March 2008 Archives

The San Francisco Art Institute just decided to close down one of their exhibits because of death threats.

The exhibit in question sounds, well, not like my cup of tea to say the least (my family would shrug and say, "It's art!" as we always do when faced with the pretentious or obscure.)

Along with a variety of other elements, the show included a series of video loops of animals being bludgeoned to death with a sledgehammer in front of a brick wall. The animals killed included a pig, goat, deer, ox, horse and sheep.

The circumstances of the filming are never fully explained (what was the artist's role? was he a passive observer or an instigator?), although the claim is that the footage was taken at a location in Mexico.

Art Institute officials said Saturday that Abdessemed had shot the videos at a farm in rural Mexico that routinely slaughters animals in the way he depicted. They said the videos were part of a social critique. "One of the things this exhibition was pointing to was the difference in production of food resources between industrialized production in the U.S. and in poorer countries," said Bratton.

It seems like an unnecessarily violent, degrading, and frankly unimaginative way to get the point across. Still, does it warrant this response?

Abdessemed's show, one of about a dozen public exhibitions that the 650-student school hosts each year, had opened fairly quietly. But as word spread among animal rights groups, more than 8,000 people sent e-mails to the institute slamming the show. Institute officials temporarily closed the show Wednesday and scheduled a public forum for Monday.

But then the tone of some of the e-mails turned violent, Bratton said, with threats against individual staff members, such as, "We're going to gather up your children and bludgeon their heads." Officials decided to shutter the exhibition permanently, the first time in the institute's 137-year history that a show was closed for safety reasons. They also canceled the forum.

"Some of the people who said the most threatening things said they would be present at the forum," Bratton said.

I mean, it's not like the employees of the Art Institute actually killed any animals themselves.. And even if they had... threatening their children? WTF? If this is supposed to teach some message about how we should protect all living beings, consider the point being totally lost.

And of course various leaders are falling over themselves to condemn the show, with quotes that sound not at all out of place coming out of the mouth of some rabid troglodyte right-winger.

McHugh-Smith of the SPCA said she is glad that the exhibition was canceled, particularly because it received some of its funding from San Francisco hotel taxes. The Art Institute gets about $80,000 in hotel taxes each year, which help pay for its public exhibitions and visiting artist programs.

"The San Francisco Art Institute used poor judgment in supporting 'shock art' in San Francisco," McHugh-Smith said. "To take this type of brutality against animals, call it art and use tax money to support it is deplorable."

O.K. Parents should have the right to raise their kids as they see fit, right? We should be supportive of each others' choices. The kid who was sleep trained at four months is probably as likely to come out all right as the one who slept with his/her parents until age 4.

Fine. But when it comes to medical issues, I draw the line. In particular, people who refuse to vaccinate their children because of vague scare stories, and people who believe they can heal their children with the power of prayer, drive me right up a wall.

O.K., that latter story is just too ridiculous, and obviously has immediate tragic consequences. If your child is seriously ill, you take them to a doctor, schmucks. Pray all you like, but your child needs you to do what's best for them, not go off into la-la land. And la-la land it is, as this open letter from the family's pastor makes clear.

The day after I first spoke with the Neumanns they called me again from their car, very concerned as they followed an emergency vehicle with Kara in it. They told me that she had stopped breathing and asked if I would pray that The Lord would spare her and raise her up, which I did. I called on our prayer ministers and elders to pray for her too. The next thing I heard from them was that they were being investigated, which is sad since they don't investigate the people who put their trust in doctors whose family members die by the hundreds of thousands from medical mistakes every year, according the AMA's own admission. We know that the doctors do the best they can with what they have and we do not condemn them. We would like the same consideration.

O.K., so applying that same "logic" to other areas... sometimes people get seriously ill because they get food poisoning. Therefore, the logical thing to do is never buy food for our children, because they might get sick. After all, they put their trust in the food production industry!

The vaccination thing is a bit more subtle, because, after all, shots hurt, there are definitely side effects, serious ones in a few cases, and after all, most people don't get the illnesses anymore that the shots are meant to protect against.

To your average anti-vac person, It looks like the choice is "Gee, I could take my kid to the doctor and she'll get shots and scream and feel yucky, or even have something worse happen, or I could not get the shots, and she'll be fine!" But that's NOT the choice. The real choice is, "Take a tiny risk now, versus a larger risk of my child getting seriously ill from a contagious disease that could have been prevented, and others getting sick too." I have a relative who still lives with the after-effects of contracting polio as a child. I bet she wishes the vaccine had been around then.

Sure, some people cannot safely be vaccinated, whether because of allergies or serious immune system problems. All the more reason that the rest of us should take our shots, because then we can protect those who can't protect themselves. It's called herd immunity, people.

Is the medical system imperfect? Yes. Nobody should unquestioningly pop pills without doing some research. But vaccinations have been proven to work many times over the years -- perhaps too well. Are the plagues that killed children in previous centuries going to have to return to make that point?

Call me harsh and judgmental, but I firmly believe that people that won't seek medical treatment for their children, or refuse to vaccinate them, are, despite the best intentions that they have, acting selfishly. They are imposing their beliefs on their children -- which, while it may be their prerogative in other areas (dragging their kids to church, homeschooling or sending to Catholic school, making their kids listen to Billy Joel, etc.) in this case, it is in a way that is likely to do them long-term harm -- and possibly harm other people too.

A U.C. Berkeley law clinic founded by one of my grad. school professors is defending a man accused of sharing information on how to defeat the print-limiting technology used by Coupons.com.

he Electronic Frontier Foundation and Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at UC Berkeley are coming to the rescue of a California man sued for posting code and instructions that allow shoppers to circumvent copy protection on downloadable, printable coupons.

The coupons, for General Foods, Colgate, Disney and others, are distributed by California-based Coupons Inc. through ad banners, e-mail and its website -- coupons.com. To access them, consumers must install Coupons Inc.'s proprietary software. The software assigns each user's computer a unique identifier, which the company uses to track and control the consumer's coupon-printing practices, usually limiting each user to two coupons per product. Each printed coupon has its own unique serial code.

The site is suing John Stottlemire in federal court, accusing the Fremont man of creating and giving away a program that erases the unique identifier, allowing consumers to repeatedly download and print as many copies of a particular coupon as they want.

One thing I'm loving about this election is how it's bringing the country back together. You may laugh, but for the past 8 years, it's felt like Democrats stood on one side of a gulf, Republicans on another, and we've just glared at each other across the void. You say, "Mission accomplished!" I say, "Quagmire." You say, "Attack on the American family," I say, "Civil rights." You say, "Let the people keep their money!" I say, "How are you going to pay for your stupid war, then?" And so forth we merrily go. It's been like living in a funhouse.

But now, all the boundaries are being erased. Take the conversation Michael and I had yesterday with a random guy in Long's Drugs, who overheard us arguing about John McCain and informed us that there's no way he's voting for the guy, he'd take Hillary Clinton over him any day, because McCain is too liberal for him. All I could say is,"I don't think you have to worry. McCain is plenty conservative." You've got to love it.

Now about that crack everyone's smoking. I'm hearing more and more people say that they'd rather vote for McCain than Clinton. And a new poll reveals that this is a big trend these days, albeit with a big percentage of Clinton supporters threatening to vote for McCain over Obama as well. Others are threatening to just not vote this year.

I am definitely a fan of Obama, and the more I see of the Clintons this election, the more I despise them. I don't want to see bad behavior rewarded.

And yet? I can never, never bring myself to not vote, or vote for a Republican. It's not the personalities, it's what the parties stand for. Michael points out that the Democrats don't deliver what they promise, that the death penalty will stand whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House, that our nuclear weapons programs will continue under either party, that the War on Drugs shows no signs of stopping under either party. These things are true.

But I've watched the Republican party strip away civil liberties, pretend environmental degradation wasn't happening, laugh at science, gut funding for social programs, legitimize torture and chip away at Roe vs. Wade (call me a one-issue voter, I admit it, but for me, Roe v. Wade represents a universe of attitudes about individuals' rights to make their own decisions, the imposition of other people's religious beliefs, the rights and status of women, and society's attitudes towards the family.)

John McCain served our country and sacrificed a big chunk of his life in war, and I appreciate that. But that doesn't mean I want him to be my president, sorry. He's got too many negatives for me, and on top of that, he promises to continue most Bush administration policies. He's jettisoned the positions that I admired, from campaign finance reform to opposition to waterboarding.

Look, I know it sucks to feel like you're always faced with the choice between two evils. But the truth is, there are major policy differences between Clinton and McCain (though, alas, not major character differences, it would seem.) I'm not condemning myself to another MINUTE under Republican rule if I can help it. If you're not a Republican, you shouldn't want to do that to yourself, or to your children, either.

I hope Obama wins the nomination, for everybody's sake. And if he doesn't, I'd like to find some way to punish bad behavior without punishing ourselves in the process.

OK, what was up with:

• The aging hippie guy riding his bike in the Mission today who: 1) wasn't wearing a helmet, 2) was wearing headphones, 3) was bobbing and weaving merrily along... almost into the side of a bus? Trying to win a Darwin award, much?
• The beautiful but sullen young woman on BART, also with headphones on and wearing sunglasses (in the tunnel?!?!) sitting in the seat under the sign that says very clearly, "THESE SEATS RESERVED FOR PEOPLE IN WHEELCHAIRS, SO MOVE YOU DUMBASS", who, when approached by a man with crutches and his friend in a wheelchair, pretended not to notice them, then said "WHAT?" a couple of times very loudly when they tried getting her attention, and then said sulkily, "Well I guess I'll have to move then!" (By the way, there was no shortage of other seats she could have plopped down in.

I shouldn't be overly cranky though. It was beautiful weather, lots of people in festive attire for Easter, and most of them were very nice. I just couldn't resist pointing out these two cases of egregiously bad behavior. Is it just the headphones? Or something more sinister?

Four thousand soldiers now dead in this stupid, evil, did I mention stupid? war. And that doesn't count all the civilians in Iraq.

Feh.

When I was in college, I spent a semester in England. Now, dorm food enjoys (is that the right word?) a notorious reputation for being not so good, as does English cuisine. Combine the two, and, well, you get me living on a diet of Yorkie bars, tinned Heinz baked beans, tinned spaghetti, toast, and green apples. Hell, even pot noodles were better than the food in my hall's kitchen.

In another fun combination, we can observe that college students are sometimes guilty of simplistic or even wrong-headed thinking, and Republicans are likewise prone to these errors...

So if you put 'em together, you can just imagine the geniuses you end up with.

• "I support McCain because he is committed to doing what is best for the largest number of people," said Wolf, 21. "He will protect small businesses, won't raise taxes, and does not make guarantees on health care and education that he can't keep."
• "No matter what statistics you look at, we're making progress both militarily and politically in Iraq," said the San Jose native. "McCain wants victory and the Democrats, with their commitment to pulling out, are promising defeat."
• "I am a Christian, and believe strongly that human life is sacred and needs to be protected," said Joy, 21, a business and economics major. "I also believe in traditional marriage to ensure liberty. (Otherwise), the government is essentially sanctioning relationships that are not in accordance with natural law."

I weep for the future.

For some reason, I keep reading Andrew Sullivan. Even when he comes up with gems like this.

For me, this is an epiphany of sorts. Not that I have changed my mind about the things I wrote in "The Conservative Soul." Not that I have stopped believing in limited government, individual freedom, personal responsibility, pragmatic change. But I have come to believe that large swathes of today's conservative movement truly are hateful.

Gee, yeah. YA THINK!??!!

I guess most people just use their ATM/credit cards when traveling these days, but I am still quite unnerved by the fact that currency exchange booths in Amsterdam won't take dollars anymore.

Crisis? What crisis? Nothing to see here. (Whistles.)

In honor of Obama's speech on race today, I link to this song from Avenue Q:

I lack the skills to do this, but I would love to see a video on YouTube with all the talking heads singing the lyrics: Wright, Ferraro, Clinton, Obama. (A pity Trekkie Monster doesn't appear in this number; he'd be amply played by Bill Clinton, I think.)

"We need a cleaning in that White House, and, we need a woman to clean it up, and that woman is Hillary Clinton..."

then the appallingly lame rap starts. Check it out.

But after watching this, I want to make a modest proposal. The Clinton campaign should keep Ferraro on, and the Obama campaign should get to keep Samantha Power. Deal?

I also had an idea for an editorial cartoon. I'm not so good at drawing these days, but somebody else should feel free to tackle it if they don't feel it's too tacky, which it is...

Somebody standing near the gravesite of Martin Luther King Jr., or Malcolm X, or Medger Evers — take your pick — says, "If he was a white man, he would not be in this position."

Now can we get back to being more outraged by the crap the Republicans are pulling, please?

President Clinton ran a campaign ad bragging about signing the Defense of Marriage Act.

Here's the full thing.

Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 09:33:35 -0500 From: logcabin@cais.com Subject: CLINTON DEFENDS ANTI-GAY ADS, WILL NOT PULL THEM

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: David Greer
October 15, 1996 (202) 347-5306

CLINTON WON'T PULL AD

Clinton-Gore Spokesman Says Anti-Gay Ad Will Continue to Run As
Is

(WASHINGTON) Despite rumors among gay Democratic activists that
the Clinton-Gore campaign would soon alter, pull or repudiate an
anti-gay radio ad running on Christian radio stations, a campaign
spokesman defended the ad and confirmed that it would continue
running unaltered.

In an article in today's Washington Times, entitled "For
Christian Radio, Clinton Changes Tune on Gays, Abortion," it was
reported that the Clinton-Gore campaign "shrugged off" angry
calls to shelve the radio ad. The article cited reports from gay
and lesbian groups that the campaign might delete the portion of
the ad which boasts of Clinton signing the anti-gay Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA), but "Clinton campaign spokesman Joe Lockhart
said there are no plans to alter the radio ads, which will run
for 'a few more days.'"

After boasting about Clinton signing the anti-gay DOMA, the ad
concludes with the line: "President Clinton has fought for our
values and America is better for it."

"After flip-flopping on gay issues for four years, President
Clinton seems to have made up his mind in the last days of the
campaign to go anti-gay," said Richard Tafel, executive director
of Log Cabin Republicans. "These ads reveal exactly where gays
and lesbians stand in his vision of America -- we're completely
expendable."

Disgusting. Really, really disgusting.

Many years ago I went to Morocco with some other friends; two of us were from the U.K. and two from California. We were expecting an exotic landscape like nothing we'd seen before. What we saw was partly that and partly strangely familiar. The Brits were much amused (and still are; the subject comes up to this day whenever we reminisce about that trip) by our propensity to point out similarities between, say, the nastier parts of Casablanca and some of the grittier streets in Oakland; the dry landscapes and crazy highways of the countryside versus those found all over Southern California; etc. etc. And doesn't the view from the Atlas Mountains of those farms down there remind you of coming out of the Grapevine into the Central Valley on I-5?

So my friends will probably be particularly tickled to know that, when I was shopping at Costco yesterday, as I walked among the food demo stands with the employees touting the virtues of their tempura-encrusted shrimp and their fine ravioli in alfredo sauce, dodging shopping carts, precariously stuffed shelves of boxes teetering above my head, when I suddenly had to scramble to get out of the way of the heavy machinery driven by a man yelling "Forklift! Forklift!"...

I was immediately transported back to the narrow alleyways of Fez, where men on donkeys warned you to move it or be squished with calls of "Balak! Balak!"

Remember how excited I was that Samantha Power was Obama's foreign policy advisor? No more. She had to resign because she called Hilary Clinton "a monster" during an interview with a reporter.

While my post heading may seem like a dramatic overstatement, bear in mind that the 20th century has seen one genocide after another, with the United States rarely stepping in until it was too late. Sure, we won WWII, but six million Jews were dead by then. The Rwandan genocide happened in a matter of weeks; we did nothing. Darfur? Still happening. And there are others that don't get the same attention, whose locations I'm ashamed to say I can't even recall at the moment.

When Bush got elected, he was briefed on this sad history of inaction. Supposedly he scribbled "Not on my watch" on a piece of paper. But really, it's been the same old, same old. And he's squandered our remaining moral authority and influence, not that we were using them well to begin with.

The selection of Samantha Power sent a signal that Obama was serious about 1) educating himself on foreign policy and 2) really doing something to halt current genocides and prevent future ones. It would be impossible to have such a person in your campaign, or administration, and not do something about these issues. She just wouldn't let you!

And then with one intemperate remark, she blew it all.

I'm sure she's kicking herself really hard today for what happened. But in the meantime, an invaluable opportunity has been lost. What are the chances that whoever wins the race for the White House is going to let her back in? And how many people are going to continue to die for their ethnicity as a result?

If John McCain gets elected, we should friggin' invade Canada.

I'm mostly joking.