The Counterculture Criteria

The fortune-telling taxAnd more for escorts, too

JUSTIN A. HINKLEY

LANSING — In what many are considering a serious blow to the Counterculture way of life, state legislators have  yet to agree on a way to do away with what lackeys are calling "the fortune-telling tax."

On Halloween, as part of a deal to fix a big hole in the Michigan budget that would have caused a government shutdown, lawmakers agreed to extend the 6 percent sales to include many services. They did this to prevent the shutdown, but hoped to rework or repeal the tax as soon as the shutdown was avoided. They have yet to do this, and the budget they passed says it will go into effect Saturday.

Among the services that will be taxed, fortune-telling, palm-reading, party planning and social escort services worry Counterculturalists the most. These are services they revel in and own, and some consider them religious experiences that should be tax-exempt.

Of course, Counterculturalists aren't alone. Moms who want to brass their baby's first shoes and people who like the guy holding the towel in the bathroom are angry, too.

Here's how it looks to me, and I could be wrong:

• Lawmakers saw the giant, gaping hole staring them in the face and the services tax was an obvious part of the solution

• They also saw the increasingly scarce but powerful behemoth that is Michigan businesses glaring at them and threatening to leave if the service tax passed

• Lawmakers formulated a plan to push the tax through to fix the budget and keep their jobs, but promised to rescind the tax as soon as possible to keep businesses in the state

• Of course, if the tax is gone, they'll have the same ugly hole to deal with next year. So they bicker and let the thing get in anyways, and both sides can blame it on the other for refusing to budge

That sounds cynical to some, but to me, that's good politics and sound logic for an easy to get done what needs to be done without having to take the blame for it. The businesses will pass the tax onto the customers and the customers will complain for a few years at most and then it will all be back to normal, except for the dozens of businesses — like Kellogg Co., perhaps — that have up and left the state for warmer, cheaper climates.

Rome ruled the world for hundreds of years until it collapsed under its own weight. Russia was a major player until it stumbled under its own arrogance. The U.S. walked tall until it realized it had to understand why it had such tall stilts in order to keep walking on them.

The high is over now, people, and the hangover's getting heavy.

So these eight white guys walk into an auditorium...

ANDY FITZPATRICK

After watching last night's CNN-sponsored YouTube debate amongst the GOP presidential candidates, I can't tell if I'm filled with optimism or dread. On the one hand, their constant question-dodging and obvious level of discomfort with having to answer questions that have been more or less unfiltered was amusing (no matter how boring my wife thinks it is). On the other hand, though, I realized that it's not a far step down from the Democratic debates, which are filled now with mostly backbiting and sad, cowardly attempts to appear centrist and not the liberal pinko commies they're terrified of being labeled as by those who don't even really know what those words mean.

I didn't watch the entire thing ("South Park" was on, after all; I mean, let's have some perspective). The parts I did watch included a question about the death penalty and what Jesus would do. Governor Mike Huckabee deftly managed to obfuscate this to the point that by the end he was declaring himself against abortion. That was after he talked about how, as governor of Arkansas, he had to make the hardest choice in his life: whether to carry out the death penalty. Jesus? Nary a mention. Thanks, Mike. Well, he did mention Our Savior once, after Anderson Cooper reminded the governor that he completely ignored the question. The answer was nothing short of intellectually bankrupt.

Also, did you know that Rep. Tom Tancredo prays? And that, as president, he will pray? It's true!

Another interesting part was when a rather serious fellow held up a Holy Bible to his Webcam and asked the candidates this:

"Do you believe every word of this book?"

The answers were sort of amazing. Not for the words that they used, or the answers themselves, but the way they answered. I don't know if I've ever seen a group of people more visibly awkward than when trying to answer that question.

These are Republicans! The party of moral order, authority and God Himself. Shouldn't they be able to handle this? And this wasn't some kind of Wolf Blitzer "show of hands" nonsense either; they had the full time allotment to answer.

You may chalk it up to them trying to pick the best words for their base voters. The Christian Right would be watching, and should they take a chance on losing that vote? Mayor Rudy Giuliani, to his credit, managed to answer with some measure of intelligence and nuance. Well, compared to the unhinged, war-mongering answers he's now famous for. Which is good, because I'm sure more literal Bible-readers have some opinions on cross-dressing that America's Mayor may find himself at odds with.

However,the best part of the evening as far as I saw came when Sen. John McCain dressed down Mitt Romney for his ridiculous answer to a question about whether waterboarding was torture or not (the short version of Romney's comments: even talking about it emboldens our enemies!). While Romney responded to McCain by basically reiterating the non-point that he's against torture, but we can't say what torture is, the senator seemed as if he could barely even look at Romney. That's okay, Senator McCain. A lot of us have the same problem.

I likely won't vote for any of these men, but if I have to live in a country run by John McCain...well, at least I know there will be some kind of standards.

Note: Here is the full debate from www.youtube.com. Incidentally, at the very same time CNN was airing this warped dog-and-pony show, ABC was broadcasting "How the Grinch Stole Christmas." There's a joke in there somewhere.

Chuck Jones rocks. You can find out more about him here.

The panda and youIf Big-Big can do it, why can't we?

JUSTIN A. HINKLEY

Panda's are not known for their ability to reproduce. They don't really much like other pandas, let alone sleeping with them. That is part of the reason they've become endangered and why housewives and children have oohed and aahed over the occasional birth of a baby panda since the 1970s.

But, according to this Associated Press wire item today, ol' Gao Gao (Chinese for Big Big), knows how to get things done when necessary. The slow-moving, mostly anti-social little grubstaker at the San Diego Zoo only gets into the same pen with Bai Yun (White Cloud) during her three-day fertile period. He does the job one time on the first day and he does it right every time. Little Big Big gets White Cloud pregnant every time. A marvel of efficiency not seen in America since Ford first invented the assembly line.

We Americans could learn a lot from those creatures. There's an undeniable appeal in that "Do it once, do it right mentality." It's the employers' axiom, the employees' wish... At least it was 40 years ago, or maybe 60 years ago, maybe 100...

Now, many of us are frightened by a national economy as fragile as crystal glass and internally tortured by either the worried thought of having our heads blown off by terrorists, being fired by an employer moving to Mexico, or having all of our money snatched out of our back pockets by federal tax agents or home-lending banks.

There is no blaming our fearful countrymen; things are getting hairy. Karl Rove saw that and went away to die fat and in peace. But not all of us have such liberties; we are stuck in our lives, no matter how wrong and evil and strained they are. We can't leave our jobs or move to another city on a moment's notice. We do not have jets standing by.

***************************************************************

The word comes down from President George W. Bush, warm drawl, to flood our economy with dollars by shopping today, shopping tomorrow, shopping until Christmas.

And the word comes back from a worried cluster of activists that shopping and materialism is not the way.

What would Jesus buy if he lived in our world? Would he want us to go home and pray and work hard in his image to climb our way from the depths of economic disparity? Or would he want us to go splurge, get our hands on the necks of our finest desires and, in the meantime, line the pockets of greenback executives who will give their employees barely enough to live on?

Neither one of those seem smart to me.

We are so forgetful, especially around times when we are supposed to remember. We should worry that we are shopping too much or shopping too little. We should be shopping for the ones we love, getting them all that they need with everything we can. We should not be frightened either way. But life is not that easy.

If only something was as simple and smart as going in and doing what we are supposed to do only once, like my good friend Big Big. He is my new idol.

What a cruel and ironic thing that human beings rule the world, instead of pandas.

The Prince of Darkness continues his crusade

ANDY FITZPATRICK

In his syndicated column last Saturday, political commentator and brave soldier in the fight to expose an undercover CIA agent Robert Novak dropped this bit of fun:

"Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed."

He goes on to describe the information as being "word-of-mouth among Democrats."  Based on Novak's column alone, one might foolishly assume that someone from Clinton's campaign team leaked the info to Novak (who does not actually state a source, secret or otherwise, in the column). Or, at least, that card-carrying Democrats all know about this. It is, after all, "word-of-mouth" among them.

Not so, according to the man himself on a recent appearance on Fox News' "Fox & Friends," the last word in journalistic integrity when you've been kicked off of CNN for acting like baby:

"I wrote that the Clinton campaign had injected into the Democratic political bloodstream a report that they had derogatory, scandalous information about Barack Obama, but were not going to put it out because it would hurt the Democratic Party and probably hurt Senator Clinton if that information was out. But they thought my source, who is a well-known Democrat, but neutral so far, but they thought he should know about this information. I then checked with another source who is neutral and said he had heard the same thing from...Clinton people."

So, basically, Novak has produced a gossip column. Really, what he threw out there is not much more than your average Counterculture Criteria post; "here's something I heard about, and here's what I think about it." Except that I'm not a big-time political reporter. Novak is (or was). His two sources, one a "neutral" Democrat and the other a mysterious person whom the "Clinton people" informed for unknown reasons, may as well be his mailman and the guy next door.

That's probably why once, here in the Enquirer newsroom, when someone asked out loud what the policy was on anonymous sourcing, someone else yelled back, "we don't do it." Sure, it's one thing if you're dealing with crimes committed by the president of the United States, and I can understand why someone in Novak's position as a political columnist may go that route when absolutely necessary. But using it for rumor-mongering among two candidates in the early primary season? Seriously?

Speaking of Watergate, Novak goes on to compare this non-story to Nixon's infamous campaign tactics. Which is interesting, because in his column, Novak asserts that this makes Hillary seem "prudent." Would anyone describe the ethical policies and practices of CREEP to be "prudent?" Would Novak?

Obama has been calling on Clinton to show what she's got, if anything. Naturally, Fox News is suggesting that this indicates that Obama has something to hide. Surely, it can't possibly be because he knows the whole thing is nonsense. Whether or not there is something Clinton is sitting on is irrelevant to Obama responding aggressively.

Note: More about anonymous sources and the Associated Press can be read about here.  A transcript of Novak on "Fox & Friends" is here. Image of Robert Novak from here. Googling the Internets for a picture of Robert Novak is something I recommend to absolutely nobody.

Who's stealing Christmas?An irrational rant from the child in me

JUSTIN A. HINKLEY

On cold and white December nights, I am a happy person. My mind falls back on some prepubescent memory when things were simpler and easier and hurt less. It's Christmas, and I love everything about it.

I love Santa Claus and sleigh bells and nearly every Christmas song there is. I'll watch "A Christmas Story" over and over again for the whole month of December.

While I look at Christmas as a spiritual time for soul-searching, I am not a religious person. I understand and respect the Christian origins of the holiday, even though I don't celebrate them. So long as they leave me my Christmas tree and stocking stuffers, I'll respectfully leave them their mass and Nativity.

But some people don't see it that way. In Menominee, the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed an official complaint with the city for putting a Nativity Scene in its band shell.

I understand their complaints: Separation of church and state, freedom of religion, etc.

But I'm tired of all this litigation over what is supposed to be the happiest time of the year. Neither Christians who want their Nativities nor atheists who want their Santa Claus nor people of other religions who want neither can claim to be pure of heart in what is supposed to be the purest period of solace and joy in the whole year.

Menominee, put up a Santa Claus with your Jesus. FFRF, let them have their Nativity. If you want your right to not believe to be respected, respect their right to believe.

As for all of those weird and crotchety people out there who get offended when someone tells them "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays," learn some self-security. I am not Jewish but I would never take offense to someone wishing me a "Happy Hanukkah." I am not African-American but I would never be offended if someone said to me, "Happy Kwanzaa."

Who's stealing Christmas? Everyone who love and cherish something about it, but can't let others enjoy and cherish other things about it.

Why can't they let it be a soft snowflake and a warm glow of a small yellow light and the smile from someone they love.

NOTE: Photo from Wikipedia.org.

"In the Garden of Eden," by I. Ron Butterfly

ANDY FITZPATRICK

Through sheer chance and the assorted vagaries of the process of surfing the Internet, I happened upon this blog about a trip recently taken by one John Scalzi to Petersburg, Kentucky's Creation Museum. I had never seen this blog before, nor had I been aware of the Creation Museum prior to reading about it there (although I have since looked it up). Furthermore, I'm not bringing this up in order to start a debate about whether or not it has any merit as a belief system.

That being said, after looking over Scalzi's photographs of the place and reading about it on the museum's official Web site and its Wikipedia entry (take that for what it's worth), I find myself somewhat disappointed.

When you first hear the words, "Creation Museum," you may picture a certain type of place that contains certain kinds of information. And to some extent, that information is present at the museum. However, the reason I'm disappointed is the strange attempt at forming a scientific basis for the utterly non-scientific. The tack the museum takes is to use things like geology and astronomy to show that things like geology and astronomy are completely wrong. There seem to be all manner of flow charts, graphs and statues to show how exactly God created the Heavens and the Earth.

Why?

Why proceed from the notion that Creationism is a science, when:

A. It is a completely untestable hypothesis, and

B. Its main goal, besides supporting Christianity, seems to be to decry science?

I may not agree with the tenets of the modern Creationist, but I do respect people who are dedicated to their faith, whether or not I agree with that faith. That's where the museum loses me. It comes across as trying to avoid just saying, "God waved his hand, and presto! Earth!" That would be something to really test the faith of the masses, wouldn't it? It's easy to believe something when a chart says it. But one big signs that says, "Dinosaurs? God!"? That would take Faith. Granted, that may not make for an exciting museum.

Or would it?

Imagine walking into a display area that seems to just be a dark room. Then, a thunderous roar of angelic trumpets splits your ears, and the ceiling parts to allow a massive hand to descend. The hand then lets out a mighty lightning bolt, striking the very ground in front of you. Then, grass begins to grow, water begins to flow and worms start to crawl. Monkeys, elephants, dinosaurs and men stroll out from hidden areas around you. You are standing in the Garden of Eden.

No, this business with charts about "same information, different starting points" just doesn't do it.

Note: Image of the Lego Garden of Eden is from here. Basically, I posted this for an excuse to use that picture. Legos are awesome.

The dying menMaybe Armageddon's already happened

JUSTIN A. HINKLEY

"The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss.

When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss.

And out of the smoke locusts came down upon the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth.

They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads.

They were not given power to kill them, but only to torture them for five months. And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a scorpion when it strikes a man.

During those days men will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them."

— Book of Revelations, Chapter 9, verses 1 - 6

I've been reading Thompson's "Generation of Swine" and thinking... maybe Armageddon's already happened.

The book is mostly Thompson's San Francisco Examiner columns, from the 80s. The generation of Acid Rain, Reaganomics, AIDS and the beginning of the divorce crisis and the rotten kingdom of advertising.

Imagine how the world must have looked to the doomed and atavistic hippies of the 1960s and 70s: They felt high on a fine white noise, believing they'd defeated Nixon, elected Carter (who often quoted Bob Dylan) and thought maybe they'd even opened a few of those minds they were trying to get at with LSD.

And then came the end of the 70s, the beginning of the 80s, and a Whole New World, as the preachers like to say. The America and Earth of the 1980s was a far stranger place than it was the relatively pure world of the 60s. Sure there was turmoil, and political unrest, and demonstration and wanting and anger and dope and Hell's Angels... But these things were relatively easy to understand, compared to the strange concept of death from sex and complete obliteration from a summer sprinkle.

To them, that must have seemed like Armageddon: The end of the world as they knew it, and the beginning of a new and increasingly odd world filled with people afraid to kiss and people who use the Internet to have sex with children.

Ronald Reagan was the Ninth Angel, if you believe in that sort of thing, but he was not the first. There were many Armageddons before him.

World War II was the Eighth Angel, and the Industrial Revolution was the Seventh. Before that there was the American Revolutionary War and the Marquis de Sade and the Church of England and the and the Fall of Rome...

I am also starting to think that we are not far off from the 10th Armageddon, which may be the last. Reagan expected his presidency to see the End of the World and the Second Coming of Christ, but we made it through, though not unscathed. George W. Bush does not expect that for his presidency, but we still have some 16 months left...

It may not be the Big Bomb or Toxic Gas or even a 727, but the world as we know it has been falling off-kilter since Sept. 11, 2001, and who knows how far it will spin off before Bush is through. If he doesn't do it, the next president will, and it doesn't matter who that will be.

And, did you notice, our Armageddons are coming sooner and sooner all the time?

Totally radical

ANDY FITZPATRICK

Congressional Democrats are pushing a bill for drastically decreased funding for the Iraq war, as well as a timetable to pull military forces out of the war zone. President Bush has promised to veto the bill, and it is highly unlikely a veto override could be mustered in this case. So the whole thing, while sincere, is really more of a statement than anything else. The Democrats are doing it because they believe the war is wrong, and this is how they can affect it. The Republicans take comfort in it, because they believe in drawing the war out and are hoping this shows Americans that the Democrats are cut-and-runners in a time of war.

So, business as usual.

The problem, which is frankly troubling, is this comment from a White House statement:

"These votes, like the dozens of previous failed votes, put the interests of radical interest groups ahead of the needs of our military and their mission."

This goes right to the heart of the matter, I think. It's an attempt to cast the United States Armed Forces into the role of an entity that is serving its own ends. In other words, the country can't change the course of the war by virtue of the fact that the war is occurring.

I'll say it again, because when I realized it, it took me a while to process the information without, at the same time, my brain exploding.

The Bush administration is attempting to rationalize the war on the grounds that it exists. Bringing the troops home, you see, is in conflict with that. If the troops are home and, you know, not dying, well...what kind of war is that? They have a mission! If you change that mission, then they won't have that mission anymore! Therefore, you can't change the mission!

By the way, those "radical interest groups"? Them's you and me. Of course, if you support the war, you're likely to not trust such things. I have my own reservations about polling, but it's interesting nonetheless.

I think we can use the president's rationale for a lot of things, though. For example, why should we even have elections every four years? The people voted Bush in, right? Why would we change that? Shouldn't he just stay in office? Aren't we just putting the interests of radical interest groups ahead of Bush and his mission?

For that matter, why should I collect a paycheck every few weeks? Aren't I just putting my own radical needs for alcohol ahead of Gannett's mission to save money?

All of that being said, I think this is a fight that will continue far into the next election. Bush won't allow the war to end before he leaves office, and if someone like Rudy Giuliani takes office, we'll all have a new definition of "radical interests."

Note: Please, please don't stop sending me paychecks.

Good King O'Reilly

ANDY FITZPATRICK

Well, Halloween is over and and Thanksgiving is just around the corner. That leaves just one major holiday left in 2007. The one we all look forward to the most. The one where children far and wide become giddy with anticipation and the loved ones gather together for merriment and cheer.

I am, of course, referring to the day that Fox News' Bill O'Reilly fires his annual opening salvo in his insane Culture War.

And, like that other holiday this time of year, it seems like it comes earlier and earlier each season. 2007's first shot came in the form of this story about Fort Collins, Colorado's municipal holiday decorating policy. The Coloradoan contains the pertinent information. What I'm wondering is, what is O'Reilly afraid of? What is anyone in that mindset afraid of? Do they really think that there is a shadowy cabal of store owners, media figures and others trying to destroy Christmas? Really?

In the context of a "Culture War," the notion of which is completely absurd, there have been a few casualties. Some stores had their employees saying "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas." Some others did not. Last year at about this time, I gave props to Best Buy for holding out on reminding non-Christians that They Are Not To Be Acknowledged. It looks like that may change, according to this. If true, then thanks, Best Buy, for succumbing to hysteria.

You know who I think should weigh in on this alleged controversy? Thor, the God of Thunder. I mean, it was his holiday season before Jesus hit the scene. How does he feel about everyone wishing everyone else a merry Christ's Mass when they should be lighting their Yule Logs in honor of Mighty Mjolnir? Or how about the Pagans? You know, those guys we swiped tree worship from so we had something to put presents under?

Oh, I know. It's because of Christmas that we boost our economy and  surrender so much cash over to department stores (you know how Jesus was constantly telling us to turn his birthday into a materialistic orgy of consumerism...wait...). So, naturally, they should be shouting "merry Christmas" at the top of their lungs. But you know what? If things worked out just a little differently, we'd be rushing out to get our presents to put under the altar to celebrate The Birth of the Unconquered Sun, and getting our designer Yule Logs from Macy's so we can dutifully count the sparks.

Our credit cards wouldn't know the difference.

Note: Image of the Mighty Thor, Wielder of Mjolnir, from here.

You know what? We probably will get fooled again

ANDY FITZPATRICK

A federal judge has just told the Bush administration that it must keep copies of all its e-mails. The White House lawyers, of course, fought for the permission to destroy any and all correspondence as the administration sees fit. This is mostly stemming from the Plame affair, which is far too arcane and complicated to get into right now. Let's leave aside the fairly significant point that a federal judge had to order the president to obey a rule that is already in place for a moment (the president's staff, of course, contends that they had been preserving the e-mails to begin with).

In this campaign cycle, it has been debated that the Republican candidates for president would do well to distance themselves from President Bush. They are desperately seeking the votes of the fiscally conservative ($200 billion for the Iraq war for just this year's budget, yet the president vetoed a domestic bill for water services of $23 billion) and the morally upright. If any of them do indeed want to say that they are not the New Boss that's the same as the Old Boss, they're going to need to be far less secretive than Bush & Co. have been.

Almost every president probably has to work overtime to avoid getting caught up in scandal. That's certainly been true for the past few of them. However, allegations of secret torture prisons in foreign lands, energy task force meetings of indeterminate purpose and intent, man-sized safes and demands that those subpoenaed not have to swear an oath or have their words recorded for transcript purposes are something different (well, not the safe; that's just weird). If Romney, Giuliani and the rest want to appear as fine, upstanding Republican citizens, they'll take notice of their predecessor's secretive ways and how that's likely to reflect on him when the history books are written.

Note: Image from here.