Blogroll

Friday Follies 2.33

A Florida man was awarded $650,000 for an injury he sustained when he was hit in the eye by a stripper’s shoe. (via)

A D.C. burger joint has been ordered to stop grilling because the “intense and noxious odor” it creates causes employees of a neighboring business to suffer itchy and watery eyes, nausea and headaches. The complaining neighbor? A large DC-based law firm. (via)

In other restaurant news, the parents of a Tennessee boy are suing a restaurant for “severe injuries” they claim he suffered when a waiter allegedly substituted “Mega Death Hot Sauce” for the restaurant’s regular hot sauce in the boy’s meal.

Although it makes sense intellectually, my heart tells me this decision must be wrong: The Georgia Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that a city ordinance requiring property owners to mow their lawn is not involuntary servitude, i.e., slavery.

I can’t improve on LTB‘s caption so will just repeat it. Questions Not to Ask Police, #47: “Are there any warrants out for my arrest?”

Of course, there’s also the things you don’t want to hear from police, such as “don’t want relationship, just want laid.”

Nor do you want Mr. Magoo for your police force. “Police failed to spot a dead [retiree] had been murdered – until undertakers found a knife in his back.” (via)

Woman sues a couple who owns the hotel where she worked, claiming they encouraged employees to participate in a ring toss game on the husband’s penis.

Christmas comes earlier every year. This week, a Montreal man was charged with placing death threats on Facebook after he “armed himself with high-powered weapons because he feared he was being stalked by elves.” Since elves apparently aren’t on Facebook, he evidently threatened to kill certain former teachers and classmates.


I don’t go in for lawsuits and motions or any of the legal stuff. No, no, you see what happens is, uh, I find out where you live and then I come to your house, see? And I beat down your door with a fucking baseball bat!

Peter Blunt (Randy Quaid), Caddyshack II

Weekend Edition: 10-9

Bulletin Board

  • One of those weeks combined with the onset of my “fall cold” to make things a bit sparse this week. So it goes.

Question of the Week

  • With the local daily now running the Pearls Before Swine comic strip, why is it gracing us strips from 2006 rather than current ones?

Worthwhile Reading in the Interweb Tubes — E-reader Edition

Bookish Linkage


Millions long for immortality who don’t know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.

Susan Ertz, Anger in the Sky

Book Review: The Anti-American Manifesto by Ted Rall

Years ago the professor in my political ideologies class laid out a view of the political spectrum that I’ve never forgotten. It does not, he said, resemble a line with a far left, a far right and a center. Instead, it is a nearly closed circle where the extremes of the spectrum are turning back towards each other. The accuracy of that analysis has struck me several times over the years, especially this year.

For example, among the books that make up the Tea Party canon is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Alinsky’s 1971 book was almost a hornbook for those on the left who were willing to work within the system, for “the Have-Nots on how to take [power] away.” Now, the Tea Party looks to it as a primer on community organizing tactics.

I was reminded of it again last month by a new book that set forth the following definitions:

Us: Hard-working, underpaid, put upon, thoughtful, freedom-loving, disenfranchised, ordinary people

Them: Reactionary. stupid, overpaid, greedy, shortsighted, exploitative, power-made abusive politicians and corporate executives

No one would be surprised to see that in a Tea Party tract. But these come from Ted Rall’s new book, The Anti-American Manifesto. Rall, an award-winning author, syndicated columnist and syndicated editorial cartoonist, is plainly on the left side of the spectrum. In fact, in 2004 he wrote Wake Up, You’re Liberal!: How We Can Take America Back from the Right, which challenged liberals to step forward and lead this country to the promise it offers. From the impressive opening “Credo” to the concluding chapter, “The Manifesto for a New America,” I was so impressed I made sure to get a personally autographed copy.

So, six years later there’s a president of color in the White House who ran and was elected on a campaign of “change.” So what’s Rall thinking now? He thinks it’s time for a revolution right here in the good old U S of A.

I don’t think Rall’s gone off the deep end. Instead, his book is an example of how people across the political spectrum have no faith in the ability of America’s existing political and economic system to change the country for the better. That’s certainly contributed to the popularity and success of the Tea Party. It’s just that Rall takes things a step further. He says it’s too late to reform the country or the government because the existing system is not viable or open to real change. Revolution, he writes, is preferable to collapse.

“The current U.S. government must be prophylactically removed,” he writes. “Our economic and social structures must be radically reinvented. These things can only happen by using force.” Yet The Anti-American Manifesto doesn’t suggest the revolution start on the left. In fact, he invokes the adage “the enemy of your enemy is your friend, urging people to “reach out to anyone and everyone who is willing to take on the existing system.” That also means, somewhat maddeningly, that Rall isn’t specific about what will follow revolution. Although he still hews to many of the ideas expressed in Wake Up, You’re Liberal!, he believes the first priority is to get rid of the current “zombie system of government.” Only then should we begin to “split ideological hairs” on what will replace it.

Rall believes Americans have 10 essential rights: shelter, food, basic clothes, education in accordance with your abilities and talents (through college), medical care, retirement benefits, transportation, communication, competent legal counsel if charged with a crime, and job training and rehabilitation if incarcerated. Although only one of these is currently guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, an argument can certainly be made that what Rall advocates are crucial elements of the unalienable rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” described in the Declaration of Independence. Only a revolution can help protect such rights because the governmental and corporate structure that has evolved in America is incapable of doing so, he contends.

Unless you’re hopelessly self-deluded or stupid, you have to accept the painful truth. Under the current triumvirate of state power currently presiding over our lives — governmental, corporate and media — you have no more ability to change anything important — e.g. the way the economy is managed, or which countries and people are being attacked by the armies you pay for — than a medieval serf or a German under Nazism did in the past, or a detainee in a secret CIA prison somewhere does now.

Rall has never shied away from impassioned rhetoric or even hyperbole, whether in his writing or his art. Nor is it reserved for the government. For example, he says that if BP and other oil companies “could extract oil from the crushed skulls of newborn babies, they would.”

Rall, quite simply, seems to have reached the end of his political rope. Not only is necessary change not coming, he believes it never will. Rational people, then, have only one choice, which is to take things into their own hands and start over. Even if people don’t, the system is going to collapse on itself and revolution will be forced upon us. He believes it better to be proactive than reactive. Whether that call to action will succeed is another question altogether.

In the book, Rall notes he “hated” the title of Wake Up, You’re Liberal. I would quibble with title The Anti-American Manifesto. Rall isn’t anti-American. He’s anti what America has become. Yet calling the manifesto “anti-American” doesn’t get that point across. In fact, it may tend to divide rather than unite the enemies of his enemies.

Second, I understand Rall wants to avoid infighting among those are willing to tear the system down. I’m on the opposite side of the question of having aims and goals for any revolution. Without them, fear of the unknown will always outweigh throwing the bastards out and then splitting ideological hairs. Like our government, corporations and media, Americans want to know “What’s in it for me?” before committing to even quasi-radical action. Some essential common principles likely need be expressed.

Finally, to some extent The Anti-American Manifesto has echoes of the late 1960s. Despite the youth culture and cries of revolution in the street, today we are in an arguably worse state of affairs. The America to which Rall is speaking is likely less receptive to such ideas than four decades ago. This is particularly pertinent when Rall himself admits, “It is better to do nothing than to stage a half-assed revolt.”

It’s not surprising Rall has reached his limit. In fact, he says he’s thought revolution was necessary before but was afraid to say so. In fact, in the “Credo” in Wake Up, You’re Liberal he said, “Radical problems require radical solutions.” The last item in that “Credo” is also relevant six years later: “I reserve the right to change my mind.”


Ideology is stupid. For those of us who have no power, it doesn’t matter what we would do if we did. We don’t.

Ted Rall, The Anti-American Manifesto

Book Review: Just Like Someone Without Mental Illness Only More So by Mark Vonnegut

There are certain books you read during your life that stick with you. For me, one of those is one I first read while still in college, Mark Vonnegut’s The Eden Express: A Memoir of Insanity. First published in 1975 (and reissued in 2002), the book is a frank and compelling story of a young man’s descent into schizophrenia and his recovery from it.

In the introduction to that book, Vonnegut, the son of author Kurt Vonnegut, described himself as “a hippie, a son of a counterculture hero, a B.A. in religion [with a] a genetic biochemical predisposition to schizophrenia.” He and friends established a commune in a remote area of British Columbia but the mysticism he sensed he was experiencing led in 1971 to his hospitalization in a psychiatric hospital in Vancouver for what was diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia. Eden Express details that journey, two subsequent hospitalizations and his efforts toward recovery.

Although Vonnegut has since come to believe what he really suffered from was a combination of what is now know as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, his recovery has been equally remarkable. Not only did he return to “normal” life, he attended Harvard Medical School and has been a practicing pediatrician in the Boston area sine the early 1980s. With his follow-up memoir, Just Like Someone Without Mental Illness Only More So, he takes readers on that journey — and his fourth psychiatric breakdown “when the voices came back” more than 14 years after his last breakdown.

As a fan of Eden Express, I must admit I approached Just Like Someone Without Mental Illness Only More So with a bit of trepidation. I didn’t want anything to take away my favorable impression of the first book (although rereading it before the new book arguably may have increased that risk). Yet the new book drew me in as much as the first and I found it just as compelling. Not only does Vonnegut he again provide insight into the lives of those who confront mental illnesses, the book gives us a real glimpse of the type of person and doctor he is, his bout with alcoholism, and a look at how the practice of medicine has changed in the last 25 years. (“Every bright idea that was supposed to improve medical care has made care worse, usually by increasing costs and restricting access.”)

Eden Express was marked by its frank yet conversational tone. A similar approach helps make Just Like Someone Without Mental Illness Only More So as good as the predecessor. The two books, though, are different. The new one break the story into smaller segments as opposed to lengthier chapters. It also has more echoes of his father’s style and wit. For example, if he’s been doing so well, why does he continue to see a psychiatrist? His response is a simple, Vonnegutesque one: “Over the years I’ve come to care about Ned and, and I think I go mostly to make sure he’s okay.” This approach enhances the readability of a story that gives an idea of the life of a “regular” person dealing with existing or quiescent mental illness and how easy it can be to slip into a manic-depressive or schizophrenic state.

Still, Vonnegut never suggests he possesses some unique quality or strength that gave him advantages in recovering.

None of us are entirely well, and none of us are irrevocably sick. At my best I have islands of being sick entirely. At my worst I had islands of being well. Except for a reluctance to give up on myself there isn’t anything I can claim credit for that helped me recover from my breaks. Even that doesn’t count. You either have or don’t have a reluctance to give up on yourself. It helps a lot if others don’t give up on you.

Yet even that doesn’t ensure there will never be recurrences. In fact, Vonnegut’s fourth breakdown found him taken by police from his home in a straitjacket when he tried, unsuccessfully, to run through a third-floor window to prove to God that he was worthy of saving and “not just a selfish little shit.” Vonnegut says that when the voices he heard in the early 1970s came back, “it was like we picked up in the middle of a conversation that had been interrupted just a few minutes earlier.” The manic part of his bipolar disorder manic depression makes it that much more difficult. Vonnegut describes the slide into mental illness as a “grammatical shift. Thoughts come into the mind as firmly established truth. … The fantastic presents itself as fact.”

Once again, though, the hospitalization, together with medication and support, allowed Vonnegut to return to a normal life, including the practice of medicine. He forthrightly examines not only the role of medication but the treatment he underwent in the 1970s and explores the extent to which family heredity can play a role in a person’s psychiatric state.

Fortunately, Vonnegut did not just return to the practice of medicine but also to memoir. Taken together, Eden Express and Just Like Someone Without Mental Illness Only More So are an excellent survey of a life affected by mental illness. Yet with its style, tone and frank manner of addressing serious issues and events, Just Like Someone Without Mental Illness Only More So earns a place on anyone’s bookshelf on its own merits. It is the most insightful and enjoyable memoir I’ve read in a long time.


I have so many original thoughts I have to take medication for it.

Mark Vonnegut, Just Like Someone Without Mental Illness Only More So

Weekend Edition: 10-2

Dude, You Killed a Dell!

  • True, unfortunately. Tuesday morning I spilled a beverage on my less than two month old work laptop, frying both the motherboard and the hard drive. Fortunately, our IT guy had not yet blown away my old one so I didn’t have to start from scratch. The carcass is on its way to Dell under the always valuable “idiot warranty.”

Blog Headline of the Week

Worthwhile Reading in the Interweb Tubes

  • Spreading illiteracy (“The Internet may well be the instrument that makes stupidity a fashion of the age.”)

Bookish Linkage

Nonbookish Linkage


If one has not read the newspapers for some months and then reads them all together, one sees … how much time is wasted with this kind of literature.

The Maxims and Reflections of Goethe