Dissolve into Evergreens

Dissolve into Evergreens

Recent Posts

Obama At House Republican Retreat In Baltimore: FU...
AIG Loses Exec, Wins TARP Comp Ruling - Regulatory...
Man v. Nature
Spicy
Predictable Consequences
not why, but why not
Tea Party Zombies
Squishy Mice Pumpkin
Star Trek Pumpkin
Star Trek Follow Up

This blog used to be about politics. Not so much anymore as I have worked through my fascination with that subject. It now seems appropriate that with a new president and the end of the Bush nightmare that I move on to new subjects that are more in line with my current interests. I may still occasionally express an opinion about political matters but for the most part I will be commenting on music, photography and personal observations. Thank you for reading.

Look Who Writes Books!

Justin Oldham - Politics and Patriotism

Patterns of Sounds That I Find Pleasuringful

Wilco
The Flaming Lips
The New Radicals
John Mayer
Zero 7
Dream Theater
Radiohead
Death Cab for Cutie
The Notwist
O.S.I.
Ani Difranco
The Shins
Elliott Smith
Badly Drawn Boy
Chroma Key
Coheed and Cambria
The Streets
Andrew Bird
Sufjan Stevens

Current Playlist
Top 100 in iTunes

Atom Site Feed

B4 d- t k s u- f i- o x-- e- l- c+
Blogarama

< ? Colorado Blogs # >
« - ? Blog Oklahoma * # + »

4.30.2003

Bringing Down the Leaky Ship: The USS Bush

With this next election the debates will be the key. This is what I predict.

Its the Democrats only chance to get Bush out of the controlled environment and alone. This is where he is vulnerable. His image as a strong leader will crumble if a democractic contender can pick him apart in a debate. He's not a strong speaker and slow on his feet. He'll either get flustered and become belligerent or keep repeating himself. Either way he goes down. His handlers have very little faith in him, that's why they stick him with friendly crowds and prepared speeches. They keep him away from real reporters as well. This will be difficult on the campaign trail.

The dems have to lay the groundwork to get to those debates. That means no waffling! Even if your idea isn't the most supported you have to believe in it. Also, the Senators are a liability for one reason, they have spent years compromising on issues. This is what a senator does, its good. But that was Gore's Achilles heel as well, he didn't come across as someone with a clear vision, but rather a political oppurtunist. (Remember this is about perception in many ways, not reality). The Democratic candidate needs to stand toe to toe with Bush and say "My vision is better, get out of my way!". This will break down the walls of the Bush fortress.

We have our parts to play to lead up the all important debates. We have to erode the Conventional Wisdom support for Bush. By this I mean the general perception of Bush as a person. We have to start tearing down his image of strength. So this will mean creating a negative image of Bush. This can be done with repetition, a tactic the Republicans use with much delight. A perception of a candidate or politician can be created even if it isn't true. But there is enough true about Bush to damage him. A sample conversation might go something like this:

Friend: You voting for Bush?

You: No way! He's a mindless puppet.

Friend: Hey, why do you say that?

You: Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove all make the decisions, we didn't elect them, they'll all Nixon guys, and we know what a crook he was, right? Bush is just a cheerleader like he was in High School.

That's just a start of course, there is more. The public image of Bush as a strong leader does not accurately reflect the reality of his presidency. The reality is, 9-11 or not, is that this man is not suited to run the country. He has no morals. He's made all his money off of insider deals. Avoided service in the Vietnam by flying jets around Texas, eventually going AWOL. He's a deserter. And that's just a few things to get you started, there's plenty more. The Bush team has done well keeping these things out of the papers and news by pushing their own agenda to the fore. But we can wage our own guerilla movement to get this information out to the public. And this we must do if the we want to defeat Bush and the Mighty Wurlitzer of the Media.

Posted by Bruce at 4/30/2003 12:47:00 PM |

4.29.2003

Metaphor, Morality, and Politics, Or, Why Conservatives Have Left Liberals In the Dust

by George Lakoff

In conservative thought, self-reliance (a goal defined by Moral Strength) is achieved through the disciplined and unimpeded pursuit of self-interest. In metaphorical terms, the complex of strength metaphors defines the moral goal and Moral Self-Interest defines the means for achieving that goal. In moderate conservatism, the reverse is true. There maximizing self-interest is the goal and conservative values (defined by the strength complex) is the means. Thus, the difference between strict and moderate conservatism is a matter of priorities. Strict conservatives are moralistic, giving highest priority to the conservative moral metaphors and seeing the pursuit of self-interest as the natural means for achieving conservative moral values. Moderate conservatives are more pragmatic and less moralistic, seeing conservative moral values as the natural means to achieve the pragmatic end of maximizing self-interest.

Consider for a moment what a model citizen is from the point of view of this moral system. It is someone who, through self-discipline and the pursuit of self-interest, has become self-reliant. This means that rich people and successful corporations are model citizens from a conservative perspective. To encourage and reward such model citizens, conservatives support tax breaks for them and oppose environmental and other regulations that get in their way. After all, since large corporations are model citizens, we have nothing to fear from them.

Lakoff continues to amaze me with his clear and thoughtful analysis of metaphor as the driving force in our political inclinations. Do we support the politician that projects a Strict Father Model or one that embodies the Nurturant Parent? How does this explain the geographic distribution of support for these competing models? People in sparse contact, who enjoy their isolation from others place a high priority on their own self reliance, whereas people in large urban areas have learned to enjoy being in a constant state of community. When we speak of the bad character traits of the politicians we project our own moral metphor onto their behavior. When we expect people of different moral priorites to understand our criticisms we are being shortsighted. People in the "middle" do not abide by a strict model but may pick and choose between Strength and Nurturing.

The question we have to address is not how can we change people's moral perspective (though that should be a long term goal) but rather, in the short term, divorce the conservative politicians from their base by attacking their connections to the moral metaphor. This is accomplished by pointing out the failings that they exhibit in their own actions when compared to the Moral Ideal. In addition we can re-style our positions to encompass some of their moral themes.

Mary over at The Watch has more to say along these lines. Go read.

Posted by Bruce at 4/29/2003 02:16:00 PM |

Then Came the Dark Ages (again)

William Grieder in from the Nation reads my mind!

The right's unifying idea--get the government out of our lives--has broad popular appeal, at least on a sentimental level, because it represents an authentic core value in the American experience ("Don't tread on me" was a slogan in the Revolution). But the true source of its strength is the movement's fluid architecture and durability over time, not the passing personalities of Reagan-Gingrich-Bush or even the big money from business. The movement has a substantial base that believes in its ideological vision--people alarmed by cultural change or injured in some way by government intrusions, coupled with economic interests that have very strong reasons to get government off their backs--and the right has created the political mechanics that allow these disparate elements to pull together. Cosmopolitan corporate executives hold their noses and go along with Christian activists trying to stamp out "decadent" liberal culture. Fed-up working-class conservatives support business's assaults on their common enemy, liberal government, even though they may be personally injured when business objectives triumph.

His article entitled, Rolling Back the 20th Century clearly articulates the grand scheme that the right wing has for America. Its not a pretty picture. Its a real loser for the working class that will see many of its entitlements destroyed and in its place will appear new institutions that require more of their ever-shrinking income. You think taxes are bad, wait till you have to pay for everything to some private business with its ever increasing demands for more profit.

Most telling is the radical shift in who is paying for the government. Capital will be all but tax free while consumption taxes will fund what will surely be an ever growing military. The military spending will go to private companies that will see the profits given straight to them tax free. The same will be true of public education with public money paid out to suplement private educations for those that can afford it. This is nothing less than a wholesale income redistribution plan, only in this plan the money flows from workers to owners with unabashed glee. The CEO mentality states that the managers should receive all the benefit because of their moral superiority of being managers. In other words, the rich deserve more money because they're rich, and how could they be rich if they weren't worthy? Stated more politely by its backers, we should give the rich more money because it is, after all, the rich that invest and create jobs. Never mind the damaging effects that a small group of highly influential people will have on society and democracy.

My biggest fear is the society that will come about, one in which workers will be more and more called on to engage in employment geared solely towards serving the needs of the wealthy class. Society already overwhelmingly reflects the values of the well to do. The public image of America is a thin slice of the target consumer class. All Americans have disposable income, they all take vacations, they all approach their purchase decisions based solely on preference and they all gear their lives around their material desires.

Posted by Bruce at 4/29/2003 02:13:00 AM |

4.26.2003

Eschaton: Rick Santorum Quote:

You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

That is a prime example of what we like to call an opinion. Apparently formed by equating something this person finds disturbing with something thats actually bad.

Where's his proof! Saying something does not make it true!! Have we not learned anything from history?

What?

Oh yeah, they don't really teach history much anymore. I realize that every time I get in a debate with someone.

Posted by Bruce at 4/26/2003 01:06:00 PM |

4.25.2003

An Idiot's Guide to Parenting a Nuclear Armed Nation

Ari Fleischer: 4-25-2003

The North Korean way of dialogue is often to engage in as bad a behavior as they could possibly engage in, with the expectation that the world will reward them for ceasing their bad behavior. That has been their previous actions. And the President has made clear that the United States will not reward bad behavior

What does North Korea want? What foul heinous rewards do they demand for their petulant behavior?

(Small children may want to divert their eyes and scroll down a page)

BBC Website: "The US should show its political will to make a bold switchover in its hostile policy toward [North Korea] and prove it in practice. This is the master key to making the talks fruitful," according to the report, which is considered to reflect official policy.

So that's what they want? They want us to promise not to attack them? At least in public that's way they say. Oh sure, and they might want fuel shipments and some food to feed people. How so very unreasonable. But why would they be scared that the U.S. would invade them unprovoked?

What Iraq gives Iraq them Iraq that Iraq crazy Iraq idea?

Posted by Bruce at 4/25/2003 06:20:00 PM |

4.23.2003

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

Oh yeah, yesterday was Krugman Day! Its up at the NYT for seven days before it goes to the Unofficial Archive. The link to the archive is on the left hand column.

Posted by Bruce at 4/23/2003 07:27:00 PM |

Inhofe Watch!

Yes, its time agains for Inhofe Watch

Where everybody's favorite Oklahoma Senator gets dragged out into the open, with the premise that ugly infectious things wither in the light of day.

Mentioned in the New York Times April 22, 2003 as an example of the Republicans Party's continuing penchant for making inflammatory remarks regarding homosexuality:

Still, with their emphasis on traditional family values, Republicans more often find themselves at odds with gays. Former Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina once called homosexuality "sickening." And Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma once compared a gay business executive who had been nominated to an ambassadorship by President Bill Clinton to David Duke, a onetime Ku Klux Klan leader.

This is in reference to the openly gay appointment of James Hormel to Ambassador to Luxembourg in June of 1999.

At the time Human Rights Watch Issued this condemnation of Inhofe's behavior:

WASHINGTON — HRC Executive Director Elizabeth Birch today condemned Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Okla., for blocking all future Clinton administration nominations because he is upset over the recess appointment of openly gay philanthropist James C. Hormel as Ambassador to Luxembourg. Inhofe's churlish tirade and spectacular display of anti-gay discrimination underscores that raw prejudice was the sole reason Hormel wasn't confirmed, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

"Inhofe's temper tantrum is an embarrassment and indicative of the thinly veiled anti-gay discrimination that kept James Hormel from getting confirmed," said HRC Executive Director Elizabeth Birch. "The Senate's role in the confirmation process is to advise and consent. The framers of the Constitution never saw the process as a means in which to derail qualified nominees based on prejudice. Furthermore, Senator Inhofe does not seem to understand that there isn't a Constitutional right to place a hold on nominations."

Constitution? What's that you ask, is it another book of the Bible, because if it isn't then Inhofe's probably never read it. Our fearless Senator takes his insights straight from the Holy Book and the rabid fundamentalist followers he mirrors.They have even written a nice prayer for him during his battles with Ambassador Hormel and the rest of the U.S. Senate.

Bow your heads everyone: its a PrayerAlert

Lord, STAND with Senator Inhofe. Make him UNMOVEABLE! Cause our Senators, too, to stand up for RIGHTEOUSNESS. Lord, AWAKEN Your Church! May your people REPENT for their SILENCE & ARISE to PROCLAIM YOUR WORD! Cause America to say NO! to the advancing homosexual agenda, lest sodomy destroy our nation and the guilt be charged to our account. In Jesus Name, AMEN! (Lev 18:22, 24-26; Ps 9:17; Pr 28:4; Jer 1:7-10; 23:22-23; Ez 3:18-19; 8:3-11; Dan 11:32-33; Mt 28:18-20; Rom 1:16; Tit 2:11-12)

--------------------

Inhofe's biblical based view of the Middle East conflict might make President Bush's roadmap difficult, consider for example this juicy bit from last year: David Corn writing on TomPaine.com

Sen. James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, gave a speech in the Senate and asserted that Israel is "entitled" to the West Bank. He also chastised those within the United States who have urged Israeli restraint, blaming them for 9/11. "One of the reason I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America," Inhofe huffed, "is that the policy of our government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them."

So, what well reasoned thinking leads our dear Senator to come to such a conclusion?

"Because God said so.... Look it up in the book of Genesis.... In Genesis 13:14-17, the Bible says: 'the Lord said to Abram [later known as Abraham], "Lift up now your eyes, and look from the place where you are northward, and southward, and eastward and westward: for all the land which you see, to you I will give it, and to your seed forever.... Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it to thee."'"

Go read the rest of the article for more insight in the Mind of Inhofe.

Thats all for now!

Posted by Bruce at 4/23/2003 06:58:00 PM |

4.22.2003

And if This Doesn't Tickle You Pinko....?

Communist Party sets up shop, publishes first newspaper in Baghdad

From the Christian Science Monitor:

Across town, Communist Party Central Committee member Adel Khaled voices a more politically astute viewpoint.Recently emerged from five years of underground organizing, he is clearly delighted by the bustle of activity in his makeshift headquarters as the committed and the curious elbow their way to a table piled with clenched fist posters and copies of the party newspaper.

"If people feel secure, if they are allowed to express how they feel, they will come to us," he says confidently. "The party has existed for and from the people so they have been aware of us for a long time."

Instant Karma? United States ousts Saddam Hussein only to have the Iraqi people turn to the communist party? Somehow I doubt that was in the game plan of Misters Bush and Rumsfeld. Indeed I think they feel like they are going to be able to fly in the people from the Iraqi National Congress and declare victory. However from what I have read and heard nobody really knows what the INC really stands for.

Jassem Hamed has set up a branch office of the US-backed Iraqi National Congress in the cramped reception area of a former Baghdad passport office that was burned, looted, and trashed. While his colleagues make tea in the courtyard on a fire fueled by passport records, he explains that he joined the party a week ago, and was given his responsibility because a cousin works as a bodyguard to INC leader Ahmed Chalabi.

He is unclear exactly what his party stands for. "They say the INC will publish a booklet explaining what it is about, and when I read it, if I am convinced, I will stay," he says. "If not, I will leave. For the moment, it is just about democracy."

Which brings us to the million dollar question: How much democracy is the U.S. willing to allow in Iraq?

What White House Press Secretary has to say:

"The goals of a liberated Iraq, from the point of view about what type of government the United States seeks, is a democracy -- a country that welcomes different religions, that has freedom of speech, freedom to worship, a free press," Fleischer said.

So that's it. From the point of view of the United States the Iraqi people get one choice, Democracy or else... we try it again? I think its pretty clear, at least to me it is, that the U.S. wants a system in place in Iraq that is modeled after its own. To the extent that this becomes a reality will determine the "success or failure" of the new government in Iraq. You can rest assured that the U.S. representatives in Iraq, Barbara Brodine and Jay Garner will be around to "help" the Iraqis if they ever stray from their chosen course. This may lead to some friction between groups that have a different future in mind for Iraq, most notably the Islamists, who have their eyes on a Islamic state that resembles Pakistan or Iran.

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher :

I think the people on the ground will have to sort them out to make sure that all groups get represented and represented fairly in this process. It's an ongoing process. It's probably an expanding process. And, I mean, just look at this. This is great. People are demonstrating -- some against the United States. People are forming political parties. People are putting out information. People are talking to each other in Iraq in a way they've never been able to do before in their entire lives. This is a wonderful thing and it is a process that we have some confidence with, that Iraqis talking to each other, talking about their own future with each other, they will be able to create their own future and it won't be dominated or hijacked by any given group because part of our job is to ensure that all Iraqis are able to participate.

That last sentence makes me grin a little, we are there to make sure the political process doesn't get hijacked by any one group? I'm not sure I know exactly what that means but I can hazard a guess. I suppose it means that if the INC comes out and looks like its going to be the landslide winner we will hear "Clear victory for Democracy" or something along those lines. If however the Islamists start to look like they are going to dominate the new political climate in Iraq we might hear "... process has been hijacked by militant Islamists". So we will see how things play out in the near future.

My personal feelings are that I certainly don't want the Islamists coming to power, and I'm indifferent to the Communists. I would prefer to see a pluralistic process come about with a Secular government. I would like to see a multi-party system with some form of parliament. Ideally this would come about not on the shoulders of some "leader" like Chalabi but from a real broad based political movement. But I am afraid that 12 years of crippling sanctions may have fueled a virulent form of nationalism in the Iraqi heart.

What the Iraqis will have to wary of is their nasty tendency to nationalize their oil industry. Despite the claims by nearly everyone in the White House today that the oil of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq, I would not take that to mean that it belongs to them as a national industry, but rather it belongs to them if they let us in and drill for it. Lest we forget that two other Iraqi leaders have made the mistake of nationalizing the oil industry and they have both been "removed" by the same hand. Abdel Karim Kassem in 1963 and Saddam Hussein in 2003.

We shall see won't we?

Posted by Bruce at 4/22/2003 07:32:00 PM |

4.20.2003

Those Were the Best of Times, the Worst of Times

James Woolsey, former CIA director calls for Cold War, Part 2

Former CIA director, Woolsey has a great idea, he wants to take the strategy from the Cold War days and apply them to the new War on Terrorism.

Victory in this world war will depend not only on our skill in battle and our effectiveness in rolling up terrorist cells. It will depend on our being able to split as many potential adherents as possible away from our main totalitarian enemies: Sunni Islamists (al Qaeda, its fellow travelers and financiers), Shiite Islamists (Tehran's mullahs, Hezbollah), and Syria, Libya, and Sudan (each with a somewhat different ideological cover story to justify oppression). We will not be able to do this by being feckless--a terrorist prosecution here, a cruise missile there. We have tried that, and it brought us Sept. 11. The democracies must rather change the face of the Middle East, as they have changed Europe.

I only have one problem with this line of reasoning. The Cold War days were a shameful period, one in which the United States earned its reputation for being a bully. This wonderful time brought us McCarthy, Hollywood blacklists, the Vietnam War, the Korean War and a divided penisula, the assasination of Allende, continuous meddling in Latin America, Iran-Contra, the brutal bombing of Guatemala, the support of Saddam Hussein to power in Iraq, our funding of islamists in Afghanistan, the Islamic backlash in Iran, the demonization of the Russian people, runaway nuclear proliferation, the Cuban missile crisis, Richard Nixon, "Under God" in the pledge, right wing extremism and much more...

What new enemnies will we create in our single-minded drive to defeat "Terrorism"? Mr. Woolsey seems to think our lackluster approach to the world brought us Sept. 11th. I tend to think it was our heavy handed one instead, one that poured money to the future terrorists as they fought our "then" enemy, the Communists. Will we be creating more future monsters to defeat current ones Mr. Woolsey?

So while not saying that everything that happened in the period of the Cold War was a result of our War on Communism, I would say its safe to say that our paranoia of Communism and our single focus on that one thing as the source of all evil led us to make some really horrible decisions and has contributed in large part to the disarray the world is in now. As it turns out the Russian people aren't trying to eat our baby's brains, they are just normal people, admirable even, who wanted nothing more than to live in peace as well. The danger came from the governments of both countries and their opposition which drove each to commit crimes against all of humanity.

If there are lessons to be learned from the Cold War period, invading people to impose freedom was not one of them.

Posted by Bruce at 4/20/2003 12:37:00 PM |

Inhofe Watch

"Our troops are better than anyone in the world," said U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., in his closing remarks. His response got a loud, vocal approval from the approximately 2,100 people who attended the rally in Chisholm Trail Expo Center Coliseum.

My dad can beat up your dad, ummm... after 10 years of debilitating sanctions.

Inhofe, who is second ranking member of the Armed Services Committee in the U.S. Senate, said members got five classified briefings about waging a war with Iraq beginning in November.

yeah.. , we were really wanting those inspections to work weren't we? we got what we wanted, a chance to kick someone's butt and gloat about it so we can pitch some goods to a patriotic public.

Posted by Bruce at 4/20/2003 12:52:00 AM |

Archives: Story

Smith said Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chairman, has indicated that Oregon could receive a boost in federal transportation funding from 91 cents for every state dollar to 95 cents, "a significant amount of money for Oregon for transportation."

The cash register drawer pops open again. Oh wait, there's no money left in the till. Sorry. So Sorry Oregon.

Posted by Bruce at 4/20/2003 12:42:00 AM |

Ok, Now Tell Us Something We Don't Already Know

'I want to pose the question of what exactly we get from 'for profit' research,' said Sir John. 'Because these people are working in the commercial arena they will go for things that sell -- that means the things that rich people want.

'So, if you are a typical rich person -- are depressed, have high cholesterol, are ulcerated, arthritic, hyper-tense and allergic -- then you have many products available to you. If you are in a developing country suffering from tuberculosis or malaria, then just 10% of the research will go on your 90% problem. So, we cannot drive things in that way.

50 different brands of toothpaste and people are starving. Make sense to you?

Posted by Bruce at 4/20/2003 12:31:00 AM |

Enid News & Eagle

Inhofe Watch

Inhofe's environmental committee will require decisions be made based on three things: Sound science, cost benefit analysis and an attitudinal change in the bureaucracies, "starting with the worst of them all, the EPA," he said.

translation:

Sound Science = global warming is a myth
Cost benefit analysis = if its gonna cost money, adios amigo!
Attitudinal change = no environmental protection when it hurts corporate interests, okay kiddos?

Inhofe wants military spending to return to about 4 percent of the Gross Domestic Product.

Oklahoma can get more federal highway funding than has been sent here in the past, Inhofe said. Oklahoma and some other states are "donor" states and need additional funding.

You may be wondering how we're going to spend more money on military and more money on highways while passing a giant tax cut? Well, goodbye social spending. And you can bet that when it comes time to spend on those highway projects, the money just isn't going to be there, again. But that's ok in "fairyland" where this kind of economic voodoo magic works.

Riddle: What do you get when a state nearly full of yahoos keeps electing a dangerous idiot like Inhofe to office?

Answer: A dangerous idiot with too much power.

Lets get rid of this guy, ok? No cockfighting, no environmental whackos in office, ok? Can we make that pledge for our state?

Posted by Bruce at 4/20/2003 12:28:00 AM |

4.19.2003

YIKES! Its Best Not to Say What You Think

this, according to Wired Online

SAN JOSE, Calif. -- The U.S. military's research agency cut off grant money for helping to develop a secure, free operating system after a top programmer made anti-war statements to a major newspaper.

"I try to convince myself that our grant means a half of a cruise missile doesn't get built," de Raadt told the newspaper.

Within a few days, de Raadt said he received an e-mail from Jonathan Smith, a computer science professor at the University of Pennsylvania and the grant's lead researcher, expressing discomfort over the statements.

On Thursday, Smith notified de Raadt of the cancellation.

Now, its one thing to get mad at the Dixie Chicks, isn't it another to cancel a grant because you don't like what someone says? That just sorta reeks of oh, I don't know..something a repressive state might do. But rest assured, we're not that, right? We're free, according to my handy pocket dictionary of American Definitions... let's see... Freedom, yes, means.... "More shit to buy than you know what to do with". Not to be mistaken with Freedom which means "Free to say and do what you want without fear of recrimination". Old definition.

Ok, back to normanl programming.

Posted by Bruce at 4/19/2003 11:24:00 PM |

Support Our Troops -- Buy a Taco!

Nothing says we love our country like "Support our Troops" signs at:

Whataburger?
Taco Mayo?
Ford Dealerships?
Walgreens?
Banks?

So what's up with that? Could it be...? That its just another shameless way for commercial businesses to use whatever fad is handy to push merchandise down our throats? No, thats too cynical!

I have no doubt in my mind that if peace were trendy, those same businesses would be plastering peace signs all over the place. I fear for the effect that shameless commercial interests will pander to whatever they feel is the catchphrase of the day to push their goods. I have little doubt in my mind that these same businesses would line up behind a dictator if they thought they would still make a profit at it. Yeah America huh? Home of the half off?

Posted by Bruce at 4/19/2003 10:54:00 PM |

4.16.2003

Democracy is a Liberal Concept

So now we end up in a situation in Iraq where we have the Republican Conservatives spearheading the future of a "Democratic" Iraq. I find this to be troubling. The heart of Democracy in my opinion is at loggerheads with the core political base here in the United States. I think the Bush Administration will have to go against many of its domestic policy agendas if it hopes to succeed in creating a viable Democracy in Iraq.

Democracy at its finest represents the best of liberal thought. Yes, liberal, not conservative. I'll cover some of what I consider are Liberal trademarks of healthy democracy.

- Secularism - Religious tribalism is poison to Democracy. In the United States we have come to accept religious diversity for the most part. But you will see that some of conservatism’s most ardent supporters are groups that believe in the christian identity of the United States and would not be averse to watching the U.S. become the christian equivalent to Pakistan. In Iraq there must be the clear separation of religion from political power. This may be difficult for the U.S. to promote with its chants of "God Bless America". Of course you may see this come about as a by-product of the christian element in the Republican Party that wishes to send in thousands of christian missionaries as soon as the dust has settled. But the real question is: how do you establish a society that embraces a secular government if no tradition exists? It is possible to have a government that is composed of the majority religious element and still have an atmosphere of tolerance, such is the situation in the United States where a vast majority (~100%) of our elected officials are christian but there is a constitutional ban to promotion of religion. Of course this hasn't stopped our brave leaders from asking us all to pray and fast. But as of now we see little in the way of outright oppression, aside from the targeting of Muslim communities for federal investigations. In contrast to what some people say about the christian identities of the Founding Fathers, I think it is clear that they recognized the vital role that secularism plays in fair and democratic governance. Will an avowed "saved" President be able to promote a non-religious agenda abroad while still pandering to the pro-theocracy crowd here at home. There may well be calls within his powerbase to promote the conversion of the Muslim world.

- Education/ Health Care - Access to educational institutions are key to a well-informed public, but also the main roadblock to consolidation of political power. Here in the United States there is an attack on education as a threat to both conservative politics and religious power. Science in particular has been under assault for its secular approach to the world, and for that money has been withheld from public institutions to drive people to private institutions that are free to promote religious doctrine. Other efforts are being made to erode the public access to education in favor of private pay to learn systems that will further divide the country between the rich and well educated and the poor and uneducated. This will lead to a class of people that have access to government and political office and a class that must travel longer roads to the same halls of influence. I doubt very much that the Republican favorite, the voucher, will get much support in some place like Iraq. Which in my opinion shows the inherent flaws in the idea. I predict that in Iraq a system of public access to education will be established. Not vouchers.

I also put Health Care in this category as well. Liberals have been advocating to equal access to health care while many conservatives have favored the preferred access that we have now where million so people are deprived of one of the rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence, the Pursuit of Life. I suspect that some form of universal health system will be put in place in Iraq, showing for all that restricting access to medical care represents a form of human cruelty.

- Free Press - Conservatives have taken aim at the freedom of American press, and have enlisted their allegiance through economic ties. Without free discourse of ideas there can be no political freedom. How can one make the decision to vote without access to an unbiased source of information about their political candidates? Fox news for me represents a clear and present danger to American Democracy. The concepts of a critical press are considered liberal ideas. Hence the accusations that the news media represents liberal ideas, this is true in the sense that they promote the questioning of authority and a free discourse of ideas without seeming to support the "right" or "moral" case.

- Rule of Law - Recently the conservatives showed the world what it thinks of the democratic process. First through its election grab in 2000, then in its end run of the UN in its pursuit of the Iraq Invasion. This is in addition of its support of businesses that violate laws here in the United States. And now the people of the Bush administration are in the process of dismantling laws that others have erected in order to protect themselves from the powerful that seek to exploit resources and human life in their pursuit of money.

- Regulation of Economic Forces - Conservatives promote unfettered capitalism, such as we suffered through in the 20's and 30's. Liberals seek to limit the power of the business class as being essential to the protection of the process of Democracy. Once you have a dangerous tilt of economic power into the hands of a wealthy class of citizens then that will cause the government to become subservient to their needs. Economic ruin waits any that doesn’t do the bidding of the Business elite. Therefore careful control of economic forces is needed, like anti-trust, corruption and labor laws. Once again these are under attack by conservatives that seek to enable the rise of the American aristocracy as beneficial to their political viability. But will we see the reigns of Iraqi government handed over to a small group of wealthy individuals or will we promote the broad representation that is needed for a healthy democracy, one that allows extremist elements to feel like they have a place to address their grievances? We'll see.

Posted by Bruce at 4/16/2003 05:02:00 PM |

4.11.2003

Flying the Flag Says "I Love You!"
an editorial

I see people flying their flags on their vehicles, and my first response is: "What? So we don't forget which country we're in?" Did I accidently cross the border, am I in Mexico now? I assume that if you live in America you have some warm fuzzy feelings for it. The whole "They hate America" thing is stupid. It usually equates love of government for love of country. Not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination. Love of government seems to change with who sits at the Oval Office desk. Did the eight year witch hunt during Clinton's reign mean the the right wing people hated America because they wanted to humiliate the Democratic president? Not hardly. It was a huge waste of time and money but they had a certain right to expect accountability from the president. The same holds true for Bush and his decision to drag us into a Middle East war. But that was sex and this is war. I'm sure an opinion poll would reveal that many more people like sex more than war. Except Republicans I guess, who want to make sex illegal but war is "A-Ok with me!".

But I digress...

There are some that say, "If you don't tell your loved ones you love them then how will they know you do?" Well, it depends. Some people like saying "I love you" and some people like hearing it. Others seem to think that what you say matters less than what you feel or do. I fall into the second category. Saying something is fine and all, but do you really feel that way? I would even go so far to say that expressing your feelings over-often makes it less special. Its a bit like getting flowers everyday, at some point you say "Ok, enough already!".

I never really tell my parents that I love them, but they know I do. I would feel silly saying it, because it would be like "yeah... I know.. what do you want?" And vice versa my parents never tell me that they love me but they don't have to, they would do almost anything for me, and have on many occasions. But I suppose some people would be appalled at the lack of open expression in my family. But really, don't we all know people that say anything to get what they want? If you don't act like you say then people know you're a fake. So its really more about how you act then what you express. Saying something is easy, too easy.

The more I think about it the more I find patriotism confusing. Its love of your country, but that should be conditional or else its meaningless. And in America that means that you love your rights granted to you by the democratic government. But somehow demanding accountability means you are unpatriotic, and mindless cheerleading of anything your country does is considered patriotism. This puts that variety of patriotism on par with cheering on a sports team. You cheer them because they represent you in some way. But really, is a freak of geography and birth enough to warrant support? Apparently not as we asked the Iraqi people to lay down their arms and let the US military come in. We were scared that the Iraqi people would defend the Saddam Hussein regime because it represented their society, not because they respected it. We said that they should dump their government because it doesn't deserve their allegiance. In effect we said that love of country IS NOT the same as love of government. But if this is so obvious then why is asking our government to earn its right to represent us so un-patriotic? Its a game of mental twister, not a game I like much.

So what does flying an American flag say. It says you love this country. But is saying that enough. Isn't being informed, part of the decision making process, asking politicians to represent you, and taking to the streets when your mad part of being an American? Dosen't that say "I love you" the same as flying a flag. Being engaged in the political process is at the heart of what America represents to many people. So why does flying the flag seem to represent the lack of dissent? Lack of debate? Isn't it like telling your loved ones you love them but not showing it?

Or did I take a wrong turn somewhere?

Dondé Esta, Mexico? Si Señor.

Posted by Bruce at 4/11/2003 06:20:00 PM |

4.08.2003

Hey, That Stinks!

I'm not much for divine intervention, especially the soldier sandwich variety... but Krugman is worth his weight in gold right now... maybe more if he can stay the course and keep ripping these bastards to shreds with his penchant for pointing at the steaming pile of poo and saying, "Hey, that stinks!".

Go Paul!

Some timid souls will suggest that critics of the Bush administration hold off until the war is over. But that's not the American tradition — and anyway, when will this war be over? Baghdad will fall, but during the occupation that follows American soldiers will still be in harm's way. Also, a strong faction within the administration wants to go on to Syria, to Iran and beyond. And Al Qaeda is still out there.

Posted by Bruce at 4/08/2003 10:17:00 PM |

Gary Hart responds to Little Ol' Me

Bruce asked what kind of non-violent cause or causes might unite America and why Democrats have not proposed it. I can suggest at least three: homeland security, energy security, and national productivity. Americans should be enlisted in an urgent national effort to secure our neighborhoods against terrorist attacks. We can volunteer for training in emergency medical response in case of mass casualties and assume auxiliary police and fire duties. Our people would also rally around a national project to make us sufficiently energy efficient that no American need die for foreign oil in the future. And we can all participate in shifting our economy from one of consumption to one of saving, investment, and productivity.

- Gary Hart -- Weblog

my question? :

People crave action in response to attack. The media love action as fitting to their medium.

The question is: what action do we take? Is it something like war that pulls an individualistic society together for common cause, if only briefly? Or is it something like the Apollo Program, that brings us to common goals, but without the killing, alienation and jingoism?

The Republicans are unapologetic about serving the needs of their benefactors. Why should the Democracts not do likeways? There is a depth of people that would rush to a worthy cause if only one would be proposed. Instead we get tax cuts and poorly conceived wars? In a battle of ideas are the Republicans the only ones with a horse in the race?

Is Democratic Boldness an oxymoron?

While I think the response is a little.. vague, I still think that Hart might see that the next Democratic candidate has to offer an alternative to what the Bush people have done. Bush has offered up war as the answer to the question "What do we do now?" that was a response to 9/11. We as Americans feel the need to respond in some way. I hate that the oppurtunity was used to further violence and American powergrabbing. It was a crucial time in the history of the U.S. and as we all stood at that moment we were a blank slate. Unfortunately for us the neocons already new what they wanted to do and they used the desire of Americans for action to further their own ambitions. For this I will always be saddened. We could have taken off in a bold new direction, understanding that violence brought us to where we are, and that leading the charge to help create more global security and stability meant opening ourselves up to the world. We needed to become part of the world, share the pain that we have been insulated against and create a sense brotherhood. In the moments after the attacks nations declared their sense of shared grief, meaning the pain was shared as only people that have suffered likewise can share pain. Terrorism has inflicted the world for decades, but Americans were like the friend that has never been dumped by the love of his life, proclaiming that it would never happen to us. But it did, and we took the disasterous approach of declaring that we have suffered more than others, that our pain is more important than what others have felt. Then we threw aside the sense of world solidarity that had built and tramped off in a murderous rage.

The next leader needs to redirect that sense of action and make it work towards something noble, something beyond securing global markets and positioning ourselves as the world's power broker. In this I hope that the next Democratic leader will work towards.

Posted by Bruce at 4/08/2003 03:12:00 PM |

War Cheerleaders and Our Addiction

War itself is venal, dirty, confusing and perhaps the most potent narcotic invented by humankind. Modern industrial warfare means that most of those who are killed never see their attackers. There is nothing glorious or gallant about it. If we saw what wounds did to bodies, how killing is far more like butchering an animal than the clean and neat Hollywood deaths on the screen, it would turn our stomachs. If we saw how war turns young people into intoxicated killers, how it gives soldiers a license to destroy not only things but other human beings, and if we saw the perverse thrill such destruction brings, we would be horrified and frightened. If we understood that combat is often a constant battle with a consuming fear we have perhaps never known, a battle that we often lose, we would find the abstract words of war--glory, honor and patriotism--not only hollow but obscene. If we saw the deep psychological scars of slaughter, the way it maims and stunts those who participate in war for the rest of their lives, we would keep our children away. Indeed, it would be hard to wage war.
- Chris Hedges on The Press and the Myths of War

Wow... Everyone should read this article before they tune into the war coverage, because he nails the phenomenom that is happening here in America. The most obvious examples are the small local news shows that piggy-back onthe national war coverage with their own hyped up breathless coverage of "breaking events" as if they havea personal stake in anything that happens in Iraq.

Another example I'll give you, the DALLAS MORNING NEWS editor told us that they've gotten a lot of complaints for showing dead civilians or damaged civilians of Iraqis on the on the front page. And he says that it's viewed by the readers as an anti-war statement. You know, it's even showing the casualties on the other side is an anti-war statement. And you know that really goes against, again, all the principles of press coverage that we believe in which is, you know, showing what is happening. And- letting the people deal with it as, you know, as they can.

You know, this is serious business. Everyone-- everyone agrees. The war is-- you know-- is not a video game.
- Greg Mitchell, Editor of Editor and Publisher on NOW with Bill Moyers

But, yes, from the vantage point of television viewing, war is a video game. The graphics are the same, the explosions are the same, we can turn it off when we get tired or bored, and we can walk away with no feelings of real fear, guilt or shame. So, yes, how is what we're watching different from a video game? To the families of soldiers its real in their anxiety and fear for their loved ones, but for the rest of us, its a two dimensional image with no impact on us.

Posted by Bruce at 4/08/2003 12:11:00 PM |

4.07.2003

We Need Non-Profit News More Than Ever

For Broadcast Media, Patriotism Pays (washingtonpost.com)

"Get the following production pieces in the studio NOW: . . . Patriotic music that makes you cry, salute, get cold chills! Go for the emotion," advised McVay Media, a Cleveland-based consultant, in a "War Manual" memo to its station clients. ". . . Air the National Anthem at a specified time each day as long as the USA is at war."

When you make profit the motivation for your news coverage you will end up with a media that always puts more thought into echoing what the public wants rather than what needs to be said. So much for the guardian press. In music if you put a microphone too close to an amplifier it creates a horrendous feedback loop, a loud squelching noise that will hurt your head. This is what happens when the press reinforces the mass mentality. The authority figures in government set the mood and the papers cheer it on because its what the people wan't. Never mind if its a lie. The only people that are gonna say anything are going to be people that suffer as a result of the authority's assertions. In this case a genuine cause for dissent, in my opinion will get drowned out not for its merits but rather for its negative affects on ad revenue? This is chilling.

Posted by Bruce at 4/07/2003 11:51:00 PM |

HOME

Dissolve into Evergreens

About Me

bruce
35 yr old
Married
Okie
Highlands Ranch
Denver
Colorado
Student
Recording Engineer
Gemini
Arrogant
Voted for Kerry
Voted for Obama
Scumbag
Narrow-minded
Liberal
Uncle
Smug
Hypocrite
Philosophical Type
Taken
Omicron Male
Feminist Friendly
22.3% Less Smart
Whacko
Rabbit

Any Box

email

Links

Digital Media Wire
Coolfer
DP Review
The Huffington Post
Noon2nooN Race of Truth

Next Blog!

Archives

Dissolve into Evergreens