The Nappy Cat Chronicles

Source: All photographs obtained via Daylife.

Source: All photographs obtained via Daylife.

I agree that the two major political parties are, more or less, “two sides of the same coin”. I’m aware that the bases of both parties are apt to exaggerate the importance of their preferred issues. I believe that the two-party system is a byproduct of thought reduction and profit potential.

Frankly, I don’t care about any of that.

I consider myself both nihilist and existentialist. I have full knowledge that meaning manifests from within and that meaning from without is forcibly injected and robs an individual of his agency. But at this stage of my life, if I am mentally and physically prepared to create life, I must be equally willing to create meaning.

And the fairest way to create meaning for another is to remove from daily life those forces that seek to strip all of humanity of independence, reason, accountability, and dignity. Even if my action, voting Obama, is ultimately a symbolic gesture, influence is won through argument informed by intelligence and experience. Apathy attracts no one.

These soul-stifling forces represent a pernicious infection that has rotted the already decomposing core of the Republican party. Off the top of my head, there are four:

• The first force is American exceptionalism. In short, American exceptionalism is the belief that, because American intention is fundamentally good and part of God’s destiny for all, all any action taken on behalf of America is fundamentally good. Incidentally, this sort of exceptionalism is, by and large, not unique to America. This pernicious belief facilitates, perpetuates, and expands economic and battlefield warfare. Though by nature of the position Obama may make the same decisions as McCain, Obama at least acknowledges that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
• The second force is Christian Dominionism. Seeing the world through us-verses-them lenses, Dominionists intend to take over all federal and societal institutions. They received a huge boost from Bush II:  In exchange for access, the fundamentalists who beat the Dominionist drums, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Tony Perkins, convinced their flocks to forgive and forget the atrocities committed in the name of American exceptionalism. Their march will continue unabated during a McCain presidency.
• The third force is anti-intellectualism. What began as resentment towards the liberal-bourgeoisie and the effete elite inevitably became a lifestyle of anti-intellectualism championed by the populist vein of the McCain platform and the fervid proletarian right. This is evidenced by the absurd promotion of the “Joe the Plumber” stereotype and a vice-presidential candidate who, in all probability, has read neither an essay nor an article pertaining to the First Amendment since high school.
• The fourth force is the easy production of manufactured and contradictory character assassinations. The blog, The Toot, cleverly summarizes the charges leveled against Obama:  “Obama is a Marxist Muslim Arab Jesus Black White Terrorist Technocrat Racist Do-Gooder Liberal FDR Stalin Hilter Commie Fascist Gay Womanizing Naive Cynical Insider Noob Boring Radical Unaccomplished Elite Slick Gaffe-Prone Pedophile Pedophile-Seducing Liberation Theology Atheist Etc. & Anti-Etc. with a bunch of scary friends from - wait for it! - the Nineteen Hundred And Sixties.” Also, “a chicken shit”. I am under no illusion that an Obama presidency will put an end to as ad hominem fallacy; I believe that, when confronted by an abundance of absurd accusations, future candidates will be able to defend themselves with a reference to the Obama success.

The “vaccines cause autism” bullshit is, once again, being purveyed, this time by the cornucopia of popular bullshit, Newsweek. The article discusses Dr. Paul Offit, a relatively well-known pediatrician and author of the 2008 book Autism’s False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure. In his book, Offit takes on the bullshit about which Jenny McCarthy likes to prattle. His arguments are driven by assertions like her’s that early childhood vaccinations cause autism spectrum disorders (ASD):

We think our health authorities don’t want to open this can of worms, so they don’t even look or listen. While there is strong debate on this topic, many parents of recovered children will tell you they didn’t treat their child for autism; they treated them for vaccine injury.

Many people aren’t aware that in the 1980s our children received only 10 vaccines by age 5, whereas today they are given 36 immunizations, most of them by age 2. With billions of pharmaceutical dollars, could it be possible that the vaccine program is becoming more of a profit engine then a means of prevention?

Other individuals who have exploited parental anxieties by positing causation include:

• Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with his 2005 article “Deadly Immunity”.
• Autism activist Sallie Bernard, part author of “Autism: a novel form of mercury poisoning”.
• And Dr. Andrew Wakefield, part author of the flawed research article that was published by the prestigious British medical journal, The Lancet, and forever linked the MMR vaccination and autism in the public’s mind.

If mishandled, ASD can be tragic. I work with a few gentlemen who are diagnosed with Autistic Disorder. At any given moment, they can be aggressive, frightened, silly, or friendly. Though they are very impulsive and lack the ability to communicate effectively, they are capable of learning new tasks through modeling and interacting appropriately with others.

McCarthy speaks of “recovery” and “healing.” Although she does not, in this article, specify the indicators of recovery, creating an appropriate diet and increasing an ASD individual’s independent living and communication skills can decrease observable symptoms. Unfortunately, she chooses to expound upon “prevention” as though the science is on her side:

We believe autism is an environmental illness. Vaccines are not the only environmental trigger, but we do think they play a major role. If we are going to solve this problem and finally start to reverse the rate of autism, we need to consider changing the vaccine schedule, reducing the number of shots given and removing certain ingredients that could be toxic to some children.

Sounds reasonable? Perhaps. However, there’s no need to enact any of her recommendations. She’s wrong on all four points. Need proof? Here’s a quick rundown of a few major studies:

In April 1993, the MMR vaccine was replaced with single vaccines in Japan. This enabled Japanese researchers to examine”cumulative incidence of ASD up to age seven for [31,426] children born from 1988 to 1996 in…Yokohama, Japan. ASD cases included all cases of pervasive developmental disorders according to ICD-10 guidelines.” The researchers found that:

• [While] the MMR vaccination rate in the city of Yokohama declined significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988 through 1992, and not a single vaccination was administered in 1993 or thereafter….cumulative incidence of ASD up to age seven increased significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988 through 1996 and most notably rose dramatically beginning with the birth cohort of 1993 [emphasis mine].
• MMR vaccination is most unlikely to be a main cause of ASD, that it cannot explain the rise over time in the incidence of ASD, and that withdrawal of MMR in countries where it is still being used cannot be expected to lead to a reduction in the incidence of ASD.

In 2005, an international team of researchers reviewed 31 MMR-related studies from around the world and found that:

• MMR was associated with a lower incidence of upper respiratory tract infections, a higher incidence of irritability, and similar incidence of other adverse effects compared to placebo.
• Exposure to MMR was unlikely to be associated with Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, autism or [mumps].

In 2006, researchers in Quebec “surveyed 27,749 children born from 1987 to 1998 attending 55 schools from the largest [English-speaking] school board. Children with pervasive developmental disorders [which included ASD] were identified by a special needs team.” The researchers found that:

• [T]himerosal exposure was unrelated to the increasing trend in pervasive developmental disorder prevalence.
• [P]ervasive developmental disorder rates significantly increased when MMR vaccination uptake rates significantly decreased.
• [P]ervasive developmental disorder prevalence increased at the same rate before and after the introduction in 1996 of the second MMR dose, suggesting no increased risk of pervasive developmental disorder associated with a 2–measles-mumps-rubella dosing schedule before age 2 years.
• [N]o relationship was found between pervasive developmental disorder rates and 1- or 2-dose MMR immunization schedule.

But, why risk it anyway? Science fumbles all the time, amiright? From the New York Times:

Death rates for 13 diseases that can be prevented by childhood vaccinations are at all-time lows in the United States, according to a study released yesterday.

In nine of the diseases, rates of death or hospitalization declined more than 90 percent since vaccines against them were approved, and in the cases of smallpox, diphtheria and polio, by 100 percent.

In only four diseases — hepatitis A and B, invasive pneumococcal diseases and varicella (the cause of chickenpox and shingles) — did deaths and hospitalizations fall less than 90 percent. Those vaccines are all relatively new — the one for chickenpox, for example, was adopted nationally only in 1995. Also, some diseases like hepatitis typically strike adults, who are less likely to be immunized.

The study showed total or near-total declines in cases of diphtheria, measles, polio, rubella, smallpox and invasive Hib disease, a type of pneumonia for which children are now normally vaccinated at as early as 2 months.

Although it’s not autism, you would think that parents would want to at least save their children the horrible experience of communicable disease infection. Unfortunately, that’s not the case:

Measles has become endemic in Britain, 14 years after its spread was halted in the resident population, the country’s public health watchdog says.

The Health Protection Agency (HPA) warned that the number of unvaccinated children was now large enough to sustain the “continuous spread” of the potentially lethal virus in the community. It blamed a failure by parents over the past 10 years to give their children the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine.

This has resulted in vaccine rates falling below the level necessary to prevent the disease becoming established in the general population….In the last quarter of 2007, the rate stood at 71 per cent for children at age two (first dose) and 50 per cent at age five (second dose) compared with the 95 per cent coverage needed to maintain herd immunity and prevent endemic spread.

So, if you’re a parent, get your loved one vaccinated and remember that rates of autism spectrum disorder are increasing because of three encouraging developments:

1. At one time, an individual with Autistic Disorder may have received a sole diagnosis of Mental Retardation. Doctors can now provide sharper diagnostics and earlier screenings.
2. The government recognizes the existence of autism spectrum disorders and is now providing more funding.
3. And, though we have a long way to go, the public attaches less shame and stigma to autism spectrum disorders and many more advocates have appeared.

The Freedom of Choice Act is not pro-choice. At this point I hope all people supporting Obama understand that he is pro-ABORTION. I hate to sound so single issue but seriously 3500 babies are killed every day in the US and Obama wants to increase this number. That’s like 7 million babies since the start of the war in Iraq. and nobody seems to care cuz Obama is the hip, cool vote. Es absurdo! qué pena

I like to imagine that one day, before the alien takeover, most of our more nutty citizens will move to Alaska and be our secesh neighbors of the northwest. In their own country, they squeeze all of the abortion, socialism, liberalism, nipples, Jews, Satan, gays, masturbation, and vegan cookbooks out of the minds of their youngins.

The same goes for the current crop of “Libertarian” whiners of which, from his Facebook updates, singer/songwriter Jude seems to be a part:

McCain finally won a debate, but Obama can never lose. The real losers are any of us left with Libertarian tendencies…

There may be whispering small-l-libertarians on my shoulders and the shoulders of most self-efficacious adults; but, we shouldn’t be under the illusion that our libertarian beliefs are shared by the people whom we repeatedly send to Washington to do something.

These do-something-ners are always going to find a way to find a way to do something. And if that means creating more departments of we-gotta-save-you-all-from-yourselves and hiring more do-something-ners , they’ll find a constituency who will be dramatically supportive.

My point is, haggling over marginal issues, like the barely-moving tax rate and the pureness of a politician’s Christianity, is a lot like drinking Bud Light: You get louder and louder until you pass out and forget everything that happened. If you really want “change,” you’ve got to “get out there” and make a good impression. By their nature, whiners and self-declared losers don’t impress. It’s the reason why Obama, a black man from an underprivileged family, has done so well.

Via Right Wing Watch, Janet Folger continues to entertain us with a “newscast from the future“. I found it humorous in a cringe-inducingly vulgar sort of way. Sort of like The Aristocrats only Folger believes her exaggerations. Judge for yourself:

deidrap on Politico’s article on the cost of primping Palin:

My goodness! Palin is a one-woman earmark!!

“Mondale to Hart: ‘Where’s the Beef?‘”

Bob Beckel on FOX News on the race meme a few minutes ago:

They’ll say it’s not a shocker because he’s an African-American endorsing an African-American.

Indeed.

[This is our first stab at presenting the conversations that Michael and I have over instant messenger.]

Michael: I’m glad you used the term “cognitive dissonance” there as well.

Michael: I think ultimately, that is what we are dealing with.

Michael: Heck, Dan Ariely thinks we are dealing with it at all times. And I think he’s right.

Michael: Here’s something for you then…

Michael: Why does the media fall into this as well? Why talk only about two candidates? Isn’t it a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy to report on politics the way they do?

Michael: And more to the point. I agree that it is cognitive dissonance, but what’s the point? What’s in it for us to vote for one of the two established parties? Just the feeling that we are making an impact?

Will: Why doesn’t soccer use three teams instead of two?

Will: In terms of feeling like they’re making an impact, I think so. Take Michelle Malkin for example. She is, primarily, a voter who wants to prevent another 9-11 at all costs. Voters like her want to believe that, when another terrorist strike occurs, they did everything they could to prevent it.

Will: (Even if the growth of government surveillance is a byproduct of technology and even if the war has created more animosity.)

Will: So, an anti-abortion voter will want to believe that he’s done everything in his power to end abortion. Ultimately, that means voting for a candidate.

Will: Of course, if he wants to make an immediate impact, he can kill someone. But that precludes future action and, well, one death is a tragedy-a million, a statistic

Michael: I never heard it put like that.

Will: As for media, competition sells but adding a third team would be cost prohibitive.

Michael: Maybe you could address this concern. I worry that our current political structure might possibly not be the way it was intended to run.

Michael: Let me put it another way.

Michael: It’s hard to keep up the discourse when there are variables related to what I’m trying to discuss that I never knew mattered. For example, you said adding a third team would be cost prohibitive. Does that honestly end the argument? Does that mean it is in our best interest to concentrate on two powers only? Also, do you think I am right in believing that the differences between the two parties are a bit inconsequential (American hegemony and what we call “capitalism”)?

Will: In general, media is simple to figure out. Decisions are based upon profit potential. The media has become consolidated in order to increase this profit and power. There’s no real competition except on the margin.

Will: Notice how similar that is to the federal government. In truth, the United States is too disparate to have these consolidated powers serve its best interest. Its held together by the notion that all men are created equal and not the racial notion that all Spaniards or all Frenchmen are created equal. So, this diverse array of identities is not being well-governed. The more identity representation at a national level, the better.

Michael: Logically then, if we over time become diverse enough, we may as well have one party.

Michael: Or, at least, that could be a distinct possibility.

Michael: In fact, maybe that’s what’s already happened and once again, we’re simply arguing on the margins.

Michael: Ergo, Democrats and Republicans really are the same.

Michael: Ergo, our arguments really are arguments on the margins.

Michael: Which maybe is why those issues never change.

Michael: I.e., abortion.

Michael: So, wouldn’t having two parties the way we do in America be a way just to protect the little known fact that we only have one party?

Michael: Also, does that mean then that “third parties” are viewed in some way (either consciously or unconsciously) as subversive? And possibly dangerous?

Will: I maintain that two-party competition gives people a purpose.

Will: You know the answer to the latter.

Michael: I see.

Michael: Will, this begs the question.

Michael: Do you think this is conspiratorial? Or a machination as I’ve suggested in the past?

Michael: That is to say, do congressmen, pundits, know this?

Michael: Do they think in the terms that you and I do?

Michael: If not, then this is a machination.

Michael: If they do, then they do these things are based on what one can assume is power grab.

Will: Let’s posit two wills: the will to survive and the will to power. Generally, these wills are intertwined. A politician believes that if he says the right things to the right number of people, he will be given power and his survival will be ensured.

Michael: Is it benevolent?

Will: Should he be rated by the charity of his intentions or the utility of his actions?

Michael: In my case, intentions. Like, “what do they think” of themselves.

Will: Well, George Bush has been extremely well-intentioned

Michael: So, they don’t think of this in the terms that you and I do?

Michael: I’m just trying to ask you if they are self-aware.

Michael: Or, are we wrong?

Michael: And by “self-aware”, I mean like George Bush says to himself, “There really is no difference between me and Ted Kennedy. And abortion issues et. al. are just personal crusades that won’t ever change.”

Will: I can imagine him saying something like “Come’n Teddyboy, you know it’s fur the good of the country.” Also, Bush’s administration did nothing to end abortion.

Michael: Well then, all that said, I’m not sure I could see that they are self-aware.

Michael: And if they are, they hide it extremely well in order to maintain the appearances of partisanship so their constituents can vote for something. Or, at least think they are voting for something.

Will: A good defense is the key to victory

Michael: Maybe.

Michael: I just think how impossible it could be for anyone to realize where we are in terms of our political system.

Michael: And because of that, how much more impossible it would be to change things.

Michael: And it’s not control-a puppet master somewhere behind the scenes-it’s hegemony. It’s collective cognitive dissonance for the whole nation for fear of losing anything that we have.

Michael: In reality, it actually has a hint of mob rule, does it not?

Will: Sure. I think the Springfield riots are good satire.

Michael: Any one in particular?

Will: Like the riot in the hockey stadium when everyone felt ripped-off because the game ended in a tie.

Michael: Oh God, I had forgotten about that.

The fundamental purveyor of the American two-party system is the notion that any complex dilemma can be adequately resolved by either end of its spectrum. This form of political narcissism is held by those activists to whom the candidate is beholden until he or she is elected. As post-election day decisions tend toward the middle, pundits exhort, “They all lie!”

Of course, intentions vary by context. When the candidate becomes the elect, his statements and actions must reflect his new reality. In this case, the narcissistic voter has yielded his power to a candidate whose interests and ideologies often compete and he remains powerless. Discussion of a third party uprising proceeds but quickly dissolves when one candidate espouses that voter’s conviction and offers a logical solution. Another candidate will then provide a solution from the opposite side in order to shore up his support amongst the competing voting bloc.

Subsequently, a third party candidate must proffer a third solution. Assuming man is still nondeific by the time I finish writing this, this third solution must differentiate itself by being reasonable. Unfortunately, a reasonable solution cannot compete with the vicious sexiness of “pro-life/pro-death” and “pro-choice/anti-choice” rallying cries.

As such, two powerful and similar systems exist to ensure the assent of the two candidates and the non-assent of the “less than serious” candidates. It is in the interest of both parties to grow and encompass these diametrical ideologies in order to effectively weather the vicissitudes of evolving cultures. In turn, the multi-issue voter, resigned to pulling-and-praying, is constantly frustrated by the efforts of the single-issue voter.

Ultimately, the multi-issue voter is forced to project qualities onto his chosen candidate and predict the future in order to reduce the cognitive dissonance produced by the powerlessness that confronted him while he determined which candidate is “less worse” than the other. Unfortunately, because it would undermine his of self-importance, forbearance would be untenable .

In view of the truly despicable efforts, by Sarah Palin and others, to discredit Barack Obama by association, I thought that it might be appropriate to repost a relevant post of mine from this past April. I would add that some of the recent personal attacks fall outside the bounds of decency.

Dude, Cass R., they think Ayers wrote his first book. These are the same type of people who used Terri Schiavo and her nuclear family to further their political agenda. Instead of reposting of an article that relates to interpersonal nuance within a community, I think a punch to the face would be more appropriate.

John McCain, October 6, 2008:

Who is the real Barack Obama?

John McCain, October 10, 2008:

He’s a decent family man…citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues….[H]e is a decent person, and a person that you do not have to be scared as President of the United States.

(Kings Of Leon image by Cara Bloch)

MY TOP FIVE FAVORITE MOMENTS WITH MY FRIEND MICHAEL

6.  That time when we inexplicably began singing Gary Numan’s “Cars” at the same time.

5.  That time when I said “Hop in!” and he did and I pushed the shopping cart across a parking lot and into a curb.

4.  That time when entered some sort of animal-role-playing-sex-chatroom on AOL and made fun of everyone.

3. That time when our friend Ben kept asking Michael to ask one of his sisters to give him a back rub.

2. That time when I wrecked Ben while we played a racing game and he proceeded to get revenge by wrecking Michael who was easily in first place.

1. All those hours we logged playing inane racing, shooting, and basketball games.

Now, onto the music:

(Click the arrow after each track for Last.fm info)

For your downloading pleasure:

• Blitzen Trapper - Sleepytime in the Western World [MP3]
• Bomb The Bass - Butterfingers [MP3]
• Common Market - Weather Vane [MP3]
• Dungen - Mina Damer och Fasaner [MP3]
• Friendly Fires - In The Hospital [MP3]
• Fujiya & Miyagi - Sore Thumb [MP3]
• Jem - On Top Of The World [MP3]
• Jenny Lewis - See Fernando [MP3]
• Jessica Lea Mayfield - One That I Love Best [MP3]
• Kings Of Leon - Closer [MP3]
• Mercury Rev - People Are So Unpredictable (There’s No Bliss Like Home) [MP3]
• Mother Mother - Wrecking Ball [MP3]
• Okkervil River - Singer Songwriter [MP3]
• The Pica Beats - Shrinking Violets [MP3]
• Tricky - Council Estate [MP3]
• TV On The Radio - Golden Age [MP3]

I guess every 2 or 3 decades or so, an American president becomes so incredibly unpopular, that only 1 out of 4 people who respond to polls like him enough to approve of his performance. Bush II has been such a transcendent president, I feel a bit sorry for his unpopularity. I like that he was a proud megalomaniac. Yes, he lied. Repeatedly. But you knew he was lying. If you were paying attention, fuck, if you had two ears and a semblance of a brain in-between, you knew he was feeding you pure, unadulterated bullshit. And, when called out, he would feed you even more bullshit. There was no soul searching and no obvious moments of hesitation.

Ultimately, he and Congress only gave us what we wanted. Bush II’s 25% is a reflection of how we feel about ourselves. We binged on imperialism and gorged ourselves on credit and we now a tummy ache. And Bush II was our gracious enabler. He never asked us to give up our iPods and encouraged us to buy more. We wanted blood. We got Iraq. We wanted safety. We got the Patriot Act. We wanted someone to bear responsibility for our dumbass kids. We got No Child Left Behind. We wanted to pretend that our kids are asexual. We got “abstinence only” education. We wanted no cash down. We got bailouts and stimulus checks. We wanted to forget that a serious illness means bankruptcy, we wanted to pretend that man can significantly impact everything but climate, and we wanted to fight them “over there” so we don’t fight them “here.” We got an eight year daydream which may be too real to put down.