The Friday Bacon

Ummm... store brand.

The Ben Franklin Report: Tax Revenue

California state Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, Democrat, introduced a bill in that state's legislature proposing the legalization and taxing of recreational use of marijuana. Ammiano's arguments immediately touched on all the major points that the pro-legalization crowd has been making in between bong hits for decades now. To me the most significant argument is the fiscal one.

Legalization of a nonviolent activity lowers the number of criminals, reduces police costs of pursuing recreational pot smokers, reduces numbers of criminals in prison, reduces prison costs, eliminates need for violence in pot buying transaction and so reduces violent crime, brings marijuana production into the light of day where it can be regulated which produces tax revenue and regulation, regulation of production and use and quality has health benefits, which further reduce costs to society, and creates jobs.



Sure its not a new argument and it is the one that most young potheads are likely to jump on first because it seems like it would be so appealing to the forever cash-strapped government. "Lets just let them tax pot and then they will rush to make it legal, man." The major proponents of such thinking being in a chemically induced type-B personalities, rarely get any traction in mainstream politics. In trying economic times such as these I would expect a well reasoned argument that points out, not only the increased tax revenue ($1 billion in California alone) but also the potential cost savings in other programs, would get a better reception.

However, these arguments have failed before and its not because they are poorly reasoned, despite my poking fun at potheads. There are the usual histrionics that are thrown about by the anti-drug lunatics about the impending collapse of society, and "Oh God, won't somebody please think of the children!?!!?!" Despite the truth that legalized recreational drugs do lead to negative health consequences, and beer and tobacco companies do target children with advertising, those are threats that have proven to be small and that we as a society have obviously chosen to live with. It is also popular to point out that history(the repeal of prohibition, Amsterdam) has shown us that when certain recreational drugs are legalized it eliminates the demand in the informal market for the goods, which directs the attention of professional criminals to other activities. Then the reduction of interaction between normal Joe Sixpack (Johnny Jointsmoker?) people and hardened criminals and the police reduces violent crime. All of this is still to leave out the potential beneficial impact on our foreign relations.

I suspect that the main reason this type of legislation fails time and time again is that it has to be voted on by politicians. Politicians who can count votes. It doesn't matter how many potheads and marijuana activists get together because their voice will still be marginalized in the minds of the elected officials. It's hard to be taken seriously when the thing you are advocating for is illegal and all you want it for is recreation. (Hence the medical marijuana movement) The other reason elected officials will never vote for legalization of recreational marijuana is that they don't want to have their name associated with the downfall of society if all the histrionics of the sour-faced Republican old lady's turns out to be true.

I am Libertarian, and there are two ways to look at the recreational marijuana issue from that perspective as long as you believe that marijuana smoking is no different than tobacco or alcohol use. There is the Ron Paul view that whatever you do with your body is none of my business as long as it doesn't affect me. Then there is the long term Ted Nugent view that says this does affect me because on the aggregate there will be societal health costs from the negative health impacts of drug use.

I suppose I fall into a third category that doesn't care. Sure there are health costs, but like I said above, there are social costs involved, but most social costs of marijuana are created by its illegality, the real social costs stemming from health and high driving when likened to tobacco and alcohol are clearly so minimal that our society has decided (and I agree) that the benefits of legalization outweigh the costs.

So why don't I smoke? There are various reasons but mostly its a political statement. In my experience pot smokers can tend to get over enthusiastic about their recreational drug of choice and become zealous advocates of its use, and distrust those that do not. Sure, this could easily be because it makes one paranoid, but just being in the room makes you just as arrested when the cops show up. My true friends respect me even if they don't respect my decision and offers to partake are made out of common politeness arising from commensality. (After all, what can be a more ritualistic "breaking of bread" than a shared consumption of something that not only involves shared risk but that gives a spiritual sense of significance?) Still, my reflexive aversion to perceived peer pressure, my history of refusal that has lasted so long it has become part of my identity, combined with what I fear is addictive behavior continue to keep me away even though I think legalization of recreational use of marijuana would be a good thing for the country.

I will leave you with this video a friend posted to Facebook.

The Friday Bacon

My mother in law cooks bacon a whole package at a time on the low setting on an electric range. Very crispy.

You already have seen them (or you haven't), and you probably don't care why I think they are my top five for the year (nor should you.) Thus, in the interest of being in the fringe, I am going to attempt an explanation as to how this movie is speaking to us about the current political and social landscape, as all good movies should (except super stylish genre flicks, those are timeless.)

Do I think these films were intentionally made to be elaborate extended metaphors? Unlikely, though who knows. Either way, every artist projects more than they intend.

Number 3: Slumdog Millionaire


Slumdog Millionaire very well may win the Oscar for best picture, and with good reason. This movie has no one you've ever heard of, and because George Burns was right: show business is a hideous bitch goddess, you will probably not see these actors in many other Western productions. There has not been a film that has won Best Picture in a long time that had less "star power." (You know, star power in Hollywood and star power in Mario have similar meanings.) The life of this production in the box office and in the awards circuit is not unlike the boy at the center of the plot. So, if you are an old, boring person with nothing better to do that obsesses over the Academy Awards even though you have not seen any of the films that have been nominated because you like awards ceremonies and celebrities more than you like good movies and are looking for a cute, underdog story (sorry for the run-on sentence) here it is.

The plot of the film revolves around a boy who grew up in the slums, loves a girl, and survives despite the world shitting over him (symbolically and literally.) The "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" portion of the film is not what it seems. Him being on the show is not about the money and its power to get him out of the slums. He is on the show for its wide exposure, and the fact he knows his love interest watches it. It is important that the main character doesn't do it for the money, and is not happy about it because of the money. The plot of him on the show reeks of Hollywood coincidence. He only knows the answers because of specific life experiences he has had. However, even though he knows most of the answers, he is still stalling. He wants to be on TV as long as possible. This kid is the epitome of likeable. He is the brown Frodo, except he is doing it all for a girl. Awwwwwwwwwwwww. He is good through and through.

This film is the most depressing while still the most feel good movie you may ever see. And this is important. I was recently reading a story on Reddit (maybe?) that talked about mice who have been conditioned to be defeatist. The mice would learn helplessness in one situation. They then would be put in a similar situation, but one with a way out. The article tried to make the point that humans do the same thing. It claimed that we have been conditioned by our overlords (lizard people or robots, one could only assume) to be defeatist. In dire times (like, oh say, our current depression) we no longer look for nor are able to see the platform that gets us above the rising flood waters of economic collapse. Slumdog Millionaire's main character would disagree.

Almost every question he answers in the game show stems from a life experience he had that sucked. Oh man, did this kid go through some depressing, dark times. However, he is goal orientated. He wants the girl. It doesn't matter what the goal is though. A girl, a trannie, your own ranch, great scientific discoveries. He knows where he wants to be. He doesn't always know how to get there though. But unlike those stupid, white lab mice, this kid is looking up for the platform at all times. Maybe it would never would have appeared. Maybe there is no good in the world. But if you don't look up for the way out of this cruel experiment then you are always going to be stuck in the slums. So, what does it hurt to look up? Worst case scenario, you still end a fucking slumdog.

Oh, and I forgot to put above ***SPOILER ALERT***

Space News Roundup, or Space Cowboy

Iran launched a satellite into orbit. This got a bunch of people's undies in a twist because it means that they theoretically have the tech necessary to put a missile anywhere in the world. We are thinking this way despite repeated assurances from even neutral observers that Iran is decades away from a nuke, because we are in a society that can't separate space technology from military technology. Which is the answer to the question of why we have better maps of Mars than our own ocean.

Two satellites smacked into each other over Siberia raising global concerns regarding orbital trash and legal concerns regarding the use of space. Who is at fault, the car that is out of control with no driver, or the one that could possibly have driven out of the way?

A backward, green comet, discovered by a Chinese youth, will be visible from earth in the next few days before the Sun flings it out of our solar system forever.

Anticipating the Worst

John Kerry hosted a discussion last week where he had a round table of experts engage in hysterics regarding the recession and asked them to criticize his party's stimulus, the one he cosponsored. One of their doomsday warnings was that major wars, such as World War II, are preceded by long periods of economic recession. They predicted such an outcome if the current recession lasts, oh say more than two years.

This, in relation to certain things I have been hearing people say, leads me to be concerned. My specific concern is a sensitive one to discuss, however I feel that it is necessary to discuss in the interests of preparedness and prevention. The subject of race riots. If we recall, WWII and most regional conflicts in recent history were preceded by racial unrest or have a racial element to the conflict. Iraq, Darfour, Bosnia, Rwanda.

The things that I have been hearing that worry me are a linking of the effects of the recession on individuals to illegal immigration of Hispanics. I have heard people remark, "why should I be worried about the civil rights of illegal immigrants I can't even find a job myself." To be sure, I have only heard this sentiment coming from racist people who already bemoan bilingual signage. Still, the linking of the bad effects of the recession on individuals, by the individuals themselves, through the issue of illegal immigration, to a specific racial category of people, is what worries me. The immigration debate already inflames gun toting extremists to the point of mobilization. And the Minutemen were in existence when we were still relatively prosperous. I fear the recruitment power the recession will have for violent racist radicals.

This will be the kind of thing that plays out like prior race riots. On the streets in the poor parts of the country people will feel the pressure building every day. That sense of racial tension will never see the light of day in the MSM until the flood waters suddenly burst forth in a regional paroxysm of violence. Local riots will break out and only local outlets will cover them until they become either large, or last multiple days, or become shocking in some other way. Then the national MSM will start saying what had been obvious to 1/4 of the country for months. This will all be a complete shock to white middle class midwesterners who will wake up one morning as the MSM brings their attention to race riots already in progress.



Honestly, I hope it doesn't happen that way. Maybe it will just be local like the riots over the killing of Oscar Grant III. Or maybe the racial tension will never reach critical mass, or maybe the catalyst will never appear. I am just worried at the pace with which racist sentiment against Latinos has changed under the influence of the recession. For practical purposes, we should be concerned with good relations with Mexico because a good portion of their GDP is remittances from the US, and they recently discovered epic shit tons of oil. We should stay friendly with our neighbors.

The Friday Bacon

Bacon lettuce and turkey.

The Icy Cold Hand of Evolution is Reaching For You

It's Darwin's 200th birthday and that is as good an excuse as any to engage in soap-boxery. Atheists are using this day to publicly make a spectacle. Though when it comes to making an ass of yourself in front of the media the Freedom From Religion Foundation just doesn't have the flair of PETA. If only there was some way to combine public nudity with atheism. We need to see some hot atheist ass. I am publicly calling for an "Emperor has no clothes" parade in Madison, WI. It will start at the capitol and end in my "evolution research lab."

I discussed previously that the public debate over Evolution does not actually regard any scientific discussion. The Christian zealots are using this as a way of publicly challenging the faith of other Christians out there basically saying you will go to hell if you believe in science. Using the fear they have used since the beginning for recruiting. Even the British cling to religious posturing in their ignorance rather than trust the people who dedicate their lives to careful study of the natural world. Which is exactly what this is about. Making highly educated people who have dedicated their lives to rigorous study into purveyors of a competing ideology. Reducing science to mere faith and turning scientists into servants of the devil. Christians know well how to turn mundane decisions into matters of eternal moral significance and normal people into sinners and the enemy. Creationism is an ideology of ignorance and hate.

Moving Closer to Democracy

The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs committee voted to give full voting rights to the Washington D.C. House seat today. For some time now their license plates have read "No taxation without representation." Referring to their lack of representation in Congress. It's interesting to see McCain voting against this Democratic seat as if party politics were the primary consideration.

Confidence: not yours

I was going to remark on the relation between Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's speech yesterday, the way the markets reacted, and right wing pundits and opinion columnists, but I am having a bloggers' existential funk. I'll get back to that.

What I was going to say was a response to Geithner's comment,

"Our challenge is much greater today because the American people have lost faith in the leaders of our financial institutions, and are skeptical that their government has – to this point -- used taxpayers' money in ways that will benefit them. This has to change."

I wondered how much the lack of confidence the people have in governments ability to spend us out of the economy is due to past failures, or if it was due to the constant barrage of ideological criticism the bailouts have faced. I initially thought that this was a slightly more tenable position than friends I have who simply remark, "I hate the Republicans," when discussing the situation. While possibly more nuanced, I have come to realize that that thought is still colored by my dislike for the general Republican platform and my disgust with Congress.

Then I considered why my own criticism didn't cause me to feel any cognitive dissonance with regard to the thought that Republican ideologues are just peddling uncertainty. Other than a certain us vs. them outgroup antagonism, I find myself hard pressed to reconcile the apparent hypocrisy. To be sure, there is a significant difference in the details of the two (three?) bailouts, but what I am trying to do is separate out my moral, emotional, and ideological proclivities from the factual differences in hopes that I can logically assess the situation.

Clearly that is difficult for someone like me coming from a background of squatters rights and phreaking.

I Like Tedtalks. They All Talk So Pretty and Dang 'Telligent.

This video is about freedom of information. Pretty much what you would expect from a Tedtalk on the subject. He is a librarian who believes in free information, how novel. (see: "A Tale of Two Film Buffs" in this here blog.) At the end he talked about a project he is involved in that takes a "snapshot" of the log cabin every so often. That shot is then saved and stored in three locations: LA, Amsterdam and Egypt.

There, people can do research about what the log cabin was like. Log Cabin history. To most, the Log Cabin is the future wave, or the ultimate present. However, when you think about what you could learn about people by studying what was in the Log Cabin. It is like any other primary source in its expansiveness. Sociology should particularly benefit.

The study of history itself will probably change drastically. You can actually view how perception of current events, then recent events and then history changes over time more realistically than ever. The population test size, or number of replicates, is increased dramatically when compared to a few diaries and newspaper articles. Shit, someone will probably quantify something and then there can be more graphs in history.


So, not only does the Log Cabin (which we are all stuck in) mean we have to all get over our hang ups. You know, because we all now know everything about each other. It also means we have to get over how we all used to be.

My Top Five Films of the Year: I know, I know, but please keep reading (part 2).

You already have seen them (or you haven't), and you probably don't care why I think they are my top five for the year (nor should you.) Thus, in the interest of being in the fringe, I am going to attempt an explanation as to how this movie is speaking to us about the current political and social landscape, as all good movies should (except super stylish genre flicks, those are timeless.)

Do I think these films were intentionally made to be elaborate extended metaphors? Unlikely, though who knows. Either way, every artist projects more than they intend.

Number 4: Tropic Thunder

Tropic Thunder is a satire of the upper echelon of Hollywood. Thanks to a near century of films about the upper echelons of Hollywood, we know it is a broader metaphor for the upper echelons of society.

This is furthered by the plot's premise of a film production about a war becomes a war. The Hollywood leading men becomes a war hero and leader of men into the shit. The Hollywood producer becomes Russel Crowe from "Body of Lies." The film's director gets blown up by his own brilliance.

Tom Cruise's Hollywood producer turned NSA head is the center of the film. His skill is only done in by his apathy for others. You can only imagine the world in which his ilk, the Dick Cheney clones, were building bridges, developing communication technologies or growing healthy cheap food.

Nick Nolte playing a false idol speaks to the absurdity of patriotic myth. There are always new heroes among us who can choose their own righteous path. Yet, how many try to live up to false ancestors? It does no one any good to study and emulate the life of someone when it is worse than fictional, it is intentionally deceptive. History is written by the winners, but that doesn't mean they tell us how they won.

Then there is Robert Downey's genius take on race. Again the idea that what you see and hear is contrived. Movies, much like croney journalism, present public figures in untrue light. Is Barak Obama really black? Is Bill Richardson really hispanic? Is Hillary Clinton really a woman? Is Dick Cheney really robot Satan? Is John McCain really a rich, old white guy? Yes, unfortunately. It is important to note than in happyland, the characters cannot save themselves until they become who they "really" are. However, Robert Downey's false face was so harmless, and somewhat helpful. He was maybe more a hero because of it. Is it really so bad to be someone else, so long as you act morally? Can you really lie about your current identity? It seems as if you are just misleading them about your past and present identities.

The film is constantly extending the themes of fiction and truth around sharp jokes about Americans being at war oversea, western views of foreign terrorism, Hollywood journalism, and the celebrity myth. It was a great sandwich; fresh, dense, layered and delicious.

Oh, and I forgot to put above ***SPOILER ALERT***

The Friday Bacon

The return of the bacon grease.

The Walk of Shame: Taxes

As commercials announce to Joe Punchclock that the Taxman commeth we are greeted with a plethora of news items detailing the failure of President Obama's cabinet nominees to pay their fair share. Many of the editorials are already decrying the "new politics of responsibility" being just like the old politics of . . . well what do you call it when the President says it's OK to torture people? Evil? Its understandable why commentators on the political right have attempted to focus on the immediate failures of the Obama administration in what appears to be a rapid return to politics as usual. I would be inclined to resist except Obama's picks for high level political positions seems less like looking to experience and more like rearranging the deck chairs on the S.S. Democratic party. Which, if I recall correctly, is exactly how the first G.W. Bush administration began.

Obama and the Military Industrial Complex

In the first few weeks of the Obama Administration, it is becoming increasingly clear that he can't please everyone. Unfortunately, some in the military establishment have gone almost to the point of blackmail in attempting to place controls on U.S. Defense Policy.

With the word "stimulus" in the air, and every corporation with operations in the United States smelling bacon, an effort has emerged in Washington seeking to extend production of the F-22 as a sort of stimulus spending. A webpage sponsored by manufacturer Lockheed-Martin alleges that 95,000 jobs can be saved by continuing to manufacture the F-22 Raptor, without mentioning a specific cost in additional military spending. Undoubtedly, the Air Force itself is hoping for this increase as well, considering reports that the F-35 can't stand up against Russian air defense systems. However, this is the least of Obama's military problems.

Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledging the change of focus for the Defense Department from Iraq to Afghanistan, has a laundry list of potential military problems which are very far-reaching.

For instance, [Adm. Mullen] said, the United States needs to help Iran develop stability instead of fomenting terror.

Other sticking points abroad, Mullen said, are assuring stability in places like Russia and China, dealing with issues like famine and genocide in Africa, and the drug trade in Mexico.

This news report on Adm. Mullen's full lecture is well-worth reading. Obviously, the Department of Defense is going to be on the receiving end of a lot of government funding, especially considering the costs of expanding operations in Afghanistan, despite efforts to curb U.S. strategic objectives.

Two other reports regarding the military-industrial complex could serve as an early test of the new administration. The first, that the military is attempting to accuse Obama of reducing military spending, by not giving them all that the Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted, smacks of career military officials attempting to establish their role in crafting defense policy. While bureaucratic squabbling is hardly anything new, this second report, is far more disturbing. If senior military officials are truly attempting to pressure Pres. Obama into accepting a misleading plan to rename apples oranges, they are certainly making a political decision instead of respecting the orders of their new Commander-in-Chief.

Defense policy, especially spending decisions, are fundamentally political decisions, and thus the exclusive province of elected civilian leaders. Even if General Petraeus is worried that he is losing his hotline to the White House that he enjoyed in the days of the Bush Administration, it would probably be more useful for him to pursue a good working relationship with the incoming administration, rather than engaging in bureaucratic in-fighting over issues which have already been addressed.

My Top Five Films of the Year: I know, I know, but please keep reading.

You already have seen them (or you haven't), and you probably don't care why I think they are my top five for the year (nor should you.) Thus, in the interest of being in the fringe, I am going to attempt an explanation as to how this movie is speaking to us about the current political and social landscape, as all good movies should (except super stylish genre flicks, those are timeless.)
Do I think these films were intentionally made to be elaborate extended metaphors? Unlikely, though who knows. Either way, every artist projects more than they intend.

Number Five: In Bruges

Bruges is a sort of fantasy land. It reminds us of the past. It is a medieval themed tourist trap. Its streets are laden with history yet is occupied with visitors. Bruges is a distraction for the protagonists, and the people trying to bring the protagonists to justice. To me, it is the Middle East. Or Death. Well, really, what's the difference, now a days?

Colin Farrell and some old guy are hit men who get sent there after they did what they do best in London. They were violent in London. Too violent. They must be sent abroad. Together, they are the soldiers we send overseas.

Colin Farrell has committed an atrocity at home, though he had good intentions. Well, they weren't "good" but he didn't mean to kill the kid. He has immense guilt over it. He hates being in Bruges, and wants to leave as soon as possible. And when a future race war is brought up, he says he will fight with the blacks. He is the western liberal.

Some old guy did not commit "the" atrocity, but has done his fair share of damage. He isn't filled with guilt. He is more or less a company man. He generally does what he is told. He is not rebellious. He is trying to make the best of his stay there. He is the one with the most direct contact with the boss. He is the western conservative.

Ralph Fiennes is their boss in London. The prototypical crime boss who dresses nice, gets things done, and has (compared to the protagonists) near ultimate power. He is even more violent, but because he is the boss, he gets to stay in London, and only goes to Bruges at his convenience, apparently to relax. And, of course, let's not forget his warped and conflicted sense of morality. This murder is ok, but this one is not. He is the politician who is above politics and in it for himself (or his bosses.)

While in Bruges, events become a tad surreal. The normal rules don't apply. The characters, especially Colin Farrell, are not taking their trip well. This is culture shock. Or Death.

The characters do not know how to handle their new environment, and their short trip is indefinite. The plot eventually comes to the the boss ordering some old guy to kill Colin Farrell. He wants one side to take out the other, as if this will achieve anything. The movie throws us into a cycle of violence in a strange land. What should be an almost spiritual, and wholly good, place, becomes a horrible place. Death and destruction, even though most of the characters have relatively good intentions.

Also, Peter Dinklage plays a racist midget actor in an art film. I just wanted to add that in, because it is great.

Oh, and I forgot to put above ***SPOILER ALERT***

The New Politics: RIP 2/1/09 That Didn't Take Long

Apparently Republicans are running around raising ideological opposition to Obama's huge economic stimulus package. Heh heh. The Republicans got a good look at Obama's Package this week and the President spent time coming in and out of their offices trying to get them to take it. It seems like the do nothing Congress has decided to keep with what they know rather than try to spend massively huge shit tons of money in hopes Keynesian economics does work.



The kicker is that the debate isn't over whether the money should be spent. Its about whether we are giving enough tax breaks to the wealthy fuckers that aren't feeling the pinch. This is a debate over ideology rather than substance. Let me point out that tax cuts and government spending are actually the same thing. Cuts in income and spending both reduce the amount of money in the treasury. The two terms are just ideological code for where the politician thinks the money should go. If you believe in entitlement of the upper class you say "tax cuts." If you believe in entitlement of the poor you say "appropriation." It's bullshit and I am surprised that the fact this is all about ideology doesn't rise to the level of public discourse. Sure you might say that there is an economic debate behind the two sides, except real economists will admit that even amongst them it is really an ideological debate because there is no lab in which to experiment and prove who is more wrong.