7.4.06

Yeah Yeah Yeahs

I was reading Debate and Discussion and came upon a brilliant bit of writing that I wanted to repost. If you've ever been interested in counter-culture, I'm sure you'll find this interesting:

... Samuel Huntington's work for the 1975 Trilateral commission ... a good critique of what the counter culture did to American society. In a nutshell the hippies and yippies adopted a Diogenes view on society. That is the entire thing was corrupt, so they refused to be part of it. This rebellion was not understood by all, and it was hijacked by marketing firms later on and turned into pop culture. As my professors have said, they sold their VWs and cut their hair when all their old classmates who originally laughed at them in '66 now came asking them for drugs.

Not only were these ideas abandoned, but for the majority of people they never understood what the culture was about to begin with. As some have put it, the free love and drugs were simply a new tool men had used to get what they wanted from women - sex. The people who got it probably had a same SLC Punk realization about the other members who claimed to be part of the movement and went insane or died on drugs - they were the lucky ones to see what the movements did turn into. The Democratic party failed 30 years ago once hippies started cutting their hair and championing a million different causes.

In the end the institutional damage was never recovered. Respect for authority in any form was shattered, which left a generation disinterested in politics or the possiblities. In one way this left the system ripe for the takeover of conservative republicans who wanted to weaken institutions, if not tear them down to begin with.

Danno is correct about what hippies do now. There are no leaders, no real movement, no ideals. It seems to be about drugs, the environment, and some misguided effort to teach multiculturalism everywhere which neither respects cultures or offers a workable way to live. I wouldn't characterize the hippies/counter culture as really having an effect on American politics. The most effect they had was the Yippies which made a mess of the DNC in 68. I would like to think that had Robert Kennedy been elected he would've brought the counter culture back into mainstream society and we wouldn't have Eric Cartman on South Park showing modern day hippies such contempt.

21.3.06

theee.lovelyness = 10;

// Sonnet 18: Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
// by William Shakespeare
// ported to ActionScript 2.0 by Satori Canton
//
// Original poem can be viewed at:
// http://plagiarist.com/poetry/915/

var summer:Object = {};
var thee:Object = {};

summer.name = "Summer Day";
thee.name = "Thee";

summer.lovelyness = 9;
thee.lovelyness = 10;

summer.temperature = 98;
thee.temperature = 98.6;

summer.lease = new Date(2006, 7, 31).getTime() - new Date(2006, 5, 1).getTime();
thee.lease = new Date(2042, 6, 12).getTime() - new Date(1970, 8, 25).getTime();

summer.complexion = 0xFFCC33;
thee.complexion = 0xFFCCCC;

16.3.06

null signal

Q Does the President know that he's in violation of international law when he advocates preemptive war? The U.N. Charter, Geneva, Nuremberg. We violate international law when we advocate attacking a country that did not attack us.

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, I would just disagree with your assessment. First of all, preemption is a longstanding principle of American foreign --

Q It's not a long-standing principle with us. It's your principle.

MR. McCLELLAN: Have you asked your question?

Q It's a violation of international law.

MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, let me back up, preemption is a longstanding principle of American foreign policy. It is also part --

Q It's never been.

MR. McCLELLAN: It is also part of an inherent right to self-defense. But what we seek to do is to address issues diplomatically by working with our friends and allies, and working with regional partners. That's what we're doing when it comes to the threat posed by Iran pursuing nuclear weapons. That's what we're doing when it comes to resolving the nuclear issue with North Korea. So we seek diplomatic solutions to confront threats.

And it's important what September 11th taught us --

Q The heavy emphasis of your paper today is war and preemptive war.

MR. McCLELLAN: Can I finish responding to your question, because I think it's important to answer your question. It's a good question and it's a fair question. But first of all, are we supposed to wait until a threat fully materializes and then respond? September 11th --

Q Under international law you have to be attacked first.

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, you're not letting me respond to your question. You have the opportunity to ask your question, and I would like to be able to provide a response so that the American people can hear what our view is. This is not new in terms of our foreign policy. This has been a longstanding principle, the question that you bring up. But again, I'll put the question back to you. Are we supposed to wait until a threat fully materializes before we respond --

Q You had no threat from Iraq.

MR. McCLELLAN: September 11th taught us --

Q That was not a threat from Iraq.