Hubbard spent time in a mental hospital. Could it be that Hubbard’s criticism of psychiatry was entirely personal? One of my favorite lines from the FBI files comes from his bankruptcy investigation, in which it is written, “[Hubbard] wrote a book on ‘dianetics’ which appears to be a method of practicing psychiatry without having the required medical training.” Someone should probably forward that one to Tom Cruise.

Finally, I’d like to point out for the sake of Scientology’s faithful followers that L. Ron Hubbard was not even loyal to his own cause. Here’s a quote from 1967, taken from a letter from Hubbard to his wife, and cited in the book, “L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?”

“I’m drinking lots of rum and popping pinks and greys.”

Well, maybe Hubbard didn’t consider alcohol a drug (prozac is bad, but ethanol is a-ok!), and maybe the “pinks and greys” he refers to are actually skittles. Yes, and maybe John Ashcroft is a Marilyn Manson fan. I suppose even Hubbard couldn’t crush all those pesky engrams on his own, but the truly scary part is that he made this confession WHILE he was at work creating the upper-levels of Scientology. The Yaqui Indians may have drug-induced Spiritual visions, but Hubbard is supposed to be against all that.

Look, throughout this article I have specifically chosen not to analyze the faith elements of Scientology, such as reincarnation, the search for enlightenment, etc…because that’s not where my problem lies. I don’t want to rain on anyone’s spiritual parade, and as far as Christians go, I’m probably one of the most tolerant people you’ll ever meet when it comes to other faiths. My biggest problem with Scientology can be summed up in two words: Lisa McPherson. For those of you who follow the news, that name might ring a bell. Lisa, a long-time Scientologist, was involved in a car accident in 1995 and immediately began demonstrating unusual behavior, suggesting that her mental state may have suffered as a result of the crash. She was rushed to a hospital and determined to be physically unharmed, though in need of psychiatric evaluation. Just one problem...yeah, that’s right. The Scientologists are against psychiatry! So instead of being examined and cared for by licensed medical professionals, Lisa was hauled away and “cared for” by her fellow Scientologists, in what they refer to as “Introspection Rundown.”

Faith is a beautiful thing, and all of us have faith in something, be it God, nature, or the power within ourselves, but faith exercised without reason is tantamount to spiritual darkness. You may have faith that Daniel tamed a den of lions, or that Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego passed through the fire unscathed, but I’m assuming you won’t be dancing through flames or taunting wild animals in the near future. This is because you understand that there are certain natural forces in the universe, and in most cases, your faith is not going to cause these forces to desist. That is the fundamental problem of Scientology. The followers believe so strongly in the words of a flawed, fallible and deeply misguided man, that they are willing to put people’s (perhaps even their own) lives in jeopardy for the sake of an untested, unscientific and unreliable methodology. This is deeply foolish and inexpressibly dangerous because it gives people who require medical assistance the false hope that they can overcome their ailment alone, thus delaying treatment and putting lives in peril. Unfortunately, such was the fate of Lisa McPherson.

Less than three weeks after being removed from the hospital and placed into the custody of the Church of Scientology, Lisa died. The coroner’s report described the immediate cause of death as “thrombo-embolism [cardiovascular blockage caused by clotting] left pulmonary artery...due to: bed rest and severe hydration.” The report goes on to describe her as having a number of unexplained abrasions, lesions, hematomas and discoloration. These details and more (including the complete reports and heartbreaking autopsy photos) are available at lisamcpherson.org.

So how has the Church of Scientology honored Lisa’s passing? By instituting the Lisa McPherson Clause, part of a release form that gives the Church the authority to hold its members indefinitely against their will, with no legal responsibility in the event of severe injury or death. I sincerely wish I were making this up. Clearly the Church of Scientology has learned only one thing from Lisa’s tragedy: When using pseudoscience to play God, there are going to be casualties, so we’d better cover ourselves from any annoying litigation.

“There is no more ethical group on this planet than ourselves.” -L. Ron Hubbard, 1965

Sources
1) Hubbard, Lafayette Ron. “Dianetics.” 1950
2) Corydon, Bent. “L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?” 1992
3) “Scientology Settlement,” St. Petersburg Times Editorial. June 15th, 2004.
4) “Tom Cruise Speaks Out Against Psychiatry,” United Press Int. May 29th, 2005
5) Scientology Homepage. http://www.scientology.org/
6) Dianetics Homepage. http://www.dianetics.org/
7) Lisa McPherson Memorial. http://www.lisamcpherson.org/
8) Fair Gamed. http://www.fairgamed.org
9) The Smoking Gun. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/
10) The Lisa McPherson Clause, http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/%7Edst/Scientology/ReleaseForms/Introspection.html
11) Operation Clambake. http://www.xenu.net/

Dr. Jekyll and Howard Dean



I like Howard Dean. No, really, I’m serious. I don’t like him for the same reason his followers like him; that is to say, I don’t feel a passionate connection to him on account of any shared worldviews. Nor do I like him for the same reason Sean Hannity likes him; in other words, I’m not drawn to the fact that he benefits the Republicans more than the Democrats. I just like the guy. He’s a raving lunatic, he speaks his mind, and I thank God he isn’t president. Still, I don’t quite understand why conservatives are so shocked and appalled by him.

As a libertarian Republican, I can even think of a few areas on which I agree with Dr. Dean. He favors medical marijuana for certain illnesses (though unfortunately wants to increase funding for the war on drugs), he speaks frequently about fiscal responsibility (though we may differ on how to approach that), he supports NAFTA, is pro-immigration, pro-capital punishment and has been endorsed eight times by the NRA. With credentials like these, how bad can he be? Okay, so I disagree with him on this number of issues times a thousand, but still, let’s give the devil his due.

I could go on and on about his misguided policies: how he opposes the privatization of Social Security, opposes school choice, supports raising the minimum wage, supports subsidized healthcare, supports increases in corporate taxes, yadda yadda yadda...But that is not my purpose with this particular entry. No, I have two specific objectives: 1) To point out to conservatives that Howard Dean really isn’t that big of a deal, and 2) To point out to Democrats that they might, in the future, want to refrain from placing their party in the hands of someone as outspoken as the good doctor from Vermont.

To address both issues, I present the following personal observation: Howard Dean isn’t much of a politician these days, but he sure would make one heck of a political pundit. If you are reading this and you have been deeply offended by something said by Howard Dean, I ask you, “Why?” I mean, I don’t think Republicans are evil (with a few exceptions, perhaps), nor do I think most are mean, and I’ve read enough books by Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, Michelle Malkin and Dinesh D’Souza to know that it isn’t merely a “white, Christian party.” Sure, the majority of Republicans can be classified as Christian and white, but as John Stewart pointed out, so can the majority of AMERICANS. And if you want to nitpick about proportions and percentages regarding the voting records of various minorities, knock yourself out, but again, that isn’t my purpose here. As I said before, I’m not offended by Howard Dean.

According to Dean, “Republicans are evil.” Yikes. Maybe those words made you gasp in shock; maybe you heard the quote on FOX News and then spent the rest of the day griping beneath your breath as they echoed in your mind. If you’re the kind of person who reacted this way, then chances are, you’re probably also the kind of person who enjoys reading, listening to, or at least looking at Ann Coulter. Now just for the sake of objectivity, let’s look at some of her more colorful quotes. Now because I’m a lazy bastard and didn’t feel like sifting through my copy of Slander, I just borrowed some of the examples from Al Franken’s latest book. Forgive me. Anyway, here are just some examples. “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to The New York Times building,” and “I don’t remember liberals being indignant about the 9/11 terrorist attacks,” She has also described various public figures as ‘birdbrain,’ ‘airhead,’ ‘boob,’ ‘truly stupid,’ ‘half-wit,’ you get the idea...That’s without delving into her charge that liberals are ‘traitors.’

Now, am I pointing these things out to rip on Ann Coulter? Of course not! I love Ann Coulter, and I think she’s a delight to read, not to mention being one of my favorite frequent faces (love the alliteration!) on cable news. My point is that hyperbole is a big thing in politics these days, and like it or not, it’s here to stay. If you are one of those people who was shocked and appalled by Dean’s recent comments, let me ask you this. Imagine if he had said, “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the FOX News building.” Chances are, you would be fuming, but again, if it’s hilarious when Ann Coulter spouts off absurdities for comic or dramatic effect, then who are we to judge Dr. Dean for doing the same thing? It is human nature for us to revel in exaggerations that compliment our view of the world while taking umbrage to those that threaten our way of thinking. My challenge to liberals and conservatives is to keep that in mind, and not take it so personally when a Howard Dean or an Ann Coulter says something “shocking or appalling.” If nothing else, do it for your own sanity.

Lastly, for the Democrats who supported the election of Dean as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, what in the world were you thinking? Once again, I like Howard Dean personally, but there is a reason I used Ann Coulter as an example for dichotomy. Howard Dean doesn’t behave like a politician; he behaves like a political pundit. For the record, I like political pundits, conservative and liberal, and I have learned a great deal from them, but I don’t think I would elect one of them to be the face of my chosen party. To resurrect my previous example, I sincerely admire Ann Coulter (for many reasons, believe me), and I make it a point to visit her website every Wednesday to read her latest column. However, I would have to be smoking some pretty potent stuff before I would ever vote to elect her Chairman of the RNC. This is because I have the sense to recognize that if I want Republicans to be elected to office in the future, it might not be in my best interest to place the party in the hands of someone who has publicly announced a desire to invade the countries of Islamic terrorists, kill their leaders and convert them all to Christianity. That’s just my opinion.

There is a reason for the line existing between the worlds of politics and political punditry. It is the job of the political pundits to say the things the politicians cannot; to point out the elephant in the room and spark the public debate. On the other hand it is the job of the politicians to pretend to like all of us. That is why the two worlds cannot overlap. In order for a politician to be successful, he or she must win support beyond his or her “base,” or a sizeable amount of swing voters. Someone like Howard Dean is not going to achieve this (remember, despite his overwhelming Internet support during the presidential campaign, the only state he carried was his home state of Vermont). If you don’t believe me, look at Arianna Huffington, the former California gubernatorial candidate and full-time political pundit, who made the mistake of conducting herself like a pundit during the public debates. Long story short, she dropped out of the race after polls revealed she was carrying less than two percent of the vote.

So Howard Dean, my hat’s off to you. You’re not afraid to speak your mind, and I like that. For strategic purposes I think you’re hurting your own cause, but I’m not your political advisor, and I wouldn’t vote for your breed anyway, so it’s no loss for me. And for those of you who lose sleep over comments made by Dr. Dean, or Ann Coulter, or Michael Moore, or Rush Limbaugh, or Hillary Clinton, or Bill O’Reilly or anyone else for that matter, LET IT GO. Chances are you’ve cheered for someone who’s equally as insane.


Sources
1) http://www.issues2000.org/Howard_Dean.htm
2) Al Franken, “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.” pp. 17-18
3) Larry King Live, Monday August 4th, 2003

The Sad World of PETA



There was a time when I wasn’t quite so alarmed by the organization known as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Any of us who has ever owned a pet knows that animals have the ability to love, to hurt, to feel; what sensible human being can possibly oppose a group of people dedicated to assuring the protection and fair treatment of these helpless creatures? Well, such groups do exist, but unfortunately PETA is not one of them.

I can point to many examples illustrating the ruthlessness, hypocrisy and overall threat of PETA, but I think I’ll stick with the most recent example. Two PETA workers, Adria Joy Hinkle and Andrew Benjamin Cook, are on trial for thirty-one felony charges of animal cruelty and nine misdemeanors relating to trespassing and the illegal disposal of dead animals (1). I repeat: These are PETA workers, who were allegedly on a job to deliver the animals to PETA’s Norfolk Virginia headquarters for (and this is where it really gets good) euthanization (2).

So in other words, the two ethical animals lovers were sent by their ethical animal loving organization to collect innocent animals for slaughter, when they decided to just say “Screw it” and inject the furry little bastards themselves, before giving them a proper ethical burial in a nearby dumpster. Well, at least they didn’t test any cosmetics on the puppies they massacred.

Now let me point out that I am in no way against the ethical euthanization of animals. In my short, twenty-two-year life, I have had to watch a number of my beloved pets be “put to sleep,” as the euphemism goes, one as recently as a few months ago. I’m not appalled that PETA practices euthanization; what appalls me is the fact that they euthanize animals (two thirds of the animals they rescue, by some estimates; as many as 81% by others), while condemning, threatening and intimidating people who do the same thing. Remember, it was PETA’s president and Supreme Overlord Ingrid Newkirk who called numerous times for (in her own words) “total animal liberation” (3). Now I ask you, does it constitute ‘total liberation’ when human beings take it upon themselves to decide the fates of countless animals? Newkirk also said that “sometimes the only kind option for some animals is to put them to sleep forever,” pointing out that “a dog living in a cage walking in circles for the rest of its life in a dog prison is [not] a swell thing” (4). So much for total animal liberation.

I agree with Newkirk that sometimes death is the only ethical option. Why then is her humble organization so vitriolic when dealing with animal shelters that perform lethal injections? As Newkirk’s own organization has demonstrated, nobody has the resources to give every animal the life of the Hilton sisters. Not even PETA. The great irony is that now it is PETA that is being charged with animal cruelty. Hinkle and Cook are set to be tried next months for the numerous charges against them, but Newkirk is confident of their innocence, saying (and I love this part), “PETA has never made a secret of the fact that most of the animals picked up in North Carolina are euthanized” (5). Wow. Perhaps the 81% estimate is too conservative.

We should all be concerned about the treatment of animals. As magician Penn Jillette pointed out on an episode of his Showtime program, that is why we have the Federal Animal Welfare Act (apparently the Department of Agriculture isn’t completely useless) (6). But PETA is an organization that opposes the use of animals for meat, fur, medical testing, ritualistic sex rites and even private ownership (by the way, the fourth one was a joke; don’t freak out on me), in spite of the fact that these champions of animal liberation are huge purveyors of animal cruelty, as the current trial demonstrates. Does anyone else see the irony here? If the feds are this tough on fanatical PETA members who kill and dump innocent animals, then the lobbyists at PETA must be doing their job. Way to go, guys! You’ve been so effective in pushing for tough animal cruelty legislation and drawing attention to the issue, you now have members of your own team on trial for heinous felonies! Call it a mixed blessing.

But here is the bottom line. If you wear fur, eat at Mickey D’s or take penicillin, you are an enemy to the radical animal rights movement, i.e. PETA. PETA uses intimidation and harassment against people whom they see as enemies to their cause (for instance, Star Jones), they fund animal liberation terrorists like Rodney Coronado, and yet now we see them involved in the very activities they condemn. The animals killed by Hinkle and Cook, according to police, were supposed to have been given homes, and the two perpetrators had apparently made such a promise to veterinarians and animal control officers (7). So in other words...they lied. They promised to find home for the animals and instead opted to destroy them without even trying. But you won’t hear any objections from the Supreme Overlord. While Miss Newkirk was upset to learn of the dumping, she has assured the media that the animals were killed humanely and that the felony charges are baseless. Thank goodness for that.

But wait a second. Adria Hinkle and Andrew Cook promised to find homes for the animals, as I just said, but instead they killed them…I know this sounds redundant, but some things bear repeating. Think about it. Animals that did not need to die were killed. Big deal, right? Well it should be for PETA. Whenever animals are needlessly killed for things that actually have benefits, such as food or clothing, the holier-than-thou nutjobs at PETA have an utter conniption. But when two PETA employees kill a bunch of dogs and dump them in a garbage can, Ingrid Newkirk comes immediately to their defense. I’ll say one thing: Those disposable dogs are of more benefit to our society than anybody working for PETA. Next time you find yourself empathizing with the PETA agenda, just remember the names Adria Joy Hinkle and Andrew Benjamin Cook.


Sources
1) Sue Lindsey, “PETA President Denounces Dumping, Defends Workers,” Associated Press.
2) Ibid
3) Penn and Teller’s “Bullshit!” PETA episode, season 2.
4) Matthew Barakat, “High-Profile PETA Euthanizes More Than 1,000 Last Year,” Associated Press. July 29, 2000.
5) Lindsey article (see #1).
6) Penn and Teller (see #3)
7) Lindsey article (see #1).