<
I see trees of green, red roses too,
I see them bloom for me and you
and I think to myself...
these are really good drugs!
I see skies of blue, and clouds of white,
the bright blessed bag, the dark sacred pipe,
and I think to myself,
this is really good pot.
The colors of the rainbow, so pretty in the sky,
are also on the music that I see floating by.
I see friends shaking hands, saying 'how do you do!'
They're really saying, 'can I have some too?'
I hear babies cry, I watch them grow,
they'll learn much more than I'll ever know
'cause I think that by now, my brain is so fried.
Yes with all of these drugs, my brain is so fried.
*A parodied/plagiarized version. Original lyrics and music by George David Weiss and Bob Thiele. Parodied version by Muser Anonymous. Permission to parody and plagiarize was not sought, but will be, if I ever turn professional. Or even amateur.
At the start of this month, President George W. Bush over-ruled the judicial system and commuted the sentence of 'Scooter' Libby, evidencing a level of governmental arrogance not seen since Nixon. At that time, I was one of many suggesting the appropriateness of impeachment or resignation. Nothing happened.
Today I learned of two new Executive Orders set by Bush in the past week. (Apparently it's been a busy week for fascism.) I refer, of course, to July 17's "Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq ", and July 20th's "Executive Order: Interpretation of the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 as Applied to a Program of Detention and Interrogation Operated by the Central Intelligence Agency". I'll be discussing the July 20th order in a later blog, but it bears a visit.
The first executive order, according to Mr. Bush, has been made "due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people...." The whole order is more difficult to read than the neuropsych journal articles I had to review for my BA thesis. So I copied it out and reviewed it section by section to summarize it. Then I went online to other blogs and articles to get clearer translations. THEN I got scared.
So, as a summary of July 17's Executive Order (I couldn't find the number):
Section 1: when you are living in the United States, your property can be blocked and/or seized, by the Secretary of the Treasury, if they, after consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, decided that you (or a member of your family, one supposes), have done any of the following:
i. a. have committed or may commit an act of violence that would threaten the peace or stability of Iraq or the government of Iraq. (Quick question: Bush is leading a war which is not wanted by either American citizens or Iraqi citizens. One supposes that forcing a country to have a war within it's borders threatens the peace and stability of that country. So... could Bush's property be seized? Could he be thrown out of 'his' house? Could his property and assets be liquidated to pay the merest fraction of the cost of this war that no one wants? WOULD it? Let's take a minute to laugh hysterically here....)
i.b. have committed or may commit an act of violence that would interfere with American efforts to improve economic reconstruction, political reform, and humanitarian aid in Iraq.
ii. to have given financial or material support or to have given information which contributes to acts of violence, or if you financially support someone whose own financial assets have been seized pursuant to this executive order. In other words, if you aid a terrorist, or if you aid someone suspected of being a threat according to this executive order, even if that person is then found innocent and their stuff is given back to them, YOU YOURSELF would be guilty and could have your assets frozen/seized/stuffed in a pinata and sent to the next Republican shin-dig.
iii. if They believe you are 'owned' or controlled by, or are acting knowingly or unknowingly someone whose own actions "are blocked pursuant to this order."
Section 2: any action taken by a person living in the United States, or which runs through a United States institution (such as an American bank, by people living outside of American borders), for the purpose of evading or violating this executive order, is forbidden. So do not do anything which violates this order. Seriously. It could get ugly.
Don't even conspire (i.e., discuss, plan, contemplate, or THINK) about violating this order. Doing so is also forbidden.
Section 3: a 'person' is an individual or entity (boy, is my cat in trouble... you should hear him go on about Bush...), 'entity' is a "partnership, association, trust, joint, venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization" (oh... good... cat is off the hook...), and the term 'United States person' includes citizens, permanent resident aliens, entities organized under the laws of the US, or anyone currently IN the United States. So don't come visit.
Section 4: the making of donations in the manner outlined in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA by people whose property has been seized pursuant to this order would make it harder for the president to deal with the current national emergency as declared in Executive Order 13303 and 133015, so you can't make these donations any more.
The IEEPA is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Section 203(b)(2) (as found here) states that the president is NOT allowed to prevent donations of humanitarian aid unless he believes that these donations "seriously impair" his ability to deal with a national emergency. So if your property is seized because you are suspected of engaging in, supporting, or CONSIDERING engaging in or supporting any act which would make the president's job more difficult as he tries to bring economic stability and humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq, you yourself can no longer contribute to any humanitarian relief efforts. Okay. But I gotta say... if your property has been seized, odds are good you aren't making many humanitarian relief donations anyways, 'cause you're likely in need of humanitarian relief for YOURSELF.... Bush deals with this issue, however. Section 4 also means that making aid donations to a person whose property has been seized would also impair the president's ability to deal with the current national emergency, so it is now forbidden. In other words: if your friend, family member, or coworker has had his/her assets seized because they are suspected of engaging in, planning to engage in, or have given thought to interfering with the President's workings in this national emergency, you can't help them. Do not give them shelter. Do not give them food. Do not give them clothing. Do not let them use your washing machine. And for pete's sake, don't give them any of those mini bottles of shampoo you got from the hotel when you went to the conference last year. How can we expect the President to bring peace to Iraq when we're handing out sample shampoo bottles willy-nilly?!?
Section 5: Our ability to transfer funds and assets quickly makes this a difficult order to enforce if you have warning that the government is going to seize your assets. So they won't tell you ahead of time. This makes sense. If you are going to take everything a person owns, you don't want to give them notice; there's less for you to take, and they would have time to get some sort of support system in place so they are less traumatized by the whole affair. This again would make it harder for Bush to address the current National Emergency.
Section 6: the Secretary of the Treasury, if he talks with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, can do whatever is deemed necessary to carry out the PURPOSE of this order. And the purpose of this order is... to prevent any opposition to the president's handling of the current National Emergency? These duties can also be re-delegated to other officers and agencies of the US government. Which is good, 'cause otherwise that's a lot of work for the Secretary of Treasury, and a lot of conversations with the Secretaries of State and Defense. Delegated officials are to keep the Sec of Treas informed in a timely manner. So, you know... whenever....
Section 7: This order is not intended to affect the "effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action" except as explicitly stated. So, constitutional rights are violated, but otherwise there should be no change.
Section 8: this order does not give any right, benefit, or privilege which could be enforced by law against the US or any agent/agency acting on behalf of the US. Well duh.
So blogs and articles perused (see the list below) say this order infringes on the rights of people opposed to the current war in Iraq. I admit, when I first read the order, I thought that freedom of speech still stood. After all, this order pertains to "acts of violence." It says so, right at the start. But there is nothing that limits the support of violent acts to actual actions, such as giving money or materials or telling someone how to build a bomb. So even saying "I understand why so-and-so did that..." could get you in trouble. So to does even contemplating committing a violent act (does this remind anyone else of "Minority Report"?). If there's a risk that you could commit a crime, you're guilty of the crime. And gotta say... we're all at risk of committing some crime of some sort at some point in our lives. So it's a good thing that the judicial system isn't set up this way.
This order also gives terrifying power of the "act now, seek corroborative information later, if ever" kind ... power not even used in the judicial system with its pesky requirement of presumed innocence. It also threatens the flow of humanitarian aid to Iraqi civilians, and it threatens aid to American residents whose assets are seized. A person could be financially destroyed by this action... and if they are innocent? Oops, sorry. Just ad this to the list of abuses committed on innocents in the name of the war on terror. We already have people whose travel can be delayed or prevented because their name is on a "watch list," even if the 'watched' person just has the same name. Phones can be tapped and conversations monitored if you are a 'suspected terrorist.' American residents have been detained, extradited, and/or tortured because of suspected terrorist links. Heresy evidence is acceptable in court trials of suspected terrorists, though not in 'regular' court cases. And in Britain, a man suspected of terrorist activity was shot in the head by police in July 2005; since 2001, plainsclothes policemen had the right to shoot dead anyone suspected of being a suicide bomber. Good intentions, yes, but very very tragic result.
Some proponents have argued that this order makes a distinction between 'freezing' and 'seizing' of assets... your stuff is there, you just can't access your money. But certainly, you can pawn your watch to buy food when you've run out of cash, unless your material assets get 'frozen' too. And you get everything back when you're found innocent... minus lawyer fees, one presumes.
According to http://www.tpmmuckraker.com, this order was made to address insurgents from Syria and Iran who were crossing into Iraq, to reduce THEIR ability to support Iraqi insurgents fighting Bush's efforts to bring economic and political stability and humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq. Unfortunately, those Syrian and Iranian insurgents are in Iraq (or Syria or Iran), and not on American soil, but if they ever DO come to American soil, we now have the Executive Order to deal with them.
?
And according to http://www.tpmmuckraker.com, Millerwise, spokesperson for the Treasury Department, was cited as saying that 'U.S. persons shouldn't fear designation by the order if they aren't supporting insurgent organizations. "Be assured that the individuals and entities we add to this list are in full faith acting in an aggressive, violent and reckless way in financing the insurgency," she says "These things are strongly vetted, going layers and layers back. (A group) donating money to orphans getting swept up in this doesn't seem to be a valid concern."' Strongly vetted. Yeah. Tell that to Maher Arar, the Canadian-Syrian arrested during a stopover in a New York airport, suspected of terrorism so deported to Syria for a year of torture before being declared innocent and allowed to return to Canada. His crime was having an an acquaintance, someone he "barely knew," another suspected terrorist. But it is good to know that donating money to orphans is safe... until the government suspects that the adults running the orphanage may be funneling money to insurgents, willingly or not. Then you're screwed, 'cause you've been supporting insurgents, even if you didn't know it.
This order might be understandable if we were in the middle of a war which we hadn't ourselves created... such as World War II, where the despot was on the side of the bad guys.... But at THIS time, this order only increases the government's power and potential for constitutional and human abuses. Now, they can also devastate you financially and separate you from any physical means of support. Some call it fascism... some call it dictatorship... we can call it the New United States. Because this order doesn't just address terrorists or "suspected terrorists" who may or may not blow up something. This order addresses anyone who enters the United States and engages or has engaged or may engage in thoughts, speech, or action which might be construed as:
1. "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction," that is, are opposed to the confiscation and privatization of Iraqi oil. (So... does that mean hybrid car makers are in trouble, or just those who say Iraqi citizens should have the right to decide what happens to Iraqi resources?)
2. opposing the dictatorial force of one government forcing another country to become democratic;
3. in general opposing the war;
4. giving humanitarian aid to those affected by this war or by this order.
What I find more disconcerting, is the following, found on http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=172&a=2839;
"In May 2007, Bush issued a major presidential National Security Directive (National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20), which would suspend constitutional government and instate broad dictatorial powers under martial law in the case of a "Catastrophic Emergency" (e.g. Second 9/11 terrorist attack).
On July 11, 2007 the CIA published its "National Intelligence Estimate" which pointed to an imminent Al Qaeda attack on America, a second 9/11 which, according to the terms of NSPD 51, would immediately be followed by the suspension of constitutional government and the instatement of martial law under the authority of the president and the vice-president. (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, June 2007)
NSPD 51 grants unprecedented powers to the Presidency and the Department of Homeland Security, overriding the foundations of Constitutional government. It allows the sitting president to declare a “national emergency” without Congressional approval The adoption of NSPD 51 would lead to the de facto closing down of the Legislature and the militarization of justice and law enforcement. "
This means we could be seeing George W. in control of the US government... well, until he feels it is "safe" to return power to the people.
And suddenly... living in Canada doesn't seem to be far enough away to truly be safe... I mean... what if Bush decides that Canadians are impacting his ability to bring peace, democracy, and economic stability to Iraq?
The following blogs and articles were read prior to writing this blog:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003726.php
http://www.democraticunderground.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com/...132x3396378
http://pressesc.com/...bushs-anti-torture-executive-order
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003741.php
http://www.nowpublic.com/...criminalizing_antiwar
http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=172&a=2839
http://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/archives/001892.html
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/07/keeping-watch-in-terrorism-watch-lists.php
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger80.html
http://dir.salon.com/...british_police/index.html
http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=21183
http://www.boingboing.net/2003/11/06/maher_arar_terrorist.html
Satire Man
It’s Wednesday night and I’m feeling like
This week is just not going to end.
If I hear one more news brief or sob story
I swear that I’ll go ‘round the bend.
So I drag myself home to my stereo
And I grab the first disk that I find.
I hit play and I pray and then I start to sway
To sweet polka that soothes my stressed mind.
Oh, la li la, li de da da
La la, li le la da dum
Sing us a song, you’re the satire man,
Sing us a song, tonight.
Yes, we’re all in the mood for a parody
‘Cause we know reality bites.
There are tender torch songs for the lovelorn
Who want to see their ex get maimed.
And a sweet little ditty about a guy you would pity
With a libido that cannot be tamed.
There are medleys of popular rock hits
Done in polka, as God first intended.
And the Yoda chant hitch is it left me in stitches;
Tried to learn it, but overextended.
[Chanted]
PORK!
Homina! Homina!Homina homina homina!
ba ba oom mow mow
ba ba oom mow ma mow
ba ba oom mow mow
ba ba oom mow ma mow
Oh, la li la, li de da da
La la, li le la da dum
The accordion crashes great waves of sound
And the drum beats send my feet to dance.
Soon I’m singing along to a glorious song
About how I’m a genius in France.
And he’s riding around on his Segway,
And his leg is up behind his head;
I’m surprised that he hasn’t yet hurt himself,
And am very glad that he’s not dead.
Sing us a song, you’re the satire man,
Sing us a song, tonight.
‘Cause you’re bright and you’re funny and so limber now
And patently nerdy and white.
I watch interviews and videos on YouTube
But my disk copies are all legit.
Yes, to download these songs would truly be wrong;
He deserves to be paid for his wit.
There’s no politics, no swearing, and no violence
(Except for that gross weasel song).
So, now please don’t perspire, but I’d like to enquire
How’s the next album coming along?
Oh, la li la, li de da da
La la, li le la da dum
Sing a polka, a rap or soliloquy,
Just sing us a song tonight.
'Cause we all sure could use a good laugh now
And we know that you’ll do it right.
*Please do not copy, abscond with, or plagarize this song. I've done enough plagarism for the both of us. You are, however, welcome to send people to this link so they can learn the lyrics and enjoy the song for themselves. If publicly singing the song, please (a) let me know so I can be appropriately thrilled, and (b) contact me for my actual name for proper citation of authorship, with my thanks. Hey, I'm seeing if I can establish a career here...!
And yes, I have too much free time.
And then 'Scooter' Libby happened, and it became apparent that (a) Bush is WAY stupider than I gave him credit for; (b) not ALL the American people are screwed, 'cause those working in his particular corner of the Republican kingdom are doing just fine; and (c) if Bush and Cheney do not resign now, the United States can no longer truthfully be considered a democracy being goverened by the people, for the people. Because the people found Scooter guilty, the justice system set a fair and appropriate punishment, and the President has no right over-ruling the justice system. Especially not before the appeals process has even been fully utilized.
http://www.rosie.com/blog/2007/07/05/amen-keith/
As Keith so aptly states, Bush's commuting of Scooter's sentence indicates a willingness to subvert the constitution for his own personal gain. People now must wonder if it was Bush, rather than/with Cheney, who told the aide to do whatever was necessary to discredit a dissenting ambassador, even if it risked the life of a brave undercover agent and her contacts. Since 9/11 we have seen Bush sow the seeds and fan the flames of fear, realizing his dream of being a two-term president at the cost of the lives of soldiers and civilians on both sides of the war in Iraq, at the cost of peace of mind and a sense of safety on our own home soil both in the States and in Canada, and at the cost of lives and property lost during Hurricane Katrina. Bush is working for himself, not his country. Keith compares Bush's most recent activities with those of former president Richard Nixon... and Nixon is looking pretty good. He at least did not have history to learn from; Bush does. Both men obstructed justice for their own personal gain. Both men hoped the American people would follow them blindly and not ask to see who was controlling what behind the curtain. Nixon had the sense, and patriotism, to step down as president rather than drag the country through the time, cost, and energy of an impeachment. It is such a shame for the American people that Bush and Cheney appear to lack that sense of responsibility, of patriotism, of duty to the American people they swore to serve.
And just days after the United States commemorates it's fight for independence, it is especially ironic to realize that the US has become a monarchy, ruled by a madman controlling a fool. Which is which, doesn't seem all that important any more.
On April 22, 2006, Jeremy Allan Steinke, age 23, "high on cocaine... and riled up by repeated viewings of Oliver Stone's ultra-violent movie "Natural Born Killers"," broke into the Richardsons' home and killed his girlfriend's parents. He then demanded that the girl, age 12, kill her brother. She grabbed him in a choke hold and stabbed him, but could not kill him. So Steinke did.
The two stayed in Medicine Hat overnight, and used Mrs. Richardson's ATM card to get money, stopped at a convenience store for munchies, and visited (at least) one party, at which they were observed to be giggly and affectionate. They went to Saskatchewan the next day, where they were arrested.
Upon their arrest, Miss Richardson was sent to a detention facility, first in Saskatchewan, then in Alberta. Mr. Steinke was sent to a psychiatric institution for evaluation. The prosecution was originally going to request a psych evaluation of Miss Richardson, but they didn't, so it didn't happen. Both were charged with three counts of first-degree murder. Mr. Steinke has not yet entered a plea, and no trial date has been set. Nor has he been charged with statutory rape.
Pertinent to this blog is the following information:
a) prior to the murders, the Richardsons had grounded their daughter in an attempt to keep her from the 23-year-old Steinke. Her friends also did not approve of the relationship.
b) the girl, previously a good student and friendly, reportedly underwent a marked personality change when her relationship with Steinke commenced.
c) Steinke often claimed to be a 300-year-old werewolf and wore a necklace with a vial that he claimed held blood.
d) though her friends didn't take her seriously, the girl had been heard (and read online) to talk about wanting her parents dead, and possibly to joke about she and her boyfriend doing the killing. Blogs reviewed after-the-fact are disturbing and suggest a serious break from reality.
e) after their arrest and before her trial, police ferried letters between the accused, including a marriage proposal from the then-24-year-old Steinke to the then 13-year-old girl, and her giggling acceptance.
f) the prosecuting attorney's argument was that these murders had been planned by both Miss Richardson and Steinke. As evidence, the prosecuting attorney relied primarily on (i) emails, blogs, and reported comments, and (ii) Miss Richardson's lack of an attempt to prevent, stop, or report the murders after-the-fact. In rebuttal, Miss Richardson reported that she hadn't meant for Steinke to take her comments seriously, and that she didn't intervene because she was in shock. She had also just lost all her family and only had Steinke left to cling to.
g) a friend of Steinke's testified that Steinke had approached HIM for assistance with the murders, claiming that Miss Richardson had told Steinke that if he didn't kill her parents, she would stop seeing him.
h) when charging the jury, the judge told them that, "even if Steinke physically stabbed the girl's mother, her father and brother, under Canadian law, an accused can be found guilty if they intentionally help, encourage or persuade another person to commit a crime. The judge also told the jury that to find the accused guilty of first-degree murder, they must agree that the Crown proved there was planning and deliberation involved."
Miss Richardson has been tried and found guilty of three counts of first degree murder. Sentencing will be decided August 23rd. She can get up to 10 years, four of which would be served in the community. But before the sentencing hearing, she is to undergo psychiatric evaluation.
I have had a few concerns throughout this process, and am a bit surprised that I haven't heard anyone else raise them.
1. First, a girl who cannot be held responsible for her own medical, financial, or life decisions is being held responsible for murders committed by an adult, on the grounds that she 'encouraged or persuaded' a man almost twice her age to kill her family.
Maybe she did 'encourage or persuade' him. Steinke's claim to be a werewolf suggests delusion. His heavy pharmaceutical use suggests impaired cognition. His willingness to date/have sex with a child suggests any of a whole whack of psychological issues, including extreme immaturity... impaired reasoning skills... being perverse.... So this is a person who might be manipulated into performing violent acts.
But she is a child. And since when have we held children responsible for the actions of adults? Regardless of how much she may have whined, nagged, pleaded, provoked the man, how is she more responsible for his behaviour than he is for hers? Because before she was dating Steinke, Miss Richardson evidenced no homicidal ideations. Friends and family report drastic personality changes and the development of a much darker (goth) personae after she started dating him. Yes, she could have been attracted to him because of a shift in her personality, but we don't have enough information to make such a distinction.
The Richardsons did everything they could to protect their daughter; it is what got them killed. But where was his family and friends in this? Reportedly his mother understood his relationship because she herself had been in an age-discrepant relationship. Does this mean that his mother was monitoring the relationship and found it was healthy? Or was she not getting her troubled son the help he needed before everything went horribly wrong?
2. The prosecuting attorney argued that Miss Richardson's refusal to intervene during the attack, that she stayed with him after the attack, and that she had ample interaction with other people but chose not to report the murders, indicates that she was part of the planning process. Indeed, the prosecuting attorney presented Miss Richardson as the driving force and Steinke as the tool.
At 12-13, children typically know right from wrong. They know not to steal, they know not to do drugs, and they know not to murder. But they know not to do these things largely because of the consequences. It isn't a case of "don't do this because it's a societal wrong;" it's a "don't do this 'cause you'll get in serious trouble." It would be more a sense of "good girls don't kill their parents" or "don't kill your parents because you don't get anything good out of it, just a lot of trouble." And pre-teens and adolescents, especially those who already have psychological issues of some sort, are susceptible to fantasy and fuzzy/illogical thinking. Because that's another thing to keep in mind about pre-teens and adolescents; their frontal lobe hasn't kicked in yet. They frequently get in trouble for 'not thinking' before they act. They have the cognitive skills to come up with some wonderfully inventive and imagine ideas, but lack the impulse control and reasoning skills to even consider potential risks and negative consequences. Again, murder is an extreme behaviour and multiple murders, as this was, is not likely to have been impulsive. But it is also quite possible that she got swept up in the excitement of some perverse fantasies and lacked the cognitive skills to put a stop before things got out of hand. She may also have thought they were engaging in delightful fantasy and missed his cues indicating that he was taking her seriously. We don't know. But it seems wrong to expect her to reason through the consequences of murder as would an adult. Indeed, children under the age of 14 cannot be given adult sentences for 'adult' crimes because they aren't adults. So the prosecuting attorney's assumption that, because Miss Richardson didn't act as you would expect an innocent adult to, she must not be innocent, is crap, based on faulty premises and insufficient information. So holding a pre-teen responsible for saying she wanted her parents dead... yes, she said some horrible things, and should be held responsible for them. But first degree murder? Saying that just her comments alone were sufficient to coerce an adult into committing murder? Making her as responsible for the crimes as the adult who committed them? It doesn't feel right.
The prosecuting attorney also argued that because Miss Richardson didn't report the crimes after-the-fact and went willingly with her family's murderer, she must have been a partner in the crime. This does not take into account what we know about (a) shock, trauma, and fear; and (b) dysfunctional relationships and adolescents.
Let me spin a little tale here. A pre-teen, who may or may not have self-esteem, anger, family, and/or mental health issues, attracts the attention of an older guy. In the pre-teen/teen world, this is amazing. This is a popularity boost, this is an esteem boost, this is non-caloric-but-great-tasting-chocolate-at-an-all-you-can-eat-chocolate-buffet-after-you-win-the-lottery. Teens are all about drama: they are hard-wired to be. Their hormones are going wonky, parts of their brain are kicking in for the first time, and neuronal connections are getting made and trimmed. There's a darn good reason why Shakespeare depicted Romeo and Juliet as teenagers: adults would have taken the time to check for a pulse. So here is a girl who has attracted the notice of an older guy. And he likes her. Her parents disapprove, as they should. They try to prevent her from seeing him. They cut off her computer access, they monitor (or limit) phone access, and they ground her. They do all they can to keep their daughter safe. She doesn't take this well. It feeds the sense of drama, though; the Romeo-and-Juliet-ishness of the relationship to have her family disapprove, and sadly, the forbidden often becomes more desirable. Her boyfriend comes in and kills her family in front of her. This is terrifying. But he does it, he says, because he loves her. And now he is literally all she has left.
Frighteningly, a girl could very well go with her boyfriend after this. Maybe out of fear; he's just killed her family, so what would he do to her? Maybe she got caught up in the excitement, the whole Bonnie-and-Clyde/National Born Killer-ness. (I mean, come on; if he can claim mitigating circumstances of drug use and too many viewings of NBK, why can't she?) Maybe she just didn't want to be alone. We don't know. We can't know, because no one did a psych evaluation. All we have is her testimony that she was "like a zombie," and friends' observations that they were giggly, amorous, and on drugs. But with all these possible reasons for her to have gone with him after the murders, how could the prosecuting attorney argue the one theory without gathering supporting evidence, as would have happened (or at least been more likely to happen) during a psych evaluation?
3. And that's the third point I have, and the thing that disgusts me the most. A 23-year-old male has a sexual relationship with a child and kills her family, so he is automatically carted off to a psychiatric institution for evaluation. The 12-year-old girl does not. More than anything else, this is what disturbs me. There were too many unanswered questions, such as her mental state prior to the murders, after the murders, how she feels about her family now, how she feels about him, what kind of fantasies she has created. All this information would contribute to our understanding of her input on the planning and execution of this slaughter. And we have none of it.
4. A fourth point is actually more a question than a point: is it not entrapment, or at least a violation of someone's rights for the police to have ferried (and read, obviously, or how else could the contents have become public knowledge) letters between the defendants?
5. Finally, why were letters from her sexual predator permitted? Did anyone discourage her from continuing communication? And again; why was there no psych evaluation?
It is impossible to know the full story from online articles, but what is out there suggests inadequate advocacy. It looks like society was appalled (and rightly so) at the slaughter of a child's family. Needing a scapegoat, society picked the child. She could be considered the fourth victim of a mentally-disturbed sexual predator and to have reduced responsibility due to age, emotional and cognitive development, being victimized by a sexual predator, and being in an unhealthy relationship. Instead, we are holding her to adult standards of responsibility, and, based on who got the psych evaluation and who did not, to higher standards than we are holding the actual murderer.
The best that can be said about this whole fiasco is that it gives us, our society, and the judicial system a chance to learn from our mistakes. But what a cost for a child to pay.
hazel8500.wordpress.com/2006/07/01/
cbc.ca/...med-hat.html(Do I Creep You Out?)
A psychosocial examination of (some of) the works of “Weird Al” Yankovic and what makes his songs a guilty pleasure.
- I may expand on this and try for publication, but for now it’s really just a loose collection of some thoughts I've had after learning and exploring some of the songs of "Weird Al" Yankovic. The songs and lyrics cited do belong to Mr. Yankovic, and the ideas explored are solely my fault. Sit back, enjoy, and let the discussion begin. No mud-slinging please… I just cleaned my carpets…!
First, I want to get one thing clear; I have a serious crush on the brain of “Weird Al” Yankovic.[1] I also love his talent, his ability to immerse himself completely in specific characters through changes in vocal style, appearance, and body movements. He has been quoted as saying he’s a better songwriter than singer, but he’s not giving himself enough credit. He is an amazingly skilled performer. Some yahoo on a Winnipeg radio station[2] said that, for a parodiest, ‘Weird Al actually had a decent voice.’ In reality, Mr. Yankovic has a good natural voice, plus a great ability to mimic the vocal styling of a variety of popular singers. He has had the longest-lasting and most celebrated career of any musical humorist because of his vocal talent, his lyrical and musical smarts, his wicked-yet-relatively-clean sense of humour[3], his physical intelligence (a.k.a. body awareness), and his willingness to take risks and Dare to be Stupid. As Mr. Yankovic aptly proves, the Fool is usually the smartest man in the kingdom[4].
I should also explain how I refer to Mr. Yankovic. I was taught to not call people by their first name without permission, so I don’t refer to him as “Al.” On the other hand, I do refer to The Artist Known as Weird Al as “Weird Al,” because that’s the name of the persona[5]. As such, the singer/artist is separate from the man. A review of the interviews, “Ask Al” archives, and other fan sites on the web suggests dichotomy between “Weird Al” and his ‘creator,’ Al Yankovic. “Weird Al” is an extrovert with a flair for the outrageous and the cleanly hilarious and a tendency to do stunts with hamsters. Mr. Yankovic, on the other hand, appears to be slightly introverted. Some interviewers have commented on his solemnity during interviews[6], complaining that he wasn’t “on” as Robin Williams or Jim Carrey always are. Others have commented on his shyness[7]. He himself says he can be either an extrovert or an introvert, “It just depends on what time of the day you catch me in.”[8] From a psychological perspective, the dichotomy between his stage persona and his interview/general persona suggests that Mr. Yankovic has built a role based on a facet of his personality, but that he keeps his ‘self’ as a whole out of his work. Hence he sings about bologna even though he’s a vegetarian and he does not discuss religion, politics, preferred characteristics in a mate (back when he was single), and anything else that could be better diverted with a humorous response[9]. Which, given the recent backlash to the Dixie Chicks, may not be such a bad idea.
So now that I have the prerequisite accolades and ravings out of the way, and before my gushing and drooling becomes just too embarrassing[10], I want to explore the man’s lyrics and what they say, not so much about him[11], but what they say about us, and me, because what we take away from an experience depends on what we bring to it. As I mentioned in the start, I may rewrite this blog into an article after a more thorough analysis of his songs. But thus far, after careful consideration, I’ve come to a few conclusions:
1. The musical works of “Weird Al” Yankovic can be categorised into 4 groupings;
a. brilliant ‘fluff’ about everyday events (“Another one rides the bus,” “My Bologna”);
b. cathartic torch songs of lost love and bloodshed (“You Don’t Love Me Any More,” “One More Minute”);
c. mirrors in which we can explore ourselves and our society, seeing the good, the bad, and the deeply disturbing (“Fat,” “Headline News”);
d. humour with an unexpected twist of pathos and psychological profundity, so it’s your choice whether to take the song at face value or to look behind the curtain at what is going on backstage.
2. Unlike much of the more mainstream popular music, his songs, if sung by others, likely wouldn’t do as well. “You’re Beautiful” sung by any other guy would be just as annoying… but really, could just anyone carry off “You’re Pitiful” with quite his style? Conversely, there are a couple songs whose success surprises me precisely because he’s the one singing them.
3. There’s something psychologically cleansing about his work in general. At least, that was MY personal experience, which I’ve been dissecting and exploring since I saw his concert.
And that’s why this is a blog and not a journal or magazine article; I’m still getting a handle on what’s going on with the work of “Weird Al” Yankovic.
[1] His body’s nice too, but I tend to look at people’s brains first. And his is a mind I would seriously like to explore. Heck, his is a mind I’d like to Rorschach! Plus, he’s married, so I’m not likely to fantasize about ‘anything else’ ‘cause I insist on reality in my fantasy, and don’t fantasize about married men. And yes, I recognize the inherent contradiction of demanding reality in a fantasy about meeting a man when reality is I never will….
[2] both of which shall remain unidentified ‘cause his critique of the show revealed him as an argument for retroactive birth control.
[3] although I could have lived quite happily without the weasel-smashing-song… and visuals… and sound effects.…
[4] His personal online kingdom can be seen at
[5] I admit, however, that the psychologist in me cringes when I use that adjective as a name, even if it is self-adopted.
[6] http://www.bullz-eye.com/music/interviews/2006/weird_al_yankovic.htm; www.tweak.com/phonetag/weirdal/
[7] www.al-oholicsanonymous.com/interviews/windsorstar.txt; http://darkmeat.name/CII/yankovic.html;
[8] www.weirdal.com/aaarchive.htm
[9] www.weirdal.com/aaarchive.htm
[10] Too late… I’m starting to creep myself out!
[11] because a show is just a show and may not reflect the opinions of this television station or it’s affiliates.
1. Categorizing the works of “Weird Al”
Most sites describing Weird Al’s music will say that he does parodies of current events and popular music[8]. A few mention his original song writing, which comprises at least half of every CD he publishes. Some also mention his penchant for and great skill at writing torch songs for the broken-hearted comprised of bloodshed and anguish[9]. So those first two categories will not really be explored in this section. Using Weird Al’s music as societal reflections does not seem to be as widely discussed, however. I’m not referring here to using “The Saga Begins” and “Yoda” as evidence of the continued popularity of “Star Wars”. I’m referring to songs such as “Fat,” “You’re Pitiful,” and “Headline News” that can be taken as invitations to explore the disturbing and the ridiculous sides of ourselves/our society, should we want to.
The Fat, White and Nerdy Amish: An Exploration of Social Consciousness
First, there’s the song “Fat.” An 80’s parody of Michael Jackson’s “Bad,” the video tells the story of a young man of thin build who, confronted by members of his old ‘fat’ gang and copious amounts of food[10], finds himself (and his clothes) expanding to gargantuan size. When the song was first released, Mr. Yankovic said that he hoped people would take the song in the spirit in which it was intended[11], as an obese individual bragging about his weight. Weird Al has again donned the “Fat” suit for his current tour, indicating the song’s continued popularity. I didn’t like “Fat” when it first came out, and I don’t like it now. Back in the 80’s I figured the artist was insensitive, and I admit I pretty much dismissed him. Now, seeing a larger body of the artist’s work (please pardon the pun), I have a more complete picture of the artist and greater respect for the man. But I do still wonder about this song.
“Fat,”[12] being a parody, is full of self-debasing comments presumably made by a very overweight male with an eating problem. But Al himself isn’t overweight. So does he have the right to make these comments? There is a continuum of “really, you shouldn’t” that runs the gambit from men making comments about menstrual woes to white rappers (or any Caucasian individual) using the infamous “N”-word. This continuum makes the statement, ‘if you’re not it, you can’t use it or mock it.’ And a thin man singing about being “Fat” falls on this continuum, though I’m not sure where or on what side of the line of acceptability. As a society we’ve developed more awareness in the last decade about the causes and contributors to obesity. Back in the 80’s the prevalent view was that obesity was a sign of laziness/poor character; people ate too much and/or exercised too little, and they got fat because they let themselves get that way. To some extent, we still hold that view. But we are now also aware of other risk factors that contribute to obesity, including (a) your genes, (b) your parents’ weight and thus early childhood influences and environment, (c) the amount of weight your mother gained during pregnancy, and (d) your natural metabolism, as well as the food types and quantities ingested and how much you exercise. In other words, obesity is no longer seen purely a sign of poor character or lack of self-control, so it’s now even more politically incorrect to mock overweight people.
Yet the song remains popular. Is this evidence of the continued need to create an “us” versus “them” identity, or was Weird Al able to ‘slip’ the song in before the societal zeitgeist changed? If it were to come out now, would it be so readily accepted? I don’t have an answer.
I compare the ‘appropriateness’ of “Fat” with “White and Nerdy,”[13] because both songs pertain to specific subsections of the population, defined by specific characteristics. One song focuses on weight, the other on a stereotyped persona; that of the white nerd, a ping-pong-playing-mayonnaise-eating-computer-progamming-action-figure-collecting-weird-dancing male who just wants to hang with the gangstas. The first song starts with a man trying to reject his former friends and ‘real’ identity but then accepting it in a self-deriding fashion; the latter song embraces the ‘real’ identity while simultaneously bemoaning the inability to fit in with the desired social group. In both songs, the character accepts his perceived identity, but the singer is not a member of the first parodied group, and is of the second. White and Nerdy males also make up a significant portion of Weird Al’s demographic, as evidenced by the popularity of “It’s All About the Pentium.”[14] So on the surface, this does seem to be a more ‘politically correct’ song.
Which is not to say that our humour is entirely controlled by political correctness. Though there are fewer racial jokes, we still tell Newfie jokes in Canada (except east of Quebec, I imagine) and inbreeding jokes about several of the States[15]. But it does seem true that the only people who can be safely mocked are white males[16]. A part of me feels sorry for them now that they’re everybody’s piñata. However, another part of me, with experiences of harassment because of my gender, my religion, my cultural heritage, for being ethnic-looking, for being bright, for just being… that part of me thinks, “well, it’s about time.” I’ve had it comparatively easy with regards to harassment and racism. When people yell ethnic slurs at me, I am insulted on behalf of the people they are slurring, but not for myself. Racists are obviously too stupid to even recognize the ethnicity they hate, ‘cause they never get mine right[17]. But the rest gets tiring, being dismissed because of my gender/religious beliefs/value system/hair colour/shoe size…. In comparison, white males have had it easy for centuries. However, these white males haven’t had it easy. Current white males dealing with representative hiring practices and “man-bashing time[18]” attitudes are not responsible for centuries of oppression/harassment/injustice. They may be contributing to current issues, but then, aren’t we all?
But I digress. And I don’t know that I have any conclusions, just musings. Wonderings. And those wonderings include the Amish. “Amish Paradise”[19] is a fun song and a great video. It has a good rhythm, nice mix of rap and choral singing, fun lyrics, and attitude. I’ve enjoyed it for several years. Lately, though, I’ve been thinking that it isn’t the most respectful of videos. It isn’t likely that many Amish will actually hear it/about it, so protest/retaliation seems unlikely. However, I am again wondering.... On the one hand, the Amish lifestyle is religion-based, and this song does mock those lifestyle choices. However, Weird Al made it in fun, and sings it in fun; so on what side of the line does it fall? At what point does jest become jeer? Since “Amish Paradise” remains one of his most popular songs, I am again left wondering if it is society that is just a bit too intolerant, if I as a psychologist am a bit too sensitive, or if it’s ‘six of one, half-dozen of the other?’
The Parody and the Profound (or is that profane?)
Moving on; the fourth category in which some of Weird Al’s music can be placed are songs presented as humour with an unexpected twist of psychological profundity, should you wish to consider it. The examples I have of this category are explored herein, though further consideration of his works (I await delivery of a couple more CDs) will likely reveal more.
“Wanna be Ur Lover,”[20] is another favourite of mine for the great lyrics and wonderful presentation. In concert, Weird Al goes through the audience and sings a collection of the dumbest, most blatantly sexualized, worst pick-up lines EVER while dancing and gyrating with grace, flair, and fun. (And the suit works too!) The whole song reads like some smarmy jerk in a bar with delusions of getting laid. Yet, there are those two lines of the chorus; “I wanna be your lover, baby, I need somebody to love.” Those lines can turn the song from smarm to a strange kind of pathos, if you process it… from being sung by a horny jerk to a lonely social misfit trying on a role he thinks will work because he doesn’t know how else to connect. (As further evidence that the singer is a social misfit and not a horndog: what horndog would say “I wanna take you home right now… so you can meet my mom;” that’s totally a misfit line!) This is a song that likely only Weird Al could get away with. From “serious” singers, we’re expecting meaning and angst and pathos, so we would sit through the fun waiting for the angst. With Weird Al, however, the opposite is true. We expect fun, we get fun, and the angst is there should we wish to address it. And it isn’t angsty-angst in a way that’s going to dampen our mood; it’s the opportunity for a little reflection, to say ‘yeah, I know someone like that,’ to recognize ourselves/ others in a safe, detached manner. From a psychological perspective, those two lines invite the listener to look beyond the behaviour (that is, the stupid pick-up lines) to see the motivation/ true feelings behind it. And if we do that looking-behind-the-behaviour-and-not-taking-things-at-face-value thing with a song, a book, a film or television show, we’re more likely to do it in real life. So “Wanna be Ur Lover” isn’t just fun fluff mocking inept horndogs… it’s a gentle tap on the shoulder pointing out the importance of thinking “why” instead of just “go away.” Plus, it’s wickedly funny!
“Christmas at Ground Zero”[21] is another personal favourite that appeals to my dark/black humour. I have this ever-so-slightly-twisted sense of humour, the likes of which have also been found in individuals with terminal illness, survivors of abuse, and those who follow the political machinations of our respective countries. “Christmas at Ground Zero” is the finding of a kindred spirit and a brief break from the trenches to recognize the absurdity of our world. When it was originally released, this song was banned from most (if not all) radio stations for being an ‘inappropriate’ holiday song[22], what with the juxtaposition of holiday cheer with impending death and mass destruction. And yet, isn’t that really what society is really like; cheer in the face of sadness, joy in the face of pain? Research tells us that those with depression actually have a more realistic view of the world than do those deemed ‘normal’ or ‘healthy,’ as they see and acknowledge the darker side and do not turn away or deny it’s existence. With this in mind, “Christmas at Ground Zero” becomes more than ‘just’ a spirited, tongue-in-cheek song of nuclear destruction and holiday celebration. It is recognition of potential disaster and a demonstration of the strength of the human spirit to celebrate even in the face of death. To ban this song because of the mention of war and nuclear destruction is to ignore the fact that, at any given time, at least two countries on our planet are at war, and that nuclear destruction has been and continues to be a real possibility. This isn’t a song for children, obviously, but then, Christmas isn’t ‘just’ for them either.
Then there’s “Do I Creep You Out,”[23] a declaration of love from a stalker to his victim; not exactly typical song fodder. Stalking is a serious issue; roughly 1, 006, 970 women and 370, 990 men are stalked annually in the States[24]. Stalking behaviour ranges from observing from a distance, to voyeurism, to harming/killing the object of their affection if the stalker feels rejected. Weird Al’s take on the song mocks stalkers and shows the ridiculousness of obsession[25]. As such, it sheds light on and defuses a serious issue. Plus, the video, ending with the singer being made into the ‘love interest’ of a fellow inmate, is delightful justice! This is one of those songs where the psychologist in me says, “we shouldn’t be making light of this issue,” and the dark-humour-as-coping-mechanism part of me says, “oh yes we should!” It’s a guilty pleasure for which I am very grateful.
Finally, there is the killing of “You’re Beautiful”[26] with the parody “You’re Pitiful.”[27] While not containing the psychological power of the first two songs (and indeed, having lyrics and a message that are verbally aggressive), it does a community service, and mental health workers everywhere are in Weird Al’s debt.
I have never minded the original song itself, although I did object to the mind-numbing frequency with which local radio stations played it. What bothers me is the video. For those ‘not in the know,' the original song is about a young man who sees a beautiful woman, falls instantly in love, and laments that he can never have her. In the video, he strips himself of his clothes and worldly possessions, and then dives off a cliff. The video thus presents suicide as a realistic, and perhaps logical, response to seeing someone with whom you cannot have a meaningful relationship[28]. If suicide truly were a logical response, however, Weird Al (and many other celebs) would have been regularly losing his fan base over the past few decades. And while suicide is unfortunately a not uncommon response to unrequited love and/or loss, is it something we wish to celebrate? The video’s presentation is not an attempt to convince people to seek help or alternative choices/ relationships. There isn’t a “don’t do this at home” message, and this troubles me. I’m not saying people would go out and kill themselves because of this video. I’m also not saying that it should not have been made. But I’m very, very happy that the video (and song) have been lampooned. Unlike the original, the parody, though verbally aggressive, is made in jest and comes across as such. Its own presentation diminishes any potential negative emotional effects. (Plus, how seriously can you take insults delivered by a guy in a Spongebob t-shirt, pink tutu, and boxers?)
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
[9] www.geocities.com/mjareviews/weirdal.html; www.imdb.com/name/nm0946148/bio
[10] “Ding-dong, man, ding-dong.”
[11] weirdal.0catch.com/txt/ecr050488.html
[12] youtube.com/watch?v=wFvCVs-NPz8
[13] youtube.com/watch?v=wFvCVs-NPz8
[14] www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vaNeaWQoHI
[15] And let’s face it: a rabbi, a priest, and a minister walking into a bar will always be funny… though you’d think one of them would have seen it….
[16] and Christians, so, of course, Christian white males get slaughtered, thus proving that we have come full-circle and returned to the practices of the Roman Empire.
[17] Because I can use chopsticks, I must be Asian? And I wasn’t even tanned when I got told to go back to my teepee… my hair was just braided!
[18] Bowser and Blue, not Weird Al. Sorry.
[19] www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsfVw9xxoNY
[20] youtube.com/watch?v=legnB3ihRjc&mode=related&search=
[21] youtube.com/watch?v=EGdrMOttV_s
[22] www.imdb.com/name/nm0946148/bio
[23] www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4bL97tAbpA
[24] http://www.allencountyprosecutor.com/Stalking%20Press%20Release,%20January,%202006.pdf
[25] “Something I should ask about, can I smell the pit stains in your blouse?”
[26] www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y7WDWP8WMs
[27] www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvgmFqdfMHw&mode=related&search=, www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN93RLGJBKE&mode=related&search=
[28] According to www.answers.com/topic/you-re-beautiful?cat=entertainment, a follow-up video of the character swimming with three mermaids has been made to counter people’s belief that the song is about suicide.
