Pretzel sticks are the worst kind of pretzel. Caveat: the consumption situation assumed here is one without the possibility of dipping, which might radically alter the situation.

Thesis 2

There is nothing more annoying than making a complex search on Google and finding only ten of those link-farm websites that happen to have agglomerated enough different websites and random keywords to convince Google that it contains what you’re looking for. It does not. How is the business model for these sites at all sustainable? Obviously nobody cares about the advertisements on them. The first thing I do upon discovering a link-factory-farm website with that picture of the pleasant-looking white girl with the backpack and halter-top bordered by a mass of “COLLEGE FUNDING,” “COLLEGE CLASSES,” “COLLEGE GIRLSSSS” links is not think: “HELL YEAH, SELL ME SOMETHING!” This is why internet advertising has never made any sense. This is also why, at the very least, these websites need to get better stock images. I’m so tired of that “look at me, I go to school!” girl. I have never cared about her. Also, seriously, Google, I don’t want to see those results in my searches. Reform yourself.

Thesis 3

Apple pulled a female dog move by not releasing an iPhone 5 today. Sure, the iPhone 4S is different and, after all, everything gets better when it’s pluralized, but I’m still waiting for my original seventh grade version to be realized: an “iPhone” which looked like a combination of a classic iPod and a landline telephone and may very well be the least aesthetically appealing communication device ever thought up.

Thesis 4

College vegetarian food is intended to stop vegetarians from being vegetarians. Harvard’s dining hall food is pretty good. I don’t want to be that guy always complaining about the food. Frankly, the meat looks pretty decent. At the very least, it looks edible. The same can rarely, if ever, be said about the soppy red and green gloop that they have to audacity to call the “vegetarian entree” of the day/night. I eat it anyways. Part of the vegetarian transition was an acceptance on my part that I’d be losing out a little bit on flavor. However, part of the vegetarian transition was not an unsaid agreement that I should gastronomically suffer in the face of my flesh-eating comrades.

Thesis 5

Corn: worst or worstest?

Thesis 6

Talking to another individual while urinating is not awkward. Society needs to get over itself here. Talking to another person while pooping is awkward. (… plus I’m hungry for shit)

I think reading Moby Dick with Winslow Homer would be way too fucking intense.

If you are driving at or below the speed limit, you have ceded any former privileges to the left lane. I think speeding tickets are anachronistic. They should work like mental institutions: if you’re driving way too fast, everyone will notice; if you’re just trying to get somewhere at 10 mph over the limit, you shouldn’t be penalized for being a good driver.

Because I always feel like running
Not away, because there is no such place
Because if there was, I would have found it by now
Because it’s easier to run,
Easier than staying and finding out you’re the only one who didn’t run
Because running will be the way your life and mine will be described,
As in “the long run”
Or as in having “given someone a run for his money”
Or as in “running out of time”
Because running makes me look like everyone else, though I hope there will ever be cause for that
Because I will be running in the other direction, not running for cover
Because if I knew where cover was, I would stay there and never have to run for it
Not running for my life, because I have to be running for something of more value to be running and not in fear
Because the thing I fear cannot be escaped, eluded, avoided, hidden from, protected from, gotten away from,
Not without showing the fear as I see it now
Because closer, clearer, no sir, nearer
Because of you and because of that nice
That you quietly, quickly be causing
And because you’re going to see me run soon and because you’re going to know why I’m running then
You’ll know then
Because I’m not going to tell you now” (via Gil Scott-Heron)

I miss pencils.

I wonder how much glass was wasted on the takeout windows that McDonald’s restaurants don’t use. They’re trying to update McDonald’s restaurants so they become hangout destinations. The homeless are already there, McDonald’s, you don’t need to change for them. And non-homeless people have other places to go: a.k.a. anywhere.

I wish my life was narrated by the This American Life staff. I also wish Lady Gaga was always around to call my decisions “fabulous.”

High schoolers seem to love to talk to me when they’re intoxicated. I think that would’ve been cool when I was 17, but unfortunately it’s only going to get weirder from here.

What wouldn’t I give now for a never-changing map of the ever-constant ineffable? To possess, as it were, an atlas of clouds. (via David Mitchell)

But I started to wonder if he didn’t have a point: we shouldn’t accept racist thoughts just because we’re “with our friends” and “having fun.” First, it makes ethics incredibly situational: there are times when I’m against racism and times when I’m not. One would never make the equivalent statement that there are times when I’d authorize the Holocaust and times when I would not: at least, you wouldn’t say it out loud to people you didn’t know. It’s clear that there’s something going on beneath this type of quotidian encounter which we’ve no doubt all experienced in different ways: pointing out sexism in song lyrics, pointing out classism in the way we relate to the poor or the expensive nature of our purchases, etc. You feel awkward: paranoid in the very real sense that perhaps they’re right that pointing out instances of problems is ruining everyone else’s time. After all, don’t we have some responsibility to the happiness of those around us? Recently, this situation appeared in the indie music scene: Tyler the Creator started receiving flack for the highly gendered and heteronormative content of his lyrics. Many of the indie music blogging scene shot back: “But the music is creative and good, don’t be kill joys.”

But I think we have something of an obligation to every once and a while, and very likely more often than that, engage in those messy conversations: I’m tired of people throwing around “gay” like it means stupid, and was glad to be told about the Think Before You Speak campaign. Having gay relatives that issue has always stung me, ever since I first remarked about it in middle school. It’s just one example of many of the ways in which we have inherited the “false consciousness” that Ahmed refers to in relation to many different issues. After all, other people do it, it’s not entirely our fault.

But to allow racism, sexism, and classism to go unnoticed is often as violent as to be the enunciator of those views. To stand and watch a murder without stopping it or reporting it still makes you guilty in important ways. Discourses are powerful – which is, of course, Foucault 101 – and they function as much by what is spoken as those things which are accepted as speech and the things we are silent about. To begin to make true progress against the oppression of hateful speech and actions, sometimes means we won’t be popular. But it’s clear that sometimes we ought to be the kill-joys: we can and we should.

A first question everyone brings up is that healthcare reform might have variable effects upon the economy. Heritage Foundation Scholar Robert Book describes it with the “No Free Lunch” principle: “Any money the federal government spends on health care reform, health IT, Medicaid, roads and bridges, or anything else has to come from somewhere. And that ‘somewhere’ is either increased taxes, more borrowing, or inflation of the currency, any combination of which would cancel out any ‘stimulus’ effect of the new spending…. There is no such thing as a free lunch.” James Kvaal, an expert at the Center for American Progess, however, views the situation differently. For Kvaal, the current healthcare system is broken and it’s having a tremendously negative effect on the economy: “Health care costs grow faster than the rest of the economy, straining families, businesses, and government budgets…. high health care costs put many American businesses at a disadvantage to their foreign competitors…. Second, ever-rising health care costs are threatening to drive an unsustainable explosion in the national debt. …. If health reform slows growth in health care costs, it could be the most fiscally responsible course, even at the cost of higher deficits in the short term.” Indeed, as the healthcare system puts America at a competitive disadvantage in the international business world, these effects will be felt globally as American companies fail to cope with high healthcare costs and a whacky system. There’s certainly validity to the arguments on both sides, but one thing is certain: healthcare is broken, and it’s having a profoundly negative impact on the American economy. If this is the case, then reform is certainly the best choice. So how?

Canada is often presented as an example of why socialized medicine might fail in the United States. However, the distinction often missed here is that Canadian healthcare is a single-payer system, where all citizens are insured by the government. Obama has ruled out this type of system in favor of competition between private insurance companies and a government option, what we hear called the “Public Option.” We don’t have to look much further than the UPS vs. USPS vs. Fedex to understand that the government does not always out-compete private corporations. The government option would help lower healthcare costs for everyone as private companies would have to match prices to those similar to the government. Cuba demonstrates that socialized medicine is not, in fact, doomed to fail. Cuba is a nation whose economy has been nearly strangled by the American trade embargo, but their healthcare system ranks FAR above ours. And concerns about innovation in healthcare ceasing? Unfounded. In fact, “Dr. Gerardo Guillen, the research director of the Cuban Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, … described pioneering pharmaceutical research. The center is experimenting with drugs [for] … prostate cancer and hepatitis C…. Guillen estimates that tens of thousands of people in the United States could be saved from amputations if they had access to this particular drug. It’s not licensed in the United States.” This is, of course, an isolated example, but we see something shocking: a country with nearly 1/10th of our GDP has a much more effective healthcare system, and one that is free for every citizen.

To comment briefly on Gautam’s article, I don’t believe Obama was intentionally trying to slight the medical community. Obama, like most Americans, respects the critical work that doctors do, but realizes that the way it gets carried out could use some changing. In fact, a large portion of doctors support healthcare to prioritize cheaper care. Christopher Hughes, a practicing doctor, writes that, “You cannot frighten physicians with tales of ‘government bureaucrats;’ we deal with insurance bureaucrats day in and day out. The disturbing incentive in the private health insurance market is to reduce the medical loss ratio,” which is an Orwellian way of saying that money actually spent on medical care is a “loss.” Executives, employees and stockholders benefit when less is spent, and it shines through in our interactions with health insurers. I have yet to have Medicare do a “rescission” on a patient, nor refuse to pay for a hospital stay because of a “pre-existing condition.” Hughes’ point is directly from a doctor’s perspective: these are the issues they face every day, denying patients due to pre-existing conditions, being forced into comprising their values to provide the care expected of them, but this can be changed, as the American Medical Association and many other organizations have agreed on a charter: “Most of the large physician organizations have declared their support for broad principles of health care reform that are largely based on equitable distribution of health care resources, or at least a floor for health care access.” But this is a position article, right, so what’s my position? I believe that beyond economic concerns, healthcare reform should be implemented because it is the right thing to do.

Setting aside Nietzsche for the moment, helping those too poor to afford it have access to proper medical care seems to be the single most moral action anyone could commit. I’m all for socialized medicine, but I’m also realistic: we won’t get there in one day. But one thing we can do today is support healthcare reforms which will cut strains on the economy and also, and most importantly, provide the level of medical care that every citizen in the United States of America deserves. I think it’s very easy for those of us with professors or doctors or large-earning parents to overlook the difficulty of acquiring and receiving adequate health coverage. Yet if we imagine a family of three right at the poverty line, making $18,000 per year, only a little more than it costs to send me to Pembroke to write this article, we get a clearer picture of the difficulty. Maybe a little bit of harsh rhetoric is necessary to create the necessary momentum to get these people the adequate healthcare they need.

Maybe we all need to take responsibility for the situation in America; so another one of our family, friends, or neighbors isn’t refused care due to a pre- existing condition. This is the legacy of Ted Kennedy, and one I will proudly take up.

In a 1939 radio address, Franklin Delano Roosevelt stated that “repetition does not transform a lie into truth.” Nearly seventy years later, it is miraculous how his words seem tailor-made to rebuke the Bush administration’s strategy in Iraq. Before the invasion, the American people were told repeatedly that Iraq represented a direct danger to our interests — Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (not really), Saddam had strong connections with al Qaeda (ouch, wrong again) — and 933 other Bush administration lies and canards (Jumping Jesuits, Batman!). Sorry George, we aren’t studying for a Graves test; repetition doesn’t work like that. As if Bush would know anyways. The last time he studied something he was trying to understand the deeper meaning of The Very Hungry Caterpillar.

In 2003, swept up in post-911 patriotic fervor, citizens of the United States were willing to accept any drastic steps deemed necessary to defeat the “terrorists.” Billed as the Pepto-Bismol for world stability, Iraq was that step. Five years later, we’ve created more terrorists than ever existed before, we are faltering in our mission in Afghanistan, and increasingly Iraq looks like a colossal imbroglio from which we will never escape. I may differ from the “loyal Bushies” and other right-leaning acolytes, but I refuse to accept that supporting a blatantly colonial war in a country that Ms. South Carolina couldn’t even point out on a map is representative of “American” ideals. Considering the loss of American lives that President Bush’s project has wrought, the only appropriate American stance on the war in Iraq is to stand firmly against it. I, therefore, agree with leading Democrats (and many Republicans) for a phased withdrawal from Iraq. Let’s elaborate, shall we?

So What’s the Plan?

A friend told me that the problem with the Iraq war is that there is no clear exit. I agree, anonymous friend. We are lost in the consequences of American superiority: in our innocence and beliefs in America’s exceptionalism inculcated since kindergarten, we are lost in a pre-Vietnam confidence in our own power. There will be no easy exit strategy. True. But there will also be no clear victory. At what point can we declare that “we” have won? When Iraq becomes the 51st state? We are in over our heads as a nation; and sadly, no action in Iraq will foster a miraculous hegira back to glory, nor will they win us allies and supporters around the world. We need to stop kidding ourselves – Iraq will never be the secular nation we are attempting to create, because religion and Islam are too important to its culture and history. Thus, the best strategy is withdrawal. As the expression goes, “When the going gets tough, the tough get going.”  Let’s get going. Barack Obama proposes a 16-month full withdrawal from Iraq. But let’s clear up a common misconception about such a withdrawal – we aren’t abandoning the Iraqis in a torrent without an umbrella. The Obama plan mandates soldiers to stay in Iraq and to protect embassies and diplomats. If al Qaeda should attempt to create a stronghold in Iraq once we are gone, U.S. forces stationed in Iraq will carry out strikes on their terrorist positions. “But Brad,” you say in an insouciant voice. “Why would we want to take our soldiers out of Iraq?” Fearless reader, I’m glad you asked….

Just Like Governor Spitzer’s Hookers, Iraq’s Been Costly

Every war requires an honest evaluation of the costs of battle in comparison to the benefits. From the first days of shock and awe to 2008 (Wait, the mission was accomplished in May 2003? Right?), more than 95,000 Iraqi civilians have died. And 4,031 American soldiers have lost their lives thousands of miles away from their families, friends, and homeland. We cannot eschew these statistics or their implications unless we are willing to complacently and naively hand over our lives (and those of Iraqis) to a government in Washington willing to “sacrifice” them on what now seems like a whim.

For those as concerned about money and our economy as about the loss of American lives, the economic costs of this war effort have been equally staggering. The Iraq war has cost the U.S. of A. nearly one trillion dollars. If you consider the impecunious state of the American economy and then imagine adding a booster shot of one trillion dollars back into our economy, the picture becomes clearer and a hell of a lot brighter.

Just Like the Pope at a Tech N9ne Concert, We Shouldn’t Be There

The U.S. invasion of Iraq must also be examined on the basis of international legality. The invasion not only violated the sovereignty of the Iraqi people, but also a majority of international laws. The United States scoffed in the face of The Hague and Geneva Conventions, “which clearly restrict the right of occupying powers to interfere in the internal affairs of an occupied people” (Arnove 68) and quickly assumed the undisputed distinction of “World’s Largest Hypocrite.” We scold China about its human rights abuses and tell the government of Darfur not to wage war against its own people,  while we occupy a sovereign nation in the name of their freedom and ignore a host of  international legal standards.

Just Like Tipsy, Trigger-Happy Security Guards, We’re Aren’t Making Anyone Safer

Recent studies suggest that the American occupation of Iraq has increased, rather than decreased, the number of terrorists (Arnove 76). While accomplishing the opposite of his plans may be a Bush trademark, as a nation, America does not have to continue down this path. Al Qaeda didn’t show up in Iraq until after the invasion, and any ostensible links between Saddam and bin Laden have been proven incorrect. Once George W. Bush leaves office, Osama bin Laden will no longer have an “old, neo-conservative president” to direct his hatred at, and Sunni fighters in Iraq will no longer seek intiqaam (revenge) for the destruction wrought on their families, friends, and property. Once we withdraw from Iraq, the terrorism and insurgency will slowly cease.

Many proponents of continuing the war argue that withdrawal will lead to a regional civil war. These people (who will not, by the way, be joining the army because they have “more important things to do”) obviously don’t read the newspapers. The longer our forces stay in Iraq, the more resistance our occupation breeds. As American forces leave, the predominately-Shiite government has the opportunity to rule without the stigma of being seen as “puppets” of foreign “infidels.” Sunnis would be more likely to meet with Shiite leaders and begin the needed reconciliation process (Nir Rosen). Some proponents of the war insist that al Qaeda would create a stronghold in the region if the U.S. were to withdraw. This is less likely than finding the Golden Ticket. Al Qaeda and other foreign terrorist groups make up a numerically insignificant part of the insurgency. Often overlooked but crucially important is the fact that there are other Middle Eastern nations, and they can serve as regional watchdogs to keep Iraq in check. Iran, Syria, Egypt, and even Israel, all see a peaceful, militarily prostrate Iraq as beneficial to regional stability – and can invest in making sure that happens. Were Iraq to fall into civil turmoil, these nations would ensure minimal fallout. It’s in their vested interest to do so.

Just Like Nixon, You Can’t Cheat The System And Maintain Power

The war in Iraq has damaged our reputation as a nation and as a world power. Much of America’s influence in the international arena lies in what has been termed soft power. “[Soft power] is the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments. It arises from the attractiveness of a country’s culture, political ideals, and policies” (Joseph Nye). Iraq has permanently damaged America’s reserves of soft power. The impact is clear and visible to us all. A homeless man whom I asked for a quote for this article told me that the best way to win an election is to have the most friends. Wise words, sir. In an era where the United States must increasingly compete for the role of international “hegemon” in a global contest with a rapidly growing China and expanding European Union, friends become of the utmost importance. Iraq alienated not only Middle Eastern nations, but European and African nations as well. We must rebuild the trust of these nations to strike up lasting military, economic, and political ties. Withdrawing from Iraq is the first, and most critical, step in this process.

In today’s world, bears are mistreated everywhere you look. They are captured and forced to live unsatisfying, uninteresting lives in zoos. Would you want to be neighbors with a hippo? I doubt it. Bears are called bad names like “monster,” “mammal,” “dinner,” “killer of children,” “father,” “distance runner,” “Toby Keith.” These vile nomenclatures must end. Sadly, the attacks against bears stretch far beyond name-calling. Bears are also wrongly treated in circuses. Because everyone knows that the only one having less fun at a circus than the spectators are the dunce cap-wearing bears being whipped around by a three-foot-tall man with leather boots. What’s worse? People in many areas of the globe don’t even have access to bears and their benefits.

Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the lack of both respect for bears and lack of bears themselves has caused all of the world’s problems. Bears are incredibly important to our universe, and we ought to start spreading them around before it’s far too late. But when you think of reasons for the world’s problems, you generally think of poor global leadership, environmental problems, economic issues, and race and class conflicts. But what is the underlying cause of all of these global problems? Lack of or cruelty towards Bears. It’s historically proven.

A recent poll of the top minds of science found that bears can protect the earth from meteor strikes. Sure, it sounds crazy, but they’re scientists and you’re not. Just think about it. Were there any bears in the Cretaceous period? I don’t think so. Did the dinosaurs survive that meteor strike? I don’t think so. What does it mean? That bears could have saved the dinosaurs, and if we had more bears, our children would grow up playing with their pet Raptor instead of building ridiculous ten-piece puzzles about him.

Even in Biblical times, bears played a crucial role in society. As is stated so vividly in Genesis 15:1, “God then said unto Abram: don’t be afraid Abraham, I have made bears. They are vicious and will hibernate in winter.” Am I saying that bears saved Abraham? No, but who would mess with somebody whose protector could beat you around like a rag doll? Not me.

*As a side note: a Bible scholar later told me that Genesis 15:1 doesn’t say that. But of course it isn’t word for word. I’m merely paraphrasing. Heard of it before?

Need more proof? The Roman Empire was the strongest empire of its day. It had the most advanced technology, and a profound cultural impact. At one point, their army was one of the strongest the world has ever seen. Yet when they began to stage bear-batings, things started heading south. They were invaded, beaten like naughty three-year-olds, and conquered by a tribe of people who didn’t even speak a common language and wouldn’t reinvent indoor plumbing for another two hundred years. Skeptics might ask whether I genuinely think bears caused the decline of the Roman Empire, and of course the answer is yes. As Edward Gibbon so insightfully points out in Chapter 18 of his epic work, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, “bears caused the decline of the Roman Empire.” Cruelty to Bears caused the demise of the Roman Empire, and we could be next if we don’t watch ourselves.

And yet even in modern times, the bear plays an important role in our survival. Everyone has heard of Smokey the Bear. Recent scientific studies show that without Smokey’s assistance, the California wildfires would’ve expanded throughout the rest of the United States and we would all be ash. Other scientists question the validity of these studies. But let’s think logically, are you ashen? I didn’t think so. Smokey has often been quoted saying things such as:

“You have so many reasons to protect your forests! And remember, only you can prevent forest fires.”

But of course, when Smokey says “only you,” he means you and bears. It’s just that writers of the time were what is now termed “ursist” or hateful towards bears. Smokey received a salary less than that of the stagehands and yet he performed his role with pride and dignity. Bears don’t just protect us from forest fires. They are also humble, talented actors.

Another famous bear is the Great Grizzly Bear of New Orleans. He travels the country telling his sad story.

“I’m the Great Grizzly Bear of New Orleans! You see what happens when there are no bears in your city? HURRICANES! Bears protect from hurricanes.”

Global warming? Yeah, you guessed it, BEARS! Exactly how is still being debated by the top minds in science.

And I’m not going to talk about how bears are the reason for the war in Iraq. But really, I can count on one hand the number of bears in the Middle East. And I can’t count on any number of hands the problems they have over there. Point made.

Those against bears might say, in a weak attempt to refute my arguments, that bears kill people. And to that I would say … nothing…. moving on.

You might say that bears kill other animals, but since when is that a bad thing. I mean, they kill trout. Trout are rainbow-colored. Whoopdeedoo! No one cares if a few more trout meet an unfortunate demise at the teeth of a bear? Plain and simple, bear kill deer. Deer are the #2 cause of traffic accidents annually (Second only to bad driving). Every grizzly bear you’ve ever seen, both in real life, on TV, and in your dreams, has saved your life with a tasty deer snack at least eight times in its life.

So what can you do to save the bears? I really have no clue. Donate some money to the World Wildlife Fund or something.