This post is aimed at my family and friends who have tried to find my wishlist on Amazon.com. Apparently there are a bunch of people who share my name, but not my interests. A few of my favorite other Gregs :

The guy who wants the book that “Expos[es] the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values”.

The guy who wants a book of Green Day Packers “Jokes, Barbs, Fun & Facts”

The guys whose list consists of an out-of-print lesbian novel (not Lynne Cheney’s) and the Oxford English dictionary.

The guy (from my hometown, BTW) who wants a bunch of poker books and books to deal with self esteem and anger management problems

The guy who wants “Why Does He Do That: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men”. Perhaps he’s dating the previous Greg?

The guy who only wants a Matchbox Twenty CD

Unlike those other dudes, my wishlist isn’t full of crap. If you wanna see it, click here. Also, if you’ve got a wishlist of your own, post a link in comments. I’d love to see what other people are asking for.

Hey there red state voters, have you heard about what we’re doing in California??

Californians voted by a wide margin last month to pass a landmark $3 billion initiative to fund stem-cell research. That may have been the easy part.

Now, a state agency must be created from scratch to decide who gets the money from Proposition 71 and who will benefit financially from any scientific breakthroughs produced from the huge, taxpayer-funded gift.

Scientists and bureaucrats gathered Tuesday for a second day to begin hashing out the issues at a forum sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences (news - web sites) at the University of California, Irvine. But political wrangling has already begun, over matters such as who will lead the state agency and how best to ensure that the state gets its fair share of any financial windfall.

Meanwhile, in Sacramento, state Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, introduced legislation Monday “reform” the proposition.

Her proposed law would require drugs developed with state money be made affordable for the poor and would guarantee that California share in any profits realized by companies that benefit from the publicly supported research.

“As funders of this research, the people of California not only deserve, but are entitled to, appropriate royalties from their investment,” Ortiz wrote in a letter to the organizer of the Irvine meeting.

And speaking of this investment, guess who isn’t entitled to royalties on the investment??? That’s right, those of you who voted against stem cell research because of some made-up “moral concerns”.

In short, these stem cells are ours. The people of California, who believe enough in this technology to go even further into debt, are the ones who are willing to take the risks here while the rest of you are still pondering whether sperm should be allowed to vote. At some point in the future, our taxes will go up or our social services will be cut to pay for this. And it’s all because you were so goddamned arrogant, selfish, and ignorant that you strong-armed the President into conceding to your religious belief that an embryo in a freezer at a fertility clinic is a human being.

Needless to say, if the possibilities of stem cells live up to their promise and are able to cure an assortment of diseases, we’ll make sure you’re reminded of those ethical boundaries you set up for yourselves. We wouldn’t want you guys to inadvertently be responsible for “killing babies” or “playing God” by receiving the medical treatment you fought so hard to stop. And if you do have a miraculous change of heart, perhaps your stem cell treatment can be accompanied by a tattoo on your forehead that says “WARNING : My religious beliefs have clouded my judgment on scientific and ethical matters. Do not listen to me. Ever.”

Via Oliver, I see that New York Magazine has an interesting article titled Reasons They Haven?t Hit Us Again that explores some of the theories about why we haven’t seen another 9/11 style attack. Here’s an incredibly brief rundown of their top five theories (if you’ve got time, go read the whole thing) :

1. We?re On Al Qaeda Time. - They’re ready and just waiting for the right moment to attack.

2. New York Has Become A Difficult Target. - The NYPD’s anti-terrorism officials have been so beefed up, they’re no longer a “soft target”. Makes sense, but it doesn’t really explain why other soft targets haven’t been hit instead.

3. The French Have Saved Us. - Our intelligence services are crap, but the French already have leftover experts from “their days as colonial masters of Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco” that have helped us foil a few terrorist plots. I guess we can start calling them French fries again.

4. Suicide Bombings Don?t Work Here. - American culture is so goddamned wonderful that once a terrorist moves here, the steady supply of Big Macs, Jessica Simpson, and Old Navy make it unlikely that you’d want to kill yourself.

5. Bin Laden Isn?t A Terrorist, He?s A Killer. - Bin Laden saw 9/11 as an act of war. As such, his goal isn’t to terrorize people but kill as many as possible. Now that we’ve taken to war to them (ugh..), it’s easier for them to attack our troops instead of our office buildings.

Now it just so happens that I’ve had a theory of my own that’s been swimming through my head for a little while. Since it wasn’t even hinted at in the article above, here’s my additional theory of why they haven’t hit us again :

6. They Don’t Need To - Bin Laden’s goals with 9/11 were to provoke an extreme reaction from the United States that would galvanize the Arab world through an overbearing use of military might and a massive domestic expenditures that would cripple us financially. Considering the worsening economic picture (do Google search for “falling dollar” to get an idea) and the unification of the Islamic world against the United States, it doesn’t look like Bin Laden needs another 9/11 style attack to “rally his base”. This could also explain the more calm demeanor in his most recent video message. At this point, Bin Laden may be more concerned with seeming moderate in an attempt to get the Arab world to unite behind him.

Not that I think that explains everything, I’m just throwing it out there.

Personally, I think the lack of attacks has been for a combination of factors that includes the one above. I think the dispersal of al Qaeda into decentralized “franchises” has also made it much more difficult to pull off large scale attacks (like 9/11), but at the same time made it more likely that we’ll face smaller scale attacks (like Madrid) with little regard to an overall gameplan by leaders like bin Laden or al-Zarqawi. While I’m not completely surprised that we haven’t had another catastrophe, it is a little odd that there haven’t been more homegrown copycats.

Additionally. I think that there’s a strong element of “we’re on al Qaeda time” in the sense that I think the next major attack will likely coincide with an economic downturn and be devised as the crippling blow to our economy. If economists are correct in their predictions of an upcoming recession, it would make more strategic sense to wait until the dollar completely plunges, inflation gets out of control, massive layoffs resume, etc. for bin Laden to execute his plans for, say, a large scale attack on our oil supplies, the NYSE, and the headquarters for Manpower Inc. or something.

Of course, it could just be that they don’t hate our freedom as much as they used to.

Did you guys catch Arrested Development on Sunday night?? I especially loved when George Sr., who has spent this season on the run from the law because he was building houses for Saddam Hussein, was found hiding in a “spider hole”. The followup scene, in which his grandson was combing through his beard and examining his teeth, was a nice touch. Not to mention the bizarre recurring Peanuts reference (complete with a beagle sleeping on an oversized red dog house). Seriously, if you haven’t been watching it, you’re missing one of the smartest and funniest shows on TV. The episodes have tons of narration, so you can start watching the show at any time without feeling like you’ve missed something.

Millions of dollars have been levied in fines, broadcasters have been intimidated to the point of dropping “controversial” programming, and it all turns out to be a huge $%@&! scam (via Atrios) :

In an appearance before Congress in February, when the controversy over Janet Jackson?s Super Bowl moment was at its height, Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell laid some startling statistics on U.S. senators.

The number of indecency complaints had soared dramatically to more than 240,000 in the previous year, Powell said. The figure was up from roughly 14,000 in 2002, and from fewer than 350 in each of the two previous years. There was, Powell said, ?a dramatic rise in public concern and outrage about what is being broadcast into their homes.?

What Powell did not reveal?apparently because he was unaware?was the source of the complaints. According to a new FCC estimate obtained by Mediaweek, nearly all indecency complaints in 2003?99.8 percent?were filed by the Parents Television Council, an activist group.
. . .
The prominent role played by the PTC has raised concerns among critics of the FCC?s crackdown on indecency. ?It means that really a tiny minority with a very focused political agenda is trying to censor American television and radio,? said Jonathan Rintels, president and executive director of the Center for Creative Voices in Media, an artists? advocacy group.

All this fuss about a few thousands letters?? The blogosphere can do better than that. Since the FCC has apparently given the greenlight to any group with a political axe to grind to have their complaints taken seriously, perhaps we should find a worthy target of our own. Imagine if the combined might of the readerships of Kos, Atrios, and others were used to direct a torrent of complaints about, say, a homophobic diatribe on a religious broadcast station. Once the complaints start rolling in, I see one of three scenarios :

Fines are levied against the program in question, thus giving them a taste of their own medicine.

The FCC ignores the hundreds of requests giving us a perfect example of political bias in the agency (and provides handy lawsuit fodder for later).

The FCC gets overwhelmed with requests and overhauls this flawed system.

Any of these scenarios is a win for us. The key is to get everyone organized and send the flood of requests all at once. Any suggestions for a good target?

Apparently one of those Canadian baseball teams is moving to Washington D.C., which offers the unique opportunity to revive the classic team name “The Washington Senators”. Unfortunately for nostalgic baseball fans, tradition clashed with a local sore spot and the sore spot won :

The Washington Nationals will be born Monday…Team and District officials Friday scheduled an announcement of the new name for the former Montreal Expos franchise for noon at Union Station. The event will come with presentations of newly designed caps and logos. Uniform designs, however, are still not completed.

Leading the event will be team president Tony Tavares, general manager Jim Bowden and District Mayor Anthony A. Williams. Nationals officials Friday were feverishly seeking out players on the current roster and Washington Senators alumni to attend the announcement and celebrate the rebranding.
. . .
Commissioner Bud Selig wanted to resurrect the Senators name, used periodically by Washington’s first American League franchise and exclusively by its second. But Selig acquiesced to the objections of Williams, who felt Senators was inappropriate given the city’s lack of voting representation in Congress.

“I know I was in favor of the Washington Senators, because that’s what they used to be called,” Selig said. “But I guess that’s just not going to happen.”

In other words, “If they don’t let is have senators, you can’t be the senators.”

As far as the DC representation issue is concerned, I’m a little mixed. On the one hand, I really hate that the residents of the less populous “red” states are essentially overrepresented by having the same two senate votes we Californians do, so consistency guides me to reject giving the same three representatives to a city that we do to large states like Alaska and Montana. On the other hand, they’ve already got three electoral votes so shouldn’t the same shitty rules apply to everyone?

It seems to me that if the shoe was on the other foot and D.C. voted 90% Republican instead of Democrat, the GOP would be beating us over the head with the D.C. statehood issue like it was a civil rights issue (in some ways, it is). At least, that’s what I’d expect from the party that gave us Prop. 187 and is now treating skeptical Dems like anti-immigrant bigots for failing to support the Amend for Arnold movement.

Enjoy this fun, but poorly written, article about political correctness run amok :

The computer term “master/slave,” which was banned as racially offensive by a Los Angeles County purchasing department, was named the most politically incorrect term of the year on Thursday.

Among other terms on the top 10 list of politically charged words and phrases, issued by the word usage group Global Language Monitor, were “non-same sex marriage” to describe heterosexual unions, “waitron” for waiter or waitress and “higher being” for God, a term some people found too religious.
. . .
The phrase “non-same sex marriage,” was used by a former congressman who did not want to offend gay people by using the term traditional marriage, Payack said.

Also on the list this year were “Red Sox lover,” to use in place of “Yankee hater,” “progressive” for classical liberal, “incurious” rather than more impolite invectives for President Bush, “insurgents” instead of terrorists in Iraq, “baristas” for waiters, and “first year student” rather than freshman.

Wait a sec…what are “incurious” and “insurgents” doing on a list of politically incorrect terms?

Well, it looks like a writer a Reuters could use a lesson in logical fallacies, since this is supposed to be an article about terms that are politically correct. For what it’s worth, here’s the full list with my snarky commentary :

The Top Politically Correct Words and Phrases for 2004:

1. Device for master and captured device for slave in computer networking terminology

Maybe it’s just because I work in the IT field, but I’ve never found something remotely offensive about this terminology. It makes sense since the “master” device tells the “slave” devices what to do.

2. Non-same sex marriage, for marriage used in senate Presidential Primaries

What kind of crybabies would insist on a term like this??? It’s one thing if it was being used in place of “real marriage” or something, but “traditional marriage” is a perfectly acceptable term since traditionally (and by that I mean pretty much every culture for all of recorded time) has recognized marriage as being between a man and a woman. If anything, I’d think that terminology would be seen as gay-friendly since adding any qualifier to the word “marriage” implies that the institution isn’t strictly what homophobes insist it is.

3. Waitron for waiter or waitress

Is “waitron” one of those gender-neutral terms that popped up as a reaction to political correctness in the first place? Granted, it also sounds like the name of a robot, which I could see waitrons getting uptight about.

4. Red Sox Lover for Yankee Hater during the ALCS playoffs

Is the implication here that the only reason somebody would love the Red Sox because they actually hate the Yankees, or did I miss something during all those baseball games I refused to watch?

5. Higher Power for God

Whatever. Yet more fodder for the “they treat the Lord’s name like a dirty word” crowd.

6. Progressive for classical liberal

Ummmm….they’re two different terms. And it wouldn’t even be an issue if “liberal” hadn’t been made a dirty word by groups that include anti-PC crusaders.

7. Incurious rather than more impolite invectives for President Bush (such as idiot or moron)

Once again, there’s a difference between not having any curiosity about the world outside his little ideological bubble and being a dumbass. Bush is both.

8. Insurgents substituting for terrorists in Iraq

I wonder if the 80’s version of this list had “freedom fighters” listed for terrorists. Probably not…

9. Baristas rather than waitrons

Weren’t we just talking about coffee-serving robots a minute ago?

10. First year student rather than Freshman, though Frosh is still acceptable

“Frosh” is never acceptable, unless you want to look like someone who’s “incurious”.

Despite the seemingly endless parade of examples to the contrary, I still think political correctness is a noble goal. Sure, I think it often goes too far, it’s not to much to ask for people to try to be more sensitive to their peers every now and then.

I love this. Check out Jerry Falwell completely contradict himself :

MATTHEWS : How did they get to be gay, though?

FALWELL : Well, we probably differ there.

MATTHEWS : I’m asking.

FALWELL : But I think all behavior is chosen.

MATTHEWS : I’m open. I don’t know.

FALWELL : I think that…

MATTHEWS : Did you choose to be heterosexual?

FALWELL : I did.

MATTHEWS : You chose it? You thought about it and you came up with that solution? That lifestyle? (CROSSTALK)

FALWELL : Put it this way. I was taught as a child that’s the right way to…

MATTHEWS : But did you feel an attraction toward women?

FALWELL : Oh, of course.

MATTHEWS : When people are born and they find themselves having an attraction to somebody from the same sex, do you think that’s a choice?

FALWELL : I think you can experiment with any kind of perversity and develop an appetite for it, just like you can food.

MATTHEWS : You don’t think it’s nature? You think it’s nurture.

FALWELL : I don’t think any — I don’t think anybody is born a bank robber or born a hostile left-winger or a hostile right-winger or gay or a promiscuous heterosexual. I think there comes a time in childhood where environment may be a part of it, whatever, teaching, instruction, one chooses, I will do this or that. And that’s why good, godly parenting… (CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS : How old were you when you chose to be heterosexual?

FALWELL : Oh, I don’t remember that.

MATTHEWS : Well, you must, because you say it’s a big decision.

FALWELL : Well, I started dating when I was about 13.

MATTHEWS : And you had to decide between boys and girls. And you chose girls.

FALWELL : I never had to decide. I never thought about it. (CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS : I think it’s a ridiculous proposition that you actually sit down and decide. Let me see, boy or girl this week. Anyway…

FALWELL : I don’t think anybody does that.

It all makes sense really. Homosexuality is a choice in which nobody actually chooses anything. It’s a lifestyle that’s chosen, but not decided…or something like that. For someone who’s quick to pat himself on the back from moral certitude, his reasoning is one hell of a puzzle, huh? Perhaps he’s just plying Matthews with a philosphical riddle. Sorta like “How can someone be a man of God, but act like the Devil at the same time?”

Of course, the real story here is that Falwell, like so many of his peers, said something completely retarded and ended up changing his story rather than (a) confessing that he’s fantasized about screwing dudes or (b) completely admitting he’s full of shit. Apparently, flip-flopping is only an issue if Democrats do it. Is it too much to ask that one of the country’s most influental religious leaders shows a little bit of moral and intellectual consistency??

It doesn’t make sense. Rock and roll (mostly) doesn’t suck. Christianity (mostly) doesn’t suck. But when you put the two together, you get an abomination. Christian rock is stereotypically the kind of crap that offends music fans as well as the ultra-religious. Since I’ve been as guilty as anyone of prejudging “God Rock” (I also like the term “Life Metal”), here’s a mini-examination of this musical subculture.

As it happens, one of my favorite musicians, Superdrag frontman John Davis, recently “found God” and has decided to move away from making secular music. Here’s how he explained it to the fans on his message board.

Looks like I might end up doing a solo record of my own before too long. It’s all hypothetical at this point, but I’m in the process of trying to write some material that reflects where I’m at spiritually and philosophically these days. It’s quite a different place to be than what it used to be, and I want to make a record that puts that across in no uncertain terms. I’ve got a notion to try some things that are radically different than what Superdrag’s been doing, and I’m prepared to take full responsibility for it, for better or worse, so I’m only gonna put my name on it! Over all, it’ll probably be a little bit mellower than what you’re used to hearing from me, and I think that’s allright. I’ll let you know more as soon as I get it figured out.

As a jaded athiest who’s sensitive to people pushing their religious views, I wasn’t especially fond of this news, but was willing to give his new music the benefit of the doubt.

Well, it’s been a year and a half since John Davis’s “coming out”. With an album and EP on the way, here’s what I think of his current crop of music. (Click on the song titles for an MP3)

Have Mercy - This track has a great southern rock vibe that, like “Spirit in the Sky”, rocks enough to make you overlook the number of times he sings “Help me Jesus”. This would fit well his earlier work.

Me & My Girl - Wait a sec…is this one of those love songs that you don’t realize until later that he’s singing about Jesus? Probably not, so it’s at least nice that Davis isn’t one of those performers who find secular work to be blasphemy.

Jesus Gonna Build Me A Home - This is his most obviously religious song so far, but it’s got a great gospel sound. I especially like the George Harrison-esque slide guitar solo that ends this sample.

Salvation - This is an odd one since it actually predates Davis’ religious conversion. The demos of this song are a highlight of the Superdrag bootlegs I have, so it’s nice to see this one dusted off.

Too Far Gone - This song, like the others, is a great bit of indie rock….until the end. Then it hits you on the head with it’s message. This last bit reminds me of every Christian rock cliche and why I wrote off this whole subgenre in the first place.

The final few seconds of “Too Far Gone” pretty much sum up why I think so many people turn up their noses at religious music. I want to avoid the word “preachy” here, since it’s fraught with connotations of self-righteousness, so instead I’ll say that the problem here seems to be an overwhelming lack of subtlety.

Not that I’m saying that this lack of subtlety is exclusive to Christian music, either. In a similar vein, Paul McCartney’s cheeky “Silly Love Songs” rubs almost everyone the wrong way with it’s incessant refrain of “I love yoooouuuu…”. Perhaps even more egregious is Bob Dylan’s legendarily obnoxious “Rainy Day Women #12 & 35″ whose chorus of “Everybody must get stoned!” makes it one of the most unlistenable pieces of shit ever composed by a “musical genius”.

Back to John Davis, it seems that his music has mostly survived the transition into the religious realm. That being the case, it kinda leaves me with more questions than answers :

Could the tendency of religious rock to show “an overwhelming lack of subtlety” be the result of performers religious inspirations overwhelming their musical ones?

Is John Davis’s music better than that of his Christian rock peers? If so, is it because he got his start in secular music? If not, what other good music am I missing out on because it only serves a religious audience?

This all leads me to other questions about the Christian music industry in general. Does the emphasis on “spreading the word” result in the success of musicians who normally wouldn’t make it in the mainstream music industry? By contrast, would a relative lack of emphasis on style and financial gain make it more likely that a talented musician could find success doing something that the soulless mainstream music industry would likely destroy?

Here’s a photo of the next Secretary of Homeland Security, Bernard Kerik, showing everyone how many more minutes of fame he has left.

It’s been nice meeting you, Bernard. We’ll see you again next time Kerl Rove needs to scare us. Just a reminder, the two primary responsibilities of your new position are defending the homeland from terrorist threats and defending the President from inconvenient facts. As long as you don’t forget the second one, you’ll work out just fine.