|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 Justin Oldham - Politics and Patriotism
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 Atom Site Feed 
|
10.31.2003
I see writing a blog as a little way of throwing small stones at those in power. Those who can simply write a check to get somebody to shill for them. Those who can buy a radio station, a television network or a newspaper. Those who hold the reigns of governmental power. Those that drive the massive corporate machines. I see no reason to write to express my support for those. Those with power do not need me. Those in power do not need me to make excuses for their actions, or apologize for their misdeeds. I make no money from my opinions. | CNN.com - RNC asks to review 'The Reagans' - Oct. 31, 2003: "Republicans have expressed concern that the miniseries, titled 'The Reagans,' may inaccurately portray the couple. That the miniseries inaccurately portrays the should be summed up by the phrase "Made for TV". The screenwriter herself has admitted putting words in Reagans mouth. But this action by the RNC is appalling. The Republican National Committee Friday asked CBS to allow a team of historians and friends of former President Ronald Reagan and his wife to review a miniseries about the couple before it airs. My view of the RNC tends to oscillate between "bunch of whiny babies" to "viscious pack of rich lying bastards". This fits with my "whiny babies" view of things. Gillespie said that if CBS rejects both requests, the RNC would to sell tapes and DVDs on its Web site that would present "the real Reagan record." Ok, that's better. A little more like how grown ups would act. Of course, the RNC produced portrayal of Reagan will be just as accurate as the CBS miniseries, which is to say, not at all. | AlterNet: Wal-Mart Gets Greedy: "The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) caught Wal-Mart red-handed as it contracted to have the overnight cleaning of its stores done by undocumented workers. Federal officials have told the Associated Press that company executives knew what the contractors were up to. " The people punished in this situation are the workers... again. Is it wrong to hire undocumented workers? That's a hard question to answer. On one hand if you make it illegal to hire them then they have no way of making a living. The arguements for that say it would keep people from crossing the borders to find work. But the corporations like Wal-Mart love them because their illegal status puts them at a disadvantage negotiating for wages. So its a silly game we play where our bosses keep hire illegals to put pressure on American workers looking for work. Its a great way of keeping wages down. Just hire a few guys desperate for work and send a few guys packing. It'll keep the rest of your crew working happily with little or no complaints. If you allow undocumented workers to have jobs then you have created an incentive for people to cross borders looking for work. How can you say its wrong for someone to cross the border then once their here let them work? The current system will remain in place because we have no heart to punish employers like Wal-Mart when they're caught breaking the law. Because we all know who gets hurt when you punish the corporation? The workers who get laid off or fired. Borders are the skeleton in the free trade closet. As long as you have barriers to the free flow of labor then you will always have distortions in the market. You cannot allow free flow of capital while limiting labor. If you do you end up with a situation like we have now, where the factories set up on shop on one side of that border where the labor is cheap and the workers try to move across the border to where the pay is good. Wal-Mart, which does not have the benefit of setting up shop across borders tries to take advantage of the low wage market brought about by border inequities and immigration laws. | 10.29.2003
I mean this one... There's a nice little icon in the left column, just add that to your list of feeds to monitor and you'll know when bruce has added new content. If you don't know about rss or newsfeeds you really should, if only for your own self-edification. enjoy, the staff at 'this is class warfare'. | 10.28.2003
A Willful Ignorance: "Muslims are completely wrong to think that the U.S. is engaged in a war against Islam. But that misperception flourishes in part because the domestic political strategy of the Bush administration, no longer able to claim the Iraq war was a triumph, and with little but red ink to show for its economic plans — looks more and more like a crusade. 'Election Boils Down to a Culture War' was the title of Mr. Fineman's column. But the analysis was all about abortion and euthanasia, and now we hear that opposition to gay marriage will be a major campaign theme. This isn't a culture war, it's a religious war. " Political maneuvering makes Paul Krugman angry. Its easy to understand this anger. As a man of theories and science he has a difficult time understanding why we should ever put truth and reason on the backburner simply because it might mean bad consequences. But that is sometimes the heart and soul of politics. To get elected you pander to the perceptions of the voters. You also try to manipulate the perceptions that the voters hold about you, the elected official. You might think that I dislike Bush out of some partisan responsibility to attack Republicans at all costs. But that's not the case. I, like Krugman, dislike politics as a practice, making claims that are not true, denying responsibility for any bad effects of policies, and claiming victories where none exist. All in the service of fickle public perception. Worst of all, I dislike politicians that pursue bad policy simply for the sake of political gain. This means Democrats and Republicans alike. My dislike of Bush stems from his political persona. In my eyes he represents the epitome of political fakery. OK, so "epitome" might be a little hyperbolic, but it almost fits. Bush presented himself as an outsider, a man of convictions, and a new kind of politician that would put his personal values before political manuevering. In fact he even poked criticism at the Clinton administration for relying to heavily on polls and being "wishy washy". The reality drifts pretty far from that illusion when you take a closer look. Bush represents the ultimate insider, the son of a president who has worked on campaigns and in the Whitehouse. His path to glory was not fueled by a grassroots movement of people that propelled him through the lower ranks of public service into the Whitehouse. No, Bush's backers saw a horse with a pedigree and figured the name was worth a governship and a few bucks as well. Then, his presidential campaign was custom designed by the master of political gimmickery, Karl Rove. Once elected, we saw his administration puishing to enact policies that would favor his political backers and strengthen his political capital. The operatives hit the airwaves spinning the image and parsing the phrases. Its been reported that the Bush Whitehouse takes more polls than the Clinton Whitehouse ever did. Politics as usual. But isn't that to be expected? Yes, but its still makes me angry. | Bush in 30 Seconds Here's your chance to get your video work shown on National Television. What do you have to do? Why, tell the truth about George W. Bush that's all. Or you can just write about your ideas in the Idea Swap area for others to see. What's the truth about Bush. You don't want to ask me do you? | Cher-SPAN Eschaton caller: no, I actually was called by the USO but I'm...I'm...I'm just...I'm an entertainer. And I really dont want to go much past that but...um... there much more... | 10.27.2003
... And Now a Debate from Our Sponsors! ... and responsible consumption Open Debates | Corporate Sponsorship of the Debates: "Under the auspices of the CPD, debate sites have become corporate carnivals, where sponsoring corporations market their products and propaganda to influential journalists and politicians. In 1992, after providing some $250,000 in contributions to the CPD, cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris won the right to hang a large banner that was visible during post-debate interviews. For the third 2000 presidential debate, Anheuser-Busch, which contributed $550,000 to the CPD, set up several information booths to distribute glossy pamphlets touting the benefits of consuming beer, denouncing 'unfair' beer taxes and calling on the government to 'avoid interfering' with beer drinking. " Nothing against beer. I've come to like the stuff. But as a good responsible consumer I find that I can't bring myself to support the major beer corporations, especially Coors, yuck! Right now I usually pick up some Boulevard Wheat if anything. Being a responsible consumer can be difficult at times. I remember one night a couple of years ago I was sitting around with a group of guys and one was saying "Drink Miller because they are Union, UAW." But I don't go anywhere near most Kraft products because of their affiliation with Phillip Morris, one of the worst corporate citizens ever. Miller was Kraft, and Kraft is Philip Morris. You follow that, well here's another right turn for you: Philip Morris is now Altria. Our parent company recently changed its name to Altria Group, Inc. to better clarify its identity as the owner of both food and tobacco companies that manage some of the world’s most successful brands. For more information, please visit www.altria.com. ... and as of May of 2002, Miller is no longer owned by Altria/Philip Morris, who sold the Beer company to South African Breweries. SAB is now the second largest beer maker, and Altria still has a 36% stake. Follow? So ask yourself, have you purchased any of the following products lately? Massive List of products that Kraft produces that would make this post three pages long. I know I have.... One day while reading through some comments I came across a statement that changed a my attitude about "charitable" giving by corporations. By giving to charity, corporations are either not serving the needs of the investors first by either paying out dividends of re-investing to strengthen the company. If you argue that the charitable donations are in fact helping the company by improving its image and promoting its brand then its not really charity is it? It's Public Relations or advertising, and so shouldn't be tax deductible. Despite the beneficial by-products of corporate giving (if you argue that) I think we would be better served by getting them out of the charity business, and make it an individual choice. I know Republicans get up in arms about Labor Unions giving to the Democrats saying that the individual union members should decide where that money goes, which is fair enough, but the same attitude must hold true for corporations as well. As a shareholder you should either not have your company giving money away to other people before you, or you should decide when and where that money gets donated. I would just as soon get corporations out of the charitable/political giving game altogether and let them stick to business. | 10.26.2003
The Health Insurance Question? Something that has bothered me for a while. And I don't claim to have all the answers here. I have alot of questions though and I would appreciate feedback on this one. The topic: Benefits. Right now, as the system stands, you quit your job and you lose your benefits. This means that you go through a period of time where you have no access to health insurance unless you pay for COBRA, which is extremely expensive. Why is that in this day and age, your access to a doctor is determined by your employment status? It seems like an anamoly in the market system. You don't lose your car insurance when you lose your job. What rubs me the wrong way is that access to health insurance has become vital as the cost of health care has risen. But your access to this vital resource is in the hands of your employer. At the moment they decide to fire you or lay you off you lose that insurance. Its out of your hands. Your only recourse is to try to stay employed. But we know that companies lay off people as part of their business strategies, many times regardless of your loyalty to the company. So its bad for you. Ok, so it must be good for employers right? Well, in some ways, yes. Benefits are a way of enticing employees to your company. It also acts to keep them loyal as well. But as the cost of that insurance has risen so has the burden of those benefits on the employer. As a result, many employers are trying to minimize the number of employees that have benefits. This has resulted in a rise in the temp/part-time employee, who work less hours and has little or no benefits. Because these employees have little to tie them to their job they are more likely to leave and hence companies see higher turnover, higher training costs and more time spent processing paperwork and interviewing for new hires. So would it not be best for both employers and employees to move to a system that gets away from this current employer-sponsored system. That way employers, especially small businesses, who do not have the same collective buying power of a large corporation and are thus at a disadvantage in the insurance market, can unburden themselves completely of the heavy costs of providing health insurance and focus more on other benefits to keep employees happy. Workers can then focus on creating a new system where they make the decisions on which insurance company that support instead of going with one that the employer has selected for them. The collective power of free agent insurance buyers will force greater accountability by having the flexibility to shop around in the market. More people will have access to insurance on their terms, dictated by their individual needs. Employers can take the savings and increase full time, permanent payrolls without the fear of being saddled with insurance issues. Employees can reward companies that provide better service, more choices and punish companies that refuse to pay out for needed care. So with these set of circumstances, and millions of potential insurance buyers looking for coverage why is there no independent health insurance market? Is the current employer based system keeping costs too high for independent insurance buyers? Why can't we have portability? Hasn't the time come to look at some reform of the current system that is failing? | Faux Nudes I don't have cable so I never get to watch Fox News except when I'm over at my parents. Then, I would rather visit with them than watch television. The times I have watched caused my critical thinking alarms to go off. They have a version of Fox News that airs on Sunday mornings on the fox affiliates. It is on right now as I type this. Sunday Morning Softball. | 10.25.2003
Fall is Back The Truth About Daylight Savings Time: "There is a small public health benefit to Daylight Saving time. Several studies in the U.S. and Britain have found that daylight, almost certainly because of improved visibility, substantially decreases (by four times) the likelihood of pedestrians being killed on the roads. Even if it is beneficial overall, Daylight Saving Time shifts this danger from the evening to the morning. " Its appropriate that we get this hour of sleep back during the time of the year where we lose that nice warmth. Little gifts of nature; an hour, the return of fires in the fireplace, and fall leaves... ... almost make up for the coming nightmare that is the christmas shopping season. | More People on the Wrong Side of the Bush? VH1.com : News : Good Charlotte, Green Day, NOFX To Rock Against President Bush: "Next year these bands, Green Day, NOFX, Alkaline Trio and others will unite to raise political awareness and encourage pop-punk fans to vote in the next presidential election — against George Bush. The groups will each contribute a track to the compilation Rock Against Bush and take part in at least one show on a tour organized and funded by NOFX singer/bassist Fat Mike, who also owns the label Fat Wreck Chords. So now we can literally say people are jumping on the bandwagon. | 10.24.2003
Hummmmmmmmm? er csmonitor.com: "Based on your answers, you are most likely a liberal. Read below to learn more about each foreign policy perspective." No kidding. Then I answered the questions while pretending I was a frightened little boy with a serious case of Penis Envy and it came up Neoconservative... another suprise? Not really. Thinking like a Neo-Con is easy. 1) Assume that killing or imprisoning people is the best way of shutting them up 2) Assume you are right and nobody has the right to even challenge your opinions 3) Assume that the ends justify the means, even if that means lying, giving arms to killers, or more lying. There you go, if it helps you can imagine yourself at the wheel of a Hummer bearing down on a Hybrid Toyota. | 10.23.2003
Elliot Smith Elliott Smith, 34, Rock Songwriter and Singer, Dies Apparently it was a suicide. Its been said that only when you decide that life will never change, never get better, and you believe the way it is now will be the way it will be forever does taking your own life seem like a good idea. I don't know... doesn't seem like a good idea to me. But then again... we don't know what was going through his mind. Kevin Gilbert: Song for a Dead Friend When you tear it down it only looks more ragged Goodnight | 10.22.2003
Dear Rich Fisher, StudioTulsa Schedule Please stop using the word "juxtaposition" every time you discuss art or artists. I understand its a nice art criticism-y word to use but for that reason it comes across as obnoxious. Furthermore, whilst I sling unwarranted crticism; its preferable to use your questions to ask information from your guest as opposed to trying to express your own limited knowledge. Otherwise you wouldn't need guests and we could just listen to you talk about subjects. Read some Deborah Tannan books about conversation styles, it might help. Thank You, bruce | 10.21.2003
Point, counterpoint the Tulsa Now Forum - Grassroots Effort to Change Oklahoma's Beer Laws A discussion on the TulsaNow boards about 3.2 beer in Oklahoma. My position is that we should do away with this silly "low point" beer business and join the rest of the country. Get rid of selling beer warm and put some fridges in those places. That, and let them sell groceries as well. So I don't have to drive to the grocery store to buy some limes for my Tequila (like I'll ever drink Tequila again), or Corona. Some people like Bud Light, so they should be able to get the full strength swill as well. Maybe then we could get some good home brewed stuff going on as well. I know Okies would have a passion for good beer if they were given the chance. There's also a link for a petition. | How far will these people go? huh? Bible Gateway : MARK 12;: "The Widows Offering Class Warfare!!!! Liberal media... | 10.20.2003
Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket? Emphasis Added: Rob of Emphasis Added fame, in the comments made an nice summarizing statement that I wanted to carry over here. "'Secular Humanism' is an intellectually-respectable position in philosophy that was dragged into the political debate primarily by fundamentalists looking for a bogeyman. The confusion of these two concepts is a product of right-wing propaganda, not left-wing 'pointlessness.' " Secular Humanism is nothing more than a name attached to an age old concept, "Love your neighbor as yourself". While growing up I never thought that the idea of being a good citizen, being a good person, or wanting to help humanity was in some way the antithesis of religion. However it become so, at least in fundamentalist and evangelical circles. Being religious (in the tribal sense) has replaced being virtuous. Thinking back to my own religious upbringing I have come to the somewhat startling revelation. I was raised a Religious Humanist. Sure, it may have been called Catholicism but looking back I can see that it was a mature form of religion that had completely embraced the ideals of humanism. This was no doubt a result of years of struggle to bring the church more in line with what has become the overriding virtues of Christianity. Incidentally those are also the ones that are in direct alignment with humanism. As mature religions shed the trappings of political movements they become more focused on the core message of their faith. Dealing with real issues that come from their members inevitably leads to a humanist approach. As your tribal identity becomes less obvious it becomes necessary to resort to more visible and obvious forms of expressing who you are and too whom you belong. In homogenized cultures, expressions of identity become a useless practice. Why go to the trouble when people already know who and what you are? It only becomes necessary to do so when the nature of your identity is in doubt. Since religions are political and social movements we have to think about what the rise of fundamentalist Christianity signifies. Secular Humanism can be said to be what happens when religions forsake their ideological goals and get down to the task of doing "the lord's work". But as this occurs religion loses its power as a political entity. Religions chiefly exist to build consensus amongst people for the goal of effecting change. Usually the desired change means the transfer of political power into new hands. So by raising the specter of secular humanism as some soul sapping force that threatens to destroy religion, political mobility can be restored. But for what goal? Answer me that. | We Need to Speak with the Managers! Owners Capitalism vs. Managers Capitalism June 11, 2003: "The root causes of the disease in our system are deep, and the remedies that are required to cure it will not be easy to come by. For what we have witnessed in the failure of corporate governance in America has been, as journalist William Pfaff described it, “a pathological mutation in capitalism.” He was right on the mark. The classic system—owners capitalism—had been based on a dedication to serving the interests of the corporation’s owners, maximizing the return on their capital investment. But a new system developed—managers capitalism—in which “the corporation came to be run to profit its managers, in complicity if not conspiracy with accountants and the managers of other corporations.” Why did it happen? “Because,” in Mr. Pfaff’s words, “the markets had so diffused corporate ownership that no responsible owner exists. This is morally unacceptable, but also a corruption of capitalism itself.”" These are the words of John C. Bogle, Founder and Former CEO, The Vanguard Group. What has happened, according to Bogle and Pfaff, is that as the ownership of capital has become more and more dispersed, accountability has vanished and corporate managers have been given a free reign to run corporations for the benefits of themselves. Institutional investors like mutual funds have sat back and become focused on short term gains, a goal which is sympatico with the short term ambitions of the manger class. Both expect the corporation to generate quick profits with little regard to the long term viability of the corporate body itself. Now from the perspective of the working class little has changed except for now we can expect the corporate entities to go down in fiery balls of flame more often maybe than they used to. Other than that, little has changed. People who own/run the corporations still see the workers as the source of their wealth and wish to share as little as possible. We see a split between the manager classes which have grabbed control of the reigns and the traditional owning class that are awakening to find their wealth producing engines off making others wealthy. There is an arguement to be made that the wider, more varied sources of corporate capital, via mutual funds and other large investment mechanisms takes the wealth producing vehicles and transfers them into the hands of more people. A good thing, especially if this eventually leads to corporate ownership by a collective body of the workers themselves. However, there is no governing representation that can act in the interests of the small investor against the power of the managers. This might be a role of government, but we already know who pays for the political parties; those with the wealth, the managers. So when Enron collapsed due to some very blatent mismanagement and fraud a few token measures were tossed around and then the brouhaha faded away. The current trend of corporate malfeasance will continue until one of two things happens, either the old school owners wrest control back from small scale investors, or some form of governing power steps in to put the managers back into their rightful place, as employees. | 10.19.2003
Feel the Flow Telegraph | News | Scientists make electricity from tap water: "Scientists have discovered a new way of generating electricity using water, the first innovatory method for 200 years. ... and more interesting, the posssible sources of flowing water. Since large water pressures are not needed, natural flows of water can be harnessed. These could include tidal water flows, underground aquifers, dammed water, drinking water currently being filtered by utilities companies to improve its clarity, and rain falling from roofs. The other night at Oktoberfest I was thinking, "geez, if only we could generate power by consuming copious amounts of beer we could give up fossil fuels forever". Little did I realize that when I was looking at those rows of blue Porta-Johns I was looking at the power station of the future. I'll drink to that. | 10.18.2003
Not Political, at all. Belkin Media Reader for iPod: Digital Photography Review: "Belkin Media Reader for iPod The Belkin Media Reader for iPod is the ideal tool for the mobile photographer. Now, you can back up digital images to your iPod, and take them with you on the road. Your iPod can hold thousands of digital photos and frees up your camera's disk space so you can take more pictures. Simply connect the Belkin Media Reader to your iPod's dock connector, and insert any of the six supported media types. Using software support that's already built into your iPod (with software version 2.1 or later), transfer the pictures quickly via FireWire® technology. When at home, simply connect your iPod to your computer to retrieve the data. This was a no-brainer and I saw it coming, but it bodes well for the intergration of portable hard disk devices and other small hand helds as well. Music, pictures, and all other forms of data will flow back and forth between devices as they are needed. Eventually it would be nice to have a standard transfer protocol that would enable the user of any digital camera to run the captured images directly to the portable hard disk. A bit more glamorous would be a wireless transfer of all your pictures directly into your Portable. The Nikon D2H already has WT-1 802.11b wireless to transfer files to a FTP server. So why not smaller consumer model cameras, and why not devices like iPods? Of course this opens (even further) the evil floodgates of data sharing. To misquote Ian Malcolm of Jurrasic Park fame: "I am merely stating that uhh... data finds a way". | What to Whom? The Theocrats want to give power to their religious leaders The Socialists want to give power to the state The Republicans want to give power to the corporate managers The Democrats want to give power to ??? | 10.17.2003
More Baghdag Burning Baghdad Burning: "In spite of the fact that the UN was futile in stopping the war, seeing someone like de Mello gave people some sort of weak hope. It gave you the feeling that, no, the Americans couldn't run amuck in Baghdad without the watchful of eye of the international community. " How do you say John Birch Society in Arabic? What's that, you can't? | The troops knock on your door. Baghdad Burning: A glimpse inside Baghdad. "My mother had hidden our not-particularly-impressive valuables in a few ingenious places. It was a game for days, during May, when the raids began and we started hearing tales of the ‘confiscation’ of valuables like gold and dollars during the raids. Everyone started thinking up creative hiding places to hide the money and jewelry. Neighbors and relatives would trade tips on the best hiding places and the ones that were checked right away… the guns were a little bit more difficult. They were necessary for protection against gangs and armed militias. People were allowed to have one pistol and one rifle. If the troops walk into your home, armed to the eyeballs, guns pointed and tense with fear, and find an extra rifle or gun, it is considered ‘terrorism’ and the family may find itself on the evening news as a potential terrorist cell. " They are not so unlike us. | 10.16.2003
OK Senate Race Getting Some Attention Daily Kos || The Yellin Report: Oklahoma: The "Sooner" a Democratic Senator, the Better: "With the retirement of Senator Don Nickles of Oklahoma, Democrats have a golden opporunity to win this seat. While Oklahoma gave President Bush 59% in 2000, to just 37% for Al Gore, it has a Democratic legislature and a Democratic Governor, Brad Henry (a young and very popular one as well), who is getting his state party back on its feet. With Nickles retiring to take a lobbying career, Congressman Brad Carson threw his hat into the race yesterday, as has OKC Mayor Kirk Humphreys (Carson is a Democrat, Humphreys is a Republican-more on them later). In addition, a GOP State Senator has entered the race, and a few top-gun Democrats may also run. In short, Oklahoma's Senate seat is going to be a horserace worth watching in 2004. " There's more.... I urge all my okie readers to wander over to Ko's just to get an idea of what people outside the state think about the upcoming race in Oklahoma for Nickles seat. You might even offer some insight. It would be... swell if Oklahoma became a state of some political importance. Which I guess is why they moved the primary vote up huh? Go have some fun! | Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin. Next Quote please. Top terrorist hunter’s divisive views: "“Well, is he [bin Laden] the enemy? Next slide. Or is this man [Saddam] the enemy? The enemy is none of these people I have showed you here. The enemy is a spiritual enemy. He’s called the principality of darkness. The enemy is a guy called Satan.” What can I say, he's one of your guys? Next Quote please. “Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. Why is he there? And I tell you this morning that he’s in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this.” His idealogical view, in reverse, can be heard in all the terrorist training camps. To them we are the Satan, we are the "principality of darkness", we are the ones that must be destroyed to preserve their religious worldview. Do they want to destroy the United States because we are Christian? Some do yes. Because they perceive us to be evil. They do not see themselves as agents of Satan. Neither do we. But do people like Lt. Gen. Boykin harbor the very same mentality as the terrorists? Yes. The arguement of mutually assured destruction have been outlined: They are Evil, We are Righteous. We must destroy them to please God. And the cycle of religious violence continues. | I've been listening to lots of music lately. Right now, The Notwist have captured my imagination. Its beautiful music, maybe not everyone's tastes but it seems to suit mine just fine. I am impressed by their ability to capture a dead space, sounds come out of silence and rest just outside of the ears. There is space but it is dark, thick and quiet. The vocalist keeps the melodies exciting but within a very limited range of dynamics. I've added a link to their song Pilot which resides of the Salon server. Go give a listen and see what you think. I recommend. Also been listening to Mum : Still trying to decide if I like them Postal Service: Give Up, Already love it, go get it! Dntel: Listen to Life Is Full Of Possibilities at epitonic Death Cab for Cutie: Sample and marvel at the brilliance of Photobooth Rotate! | 10.15.2003
Bush Lied. As much as we can say that the Secretary of State speaks for the President, then it is safe to say that the President was responsible for misleading the American public and the United Nations. If Powell was not speaking for the President he should have been fired right then. CBS News | Ex-Aide: Powell Misled Americans | October 15, 2003 13:23:54: "(CBS) The person responsible for analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat for Colin Powell says the Secretary of State misinformed Americans during his speech at the U.N. last winter. Pelley’s report will be broadcast on 60 Minutes II, Wednesday, Oct. 15, at 8 p.m. ET/PT. I spent some time over at the camedwards.com message board explaining why I thought Bush was a liar. And part of my case was the 11th hour presentation by Powell at the United Nations. Thielmann uses the word "mislead" but we all know what he means, it means that they used outright false information to put together their salespitch. We might call this lying if we were more honest. Powell, Bush and the Whitehouse officials knew that they were selling the war to the American people first and to the United Nations second. They knew that the American people would give the Whitehouse and the president the benefit of the doubt. If the President says that we need to invade Iraq because we have proof of the existence of dangerous weapons then there is a good chance that the general public will go along. Not because they are stupid, but because we have a certain amount of faith that our leaders will not lie outright to us. Which they did. The evidence of their deception was available at the time of the speech but was overshadowed by the confidence that the Sec. of State showed in his presentation. We could not get support from other nations because they held a higher standard of evidence and Powell clearly did not meet it with his cartoon drawings and bald assertions. Steve Allinson and a dozen other U.N. inspectors in Iraq also watched Powell’s speech. “Various people would laugh at various times [during Powell’s speech] because the information he was presenting was just, you know, didn't mean anything - had no meaning,” says Allinson. Our response then: They are just niave, they don't have our superior intelligence available Our response now: There must have been an intelligence failure. Watchers of this President and this Whitehouse know from where the intelligence failures originate. | 10.14.2003
I Pledge Allegiance to God The Pledge of Allegiance - A Short History: "His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ] The American experience in many ways is about overcoming divisive tribalism to form a country where all types of people are welcome. A new tribe of "Americans". What the pledge (as it stands now) does is place a religious requirement on your acceptance as an American. The other requirements are "liberty and justice for all". Under those ideals we form a new association that transcends racial, ethnic or religeous ones. The history of the pledge will become important as it looks like the Supreme Court will be hearing the Newdow case. Please remember that the phrase "Under God" was added to the pledge. It didn't belong there and it was added for political reasons during the Cold War, a period of time that was not our best. This is not a war against religion, it is a way of removing an encroachment of religion into government where it did not exist before. It's been long overdue in my opinion. | Religion, not Religion? What is Humanism?: "The definition of religion used by Religious Humanists is a functional one. Religion is that which serves the personal and social needs of a group of people sharing the same philosophical world view. I've heard a few people state that Humanism is a religion, which confuses me a little. Only if you view humanism as a religion in the functional sense can you make that arguement at all. To do so, you have to just look at the social aspect that religious humanism shares with traditional religion. But when people state that humanism is a religion they seem to imply that it seeks to impose a supernatural view of the world on people, in the way that traditional religion does, namely, that there is a divine being that solicits worship from humans. I think it is more fair to see Humanisn as a philosophy, some humanists also incorporate the social duties of religion into their lifestyles as well but that hardly means that they are promoting a traditional religious worldview of strict obedience to a supernatural diety. | No Comment I have switched to Haloscan comments in the hope that they will be more reliable. For now there will be two comment links, please use the right-most one. The other will disappear shortly. thanks | Dear Brad Carson, I hear you might be running for the open Senate seat that Nickles will be vacating. I have a few tips for you: 1) Become a Republican 2) Make obvious references to God/Jesus /Bible as often as humanly possible 3) Join the NRA 4) Be pro-life You do these things and you can spit in the face of everybody you meet in Oklahoma and they'll still vote for you. Blame everything on the media and never take responsibility for anything. Its worked for decades, so do yourself a favor. God Bless, | If Tom Delay is the Hammer, Who's the Sickle? The Soviet Republic of Texas (washingtonpost.com): "Self-serving redistricting schemes nationwide already have left an overwhelming number of seats in the House of Representatives so uncompetitive that election results are practically as preordained as in the old Soviet Union." I confess, I just liked the headline. I lived there, Texas, nice people, sorry politics. | 10.12.2003
The Choice Between Action and Inaction in Iraq Yes, that was the title of the email I received from the Bush capmpaign. "American (sic) cannot retreat from our responsibilities and hope for the best. Our security will not be gained by timid measures. Our security requires constant vigilance and decisive action. I believe America has only one option: We must fight this war until the work is done," President Bush said. To which I say, ok. If Bush doesn't invade Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Pakistan, The West Bank, Iran, and Syria then we have no choice but to boot him out of office and elect a President that will. If he doesnt have the guts to do what needs to be done then he doesn't deserve to be president. We won't stop until we've taken down any and all governments that pose a potential threat to our safety. Because our security comes first. Its Action or Inaction right? No middle ground. If they support terrorism then they have to be destroyed, for our own safety. By that insipid logic we should vote for the candidate that is willing to bomb the most nations. Because they imply that "war is action" and "diplomacy is inaction". Contaiment is no longer and option right? So bombs away! When is a bad action worse than no action at all? Maybe when its done to build an image of "strength" for political reasons. UPDATE: via atrios and the ajc The true policy choice is between actions that make things better for the United States and actions that make things worse. If we were to assess the invasion of Iraq on those grounds, the outcome would be something like this: What I said, but said better. | 10.09.2003
Defend This? For the christians that read this, I expect your prompt and immediate denouncement of this: DenverPost.com - LOCAL NEWS: "About 6 feet tall and 3 1/2 feet wide, Phelps' monument would bear a brass plaque reading: 'Matthew Shepard entered Hell October 12, 1998, at age 21 in defiance of God's solemn warning: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22.'" In a bit of irony, the group that erected the 10 commandments monument is offering to remove it so that the legal precedent for Phelp's monument will be negated. Its funny though, reading what's on the plaque. Doesn't that just say what others are thinking. Don't most Christians think gays are going to hell? Its just sounds, hateful, when put out there in black and white doesn't it? | 10.08.2003
God is a Shoe Recently I was suprised when a google search listed "God is a Butterfly" as the search terms. In a previous post I joked that this was going to be the title of a follow up article (which I have yet to write...) I said :"So why the rush to bed for capitalism and Christianity? Well, I'll explore that in my next attempt to tackle this issue which I have tentatively titled "Reaganism or Why God is a Butterfly". Till then..." I was third on the list. Behind... Warren Allen Smith, author of "Who’s Who in Hell ; A Handbook and International Directory for Humanists, Freethinkers, Naturalists, Rationalists and Non-Theists.” in and interview. “…I do think that the importance of acting your beliefs is far more important than the actual beliefs themselves. So if somebody wants to believe that god is a butterfly and yet he can use the Hubble telescope and find new facts that help humanity, fine. I don’t care if he believes god is a female. I don’t believe, um, I mean I don’t care about other people’s beliefs, but I do care if people are hypocritical, who say one thing and they do another.” and God is a butterfly, an ink drawing that I think is actually depicting god as a butterfly. And you know what, now I'll show up again, maybe higher huh? The next time somebody does a search for "God is a Butterly". Creepy. | "Who's Coming After Me?" Fresh Air: Wednesday - October 8, 2003: "Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly is host of Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor and the author of the best-selling books The O'Reilly Factor and The No Spin Zone. His new book is Who's Looking Out for You? " Its classic O'Reilly. At one point he says, in response to whether or not Al Franken's charge that he is a bully is true. "Look, we have an enormous audience that comes in every night to watch the O'Reilly factor on the Fox News Channel, and if I were what he says I am I couldn't possibly succeed. People wouldn't sit for it, Americans are fair people, by and large." Then regarding Al Franken he says this: "So what this is the usual propaganda that he puts out and tries to make money by defaming people and its a shame, but that's just the way it is, he does it to alot of other people. And unfortunately there's a market for that, there's a, there are people who enjoy um, reading and listening to people who attack other people with whom they disagree, personally, not, forget the issues, let's try to destroy the person." The interview proceeds and towards the end when Terry Gross wants to ask him about a book review from People magazine Bill O'Reilly says this: "This is NPR, ok, I think we all know what this is, I think we all know where you're going with this. Don't we? Dont we? " Why do I get the feeling that if it were Mr. Rogers interviewing O'Reilly that he would have said the same thing. Or even a giggling baby. If you've listened to Fresh Air for a while then you know that Terry Gross always asks great questions and never harasses her guests. When listening to the interview you will notice that this "blow up" that Bill O'Reilly experiences just comes out of left field. He took advantage of all the time that was given to him to explain his positions and Terry Gross was giving him a chance to respond to some of the harshest criticisms that he has faced. Instead of using that time wisely and defending his record he goes after the interviewer and accuses Ms. Gross of conspiracy. OK, lets face it, Bill O'Reilly is a controversial figure. He makes his living by making controversial statements for entertainment value. Every night he has a platform from which he can tell his side of the story and control what is being said, or aired. It is perfectly fair in an interview where he is the subject to ask him about the controversial aspects of his book, show and claims. What else is there to Bill O'Reilly? Its like asking a singer about singing, or a basketball player about the game. O'Reilly is a political pundit, she asked him about his punditry! | The Trojan Horse Candidate or Hiding Behind the Bushes Watching from a distance the candidacy of Arnold Schwarzenegger I could not help but think about the contradiction of his party allegiance. By all outward appearances he is outside of the Republican mold. Some might say that he represents the broad acceptance of all political types into the republican tent. I think that might be true but not for the same reasons some might argue. He represents a path to power. Arnold was accepted because he provided a door where one was needed. It matters less how that door was opened if it means that the party faithful will have access to the levers of power. I think the same can be said about the candidacy of Bush as well. When you look at the Presidency of George W. Bush, does it really reflect the "theme" of his candidacy where he was touted as an "outsider" that would bring change to Washington? The reality of his presidency is that once elected, many of the old Republican party faithful that had been out of power for almost a decade, waiting in the wings, drawing paychecks from private corporations or Think Tanks packed up their bags and returned to the Whitehouse. The irony of elections are that we elect individuals but what we get are administrations. Its almost like picking a dog based only on the sight of its tail. In the age of Arnold, the candidate himself may be nothing more than a vessel on which the party loyalists can ride into office. Once there than can unload and proceed with policies that have little mandate from the electorate. Picking your candidate can now be as simple as selecting a likable celebrity that voters can relate to and hiding in the bushes till inauguration day. This may have been the case for much longer than we think. One thing the recent debacle in California showed us was the dividing line in the Republican party between those who supported Arnold as a sure bet to attain a political foothold in California, and those that supported Tom McClintock, who more accurately represented the core values of the Republican party. There must be some bitter resentment felt by the more ideological members of the Republican party in California against Arnold for wrecking the party that Darrell Issa was throwing. The more pragmatic members knew that getting an (R) next to the governor's name meant giving the cold shoulder to McClintock. | Californians Elect Muscle-Bound Action Hero to Save the State from Gun-Toting Budget Crisis! That's funny. I have refrained from commenting on this election in California because I don't think it will make a whit of difference. Its like changing drivers after plunging off a cliff. But if makes them feel happy, more power to them. Good night California, tommorow you will wake up in a movie. | 10.06.2003
There are a few posts following that are some online tests for my "personality" type. If you spend just a few minutes here, skip past those and read some of my other writings. | Test Results: 
| INTJ ! Tell Me What That Means to Me! Test Results: "Introverted (I) 84.38% Extroverted (E) 15.63% That's what they say.... | Spot On Emphasis Added: "Forces today within our society are actively and explicitly opposed to secular humanism – which is to say, against the entire intellectual framework of the modern world. Bush and his crew are proud to align themselves with that side of the argument. This also means rejecting the analytical methods of inquiry and discovery that accompanied the Enlightenment revolution. When faith supplants reason, there is no need for inquiry: all answers are provided by dogma and ideology, and inquiry is a pernicious, wicked exercise whose only purpose is to challenge proper authority." I sometimes quibble with Rob over at Emphasis Added, but when he writes like this... I have nothing more to say than BRAVO! This is a must read, especially for many of my okie blog-mates who Rob has so carefully outed. The truth of the world is all around you, in all its messy complexity. To find it, look to the world, not to a dusty book of ancient scripture, or to a pre-baked set of ideological answers and talking points. But the Bible made me do it seems to be the excuse I hear most often. Think for yourselves people! You were born with a brain and senses to experience the world, use them. Use reason, one of the greatest tools humanity has ever created. If I disagree with somebody but they came to their opinions through their own reason and experience I listen to them. Occaasionally I have changed my mind. I don't consider that a weakness, I consider it a strength. When presented with a better arguement I ditch the old one. I am not so niave to assume that I have the world all figured out. If I did I wouldn't spend so much time thinking about things, reading what other people have to say, and trying to find arguements for and against what they say. Beliefs are just your most educated opinions. | Dogs of War Because I think its important to remember. Last time America felt compelled to pursue a war involving power politics was during the Cold War. Then, as now, we felt that our ends justified our means. Winning, defeating the communists was priority number one. In the process we helped create Osama Bin Laden, we helped usher in the fundamentalist regime in Iran, we split North Korea into two halves, we turned Afghanistan into a warzone, we coddled Saddam Hussein, we spent thousands of young lives trying to keep a domino from falling, which it did to no consequence and we spent countless hours chasing communists. And sure, the Soviet Union collapsed, and behind the dreaded Iron Curtain we found Russians. Russians who now seem like no threat to anyone. The dog's bark had been worse than his bite. But we had spent so long spinning such nightmarish tales of the braying hounds just over the fence that we had nearly torn down our own house and those around us in the process. Only now can we turn a critical eye on the mass hysteria that had inflicted our nation (and theirs as well). But our respite was brief. The important lesson gleened from those noble "communist fighting" days was single; frighten people enough with tales of our enemy's cruelty, ruthlessness and cunning and people will line up behind those politicians most willing to flex muscle. So now we have the "War on Terror", brought to us by the people that brought us the Cold War. Only now instead of communists hiding behind every bush we have terrorists hiding behind every bush. We shall return to the glory days of national paranoia. Several months ago I was in a small bookstore here in Tulsa. I happened across a fascinating book published during the height of the Cold War frenzy. At the time I had little money for unneccesary purchases so I leafed through it and put it back on the shelf. I made a mental note of where it was and I promised that once I had a few dollars I would return for it. Needless to say, when that day came, I could not find it again. But I recall the content of the book; dark, shadowy, ink-scratch clouds with menacing eyes clawing across Europe on its way to America. Bright, strong square-jawwed Americans prepared to fight for liberty. It was propaganda at it clumsiest. To my dismay it was not just some stray publication from a fringe cult of fanatics, it was an official publication of the United States government. I recall thinking that at once I was glad not to be living in those dark days but sad that I could see darker days to come. It all comes down to whether or not we keep our cool this time and not go all nutzoid like we did back then. And since that time we have invaded Iraq and my worst fears were realized. Now we see once again that the threat that prompted us to action was false, another puppy behind the fence. But there will always be more howls in the night to feed out nightmares. and... Dogs of Peace. On a more personal note, a smal story, one that might explain my current pre-occupation with dogs. Today as I sat in my bedroom at the computer with the window open I heard a clinking noise. I was unable to place it, but I thought it odd. Later I would find a dog, a small brown one with a greying muzzle standing just outside the glass of the front door. He stood there with his back legs on concrete walk and his front legs on the step. For some reason he was fascinated by the inside of the house. I found his intense stare alarming and I was at first cautious about going out the front door to meet him. I saw that he was wearing tags but I could not read the information on it from where I was inside the house. When I pushed open the glass door a bit he scooted back into the yard and began to bark. I assumed that he would soon run away, off down the street and away. But no. Not only did he stay, he worked up the courage to come stand at the door again. I watched this from around a door frame leading into the kitchen. My initial plan was to zoom in with my little digital camera and try to take a picture of the tags so I could call the owner. That was a dumb idea and soon I decided that I would have to actually catch the dog in order to read the tags. But I know a little about skittish dogs and just how utterly frustrating they can be, I hoped this dog was not so easily frightened. I ruled out the simple method of chasing him down. I harbored no illusions that I would be able to catch the dog in a contest of speed and agility. So I set about to lure him in. I went out onto the porch, and reassured by the small size of his jaw I sat down on the step and lowered my gaze. Sure enough the little dog stared at me warily. He would bark, walk around the yard, mark a small bush and stare some more. Eventually he would approach a little closer, like a plane on a flyby. Then he would wander out by the street, mark the bush again and come in for another test pass. This went on for about twenty minutes until finally, contact was made. A nose quickly touched my hands and the dog galloped away. Next he came up on the porch behind me and I was able to extend out my hand and grab his collar. Now I could read the tags. But the dog wanted rubs, so I obliged. After calling the owners and informing them of where their dog was, we waited on the porch. After a couple of minutes the owners pulled up. The dog's weird fixation on my house was revealed. It turns out that the daughter of the current owners had lived in this house, and in fact the dog had lived here as well. They now lived down the road and the dog had escaped from the yard and had come across his old house. We had been blessed with his visit. He was a friendly little dog. My apprehension had been unwarranted. My willingness to engage the dog with patience and diplomacy had been fruitful, he was returned home. Had I chased him away he would have returned, or worse he could have wandered off and been run over. | 10.05.2003
Counter-strike Unions See Politics in New Disclosure Rules: "'The current financial disclosure forms that unions file provide little of value to rank-and-file members about their union's finances and operations, and they have failed as an effective deterrent against financial misconduct,' said Elaine L. Chao, the secretary of labor. 'Too many workers are being hurt by the wrongdoing of a few.'" an analysis from DailyKos.com The more time union officers spend reporting every finance transaction to the Department of Labor, the less time they have to tell their members about George Bush’s latest attack on their right to bargain collectively and their right to earn a decent living. It was many years before the federal government recognized the rights of workers to organize. In the beginning the unions acted in opposition of the powerful business class and their allies, the federal, state and local government. I fear that if people start assuming that organizing is a right granted to them by the federal government they will accept limitations on that right. We should always remember that the working class earned the right to form unions only after years of struggle. Even though there is now legal protections for workers who try to organize it started out simply, as workers struck, walked out or sat down. They asked for permission from no one. | Panda Ring Sometimes I think I got this whole blogging thing all wrong. See, the point is to make people like you right? I am heading off in the opposite direction by alienating the core base of internet users. Unlike Rush Limbaugh who speaks for the disaffected majority that still has all the social, political and economic power in this society who are rightly paranoid that their heyday is coming to a close, I find that I come into opposition to the prevailing mindset of the internet, especially eminating from Oklahoma. More and more I think that comes from my inability to completely buy into the prevailing mythology of this part of the country. But so be it... I could do alot better by pandering to the core constituency of the internet. But I won't. And he wont either, among others. This is what has set me off. A love fest of, we are right, we are just, we are the little lint between God's toes when he takes his socks off at night. | Distasteful! Yahoo! News - Sen. Edward Kennedy to Receive Bush Award COLLEGE STATION, Texas - U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) will receive the 2003 George Bush Award for Excellence in Public Service. Thanks to Matt at Life and Deatherage for bringing this juicy tidbit to light for me. Read the following post to find out why this is so distateful. | "I'm a Uniter, not a Divider!" What a Difference Character Makes Just when I thought that any sane person would see Bush for the lying fraud that he is, there comes this virtual orgasm. Every day in every way, my esteem for this man grows and last night he said what I wanted him to say, he did what I wanted him to do and I will not forget this man is working for me. Thank you, President Bush, from the bottom of my politics-weary heart. And what so enthralled our dear Barbara Stanley to engage in such a love fest? Why, Bush said "Jesus". Isn't that enough. All that war stuff be darned. All that hypocrisy is bygone. And the phrase "this man is working for me" is code for thank God we have a theocratic white man in the Whitehouse to protect our priviledged place in the world. Suffice it to say that "this man is working to make my life more difficult". Hence, my lack of admiration. Go read the entire article, but take a doggie bag with you, you might need it. Uck. What sheer utter nonesense. But in the word's of candidate Bush: (for those of us that actually care about history) I showed the people of Texas that I'm a uniter, not a divider. I refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another. or even... Group-thought will balkanize our society, and I have rejected the politics of pitting one group of persons against another. and back to the article please... How can folks who are diametrically opposed in goals duke it out (like gentlemen for the most part, on the Right side of the aisle), one wanting smaller government and lower taxes, the other, big government and all kinds of social programs, tax and spend democrats and then yuck it up at the local watering hole. It always boggled my mind and it is one of the things about politics that I find so distasteful. oh my, we have a situation here. President Bush? I am a pro-life candidate, but there are pro-choice governors who are my friends, and who support me, and for that I am grateful. Go figure. It must be nice to keep two diametrically opposed point of views in your head and still bang away at a keyboard. Oh wait, I forgot... "September 11th changed everything"(tm). | 10.03.2003
The Boy Who Cried Liberal Orcinus: "'Liberal sportswriters have pushed the notion that it's unfair that there haven't been more black quarterbacks, and I agree with that. I simply said that their desire for McNabb to do well caused them to rate him a little higher than perhaps he actually is.'" - Rush Limbaugh Just how useless has the word "liberal" actually become? I present you the phrase "liberal sportswriters". Just how out of touch with reality are people who believe in the "liberal" fantasy? PIPA's seven polls, which included 9,611 respondents, had a margin of error from 2 to 3.5 percent. And who had the lowest rate of error for their information? PBS and NPR, the so called "liberal media" bastions. So we come to the obvious conclusion that liberal = accurate and factual. Which I could have told you a long time ago. In what might be considered the epitome of irony, an actual liberal-lefty media has indeed emerged to counter the misinformation being spewed by the right. Careful what you wish for indeed. | 10.02.2003
This is ... Stale Air with Grover Norquist! Fresh Air: Thursday - October 2, 2003 Just finished listening to Terry Gross interview Grover Norquist on Fresh Air not too long ago. It was just like I had expected, when it came time for him to explicitly state his unpopular views he would switch to demogogery and reframing of the issue. When asked how he would expect government to shrink to accomodate the tax cuts, he basically said that we should drive to reduce wages by pitting federal jobs against private jobs in a competitive bidding process. In essense, we should expect to pay for the tilted tax cuts by driving down working class wages. Fair enough, its what you would expect from that side of the class struggle, but then he went on to compare the idea of progressive taxation to the mentality that led to the holocaust. He also said that Medicare was finished and that Social Security was a Ponzi Scheme. But I think he was happy to gloss over the fact that in the process of switching from the current Social Security system of present generations paying for present retirees to one where present workers would pay for their own retirement, just how the current batch of retirees would get their money to live. If the workers of today stop paying for current retirees and instead put that money into their own retirement accounts will that not leave a whole generation of workers who have spent a lifetime paying in to Social Security high and dry? Sure, but for the wealthy it won't be an issue since they don't rely on Social Security anyways. And on the up side it will infuse the Stock Market with fresh money. I am more inclined to see the Stock Market as a Ponzi Scheme. Did you know we can get better roads by destroying unions? Neither did I. In an amazing twist of logic that would impress the Bulgarian women's gymnastic team he explained how the government would save money by shifting jobs to the private market but then he further explained how those jobs would be better paying ones. You do the math on that one. I urge you to listen for yourself and think critically about what he is saying. Think about this analysis offered by Paul Krugman: If Grover Norquist is right -- and he has been right about a lot -- the coming crisis will allow conservatives to move the nation a long way back toward the kind of limited government we had before Franklin Roosevelt. Lack of revenue, he says, will make it possible for conservative politicians -- in the name of fiscal necessity -- to dismantle immensely popular government programs that would otherwise have been untouchable. This is Class Warfare. | Tell Me What You Really Think! The Wage Slave Journal: Jesse at the WSJ (no, thats the Wage Slave Journal!) wonders... "Why do (white) people support George W. Bush? Apparently it has a lot to do with 'jobs and growth,' 'honor and integrity,' 'democracy and freedom,' and 'compassion.' Funny, those sound awfully like George W. Bush for President talking points!" ... in response to this page at Georgewbush.com. There is also a form on that page where you can submit your own blathering admiration of Bush's "compassion", "leadership" and "integrity". Here is what I sent to our dear leader: " I support George W. Bush because as a rich white christian I know that I will always be a protected minority under his presidency. I can rest easy at night knowing that Bush is working to make my life easier. His administration has lowered my taxes and made it easier for me to invest and make more money with minimal amount of risk to myself. He has done little to help unemployed workers so they will feel obligated to come to me and work for less, and that means more money for luxury goods. I can feel safe knowing that my fortune can be passed on to my children with no taxes being paid. My children will also belong to a priviledged class of Americans protected by the Republican party. And that no matter how bad things get that as long as I have money I will continue to have access to the good things in life, gated communities, education for my children (with rebates), cheap labor, and direct access to the law-making process. I also know that my religion will be given undue prominence and will remain the "official" religion of this country. I feel safe knowing that the police and the courts will always give me special consideration and that the most deadly military the world has ever known will never be turned upon me but will continue to work to further my interests. Tongue in cheek of course. I am neither christian or rich and my membership to the White People of F**king America has been revoked due to "actions unbecoming an imperialist". It was a sad day when I had to turn in my f-150 and 20 foot flagpole. | Straw Men Burning! Eject! Eject! Eject!: POWER How can people that proclaim the greatest admiration for Democracy then turn around and propose that the citizens of the world should accept american dominance? Because we're nice people? That's like saying "why shouldnt we let a governing council of nice people with our best interests at heart run America, this election stuff be damned!" History is crystal clear on one point, and that is that power – the exercise of raw military and political force – is the only effective cure for dictators and fascists, whatever flag they fly. It is not only morally justified to confront such evil; it is immoral not to do so We should note that for the rest of his essay he ignores the political component. And be warned that the "History of America" once again begins after the near total genocide of the native americans. Reading through Whittle's wanton burning of straw man after straw man I have to remind myself that we, Americans are living on occupied territory. There are treaties signed with conquered peoples that no longer have claim to their ancestral land. America was not a shiny coin that we found on the street one day. It was a bank that we claimed as our own. I have had innumerable discussions about threats, actions, responses, contingencies and capabilities, but I have never, not once in 44 years, met an American who advocated invasion and permanent conquest for national gain. Why should they? They are still feeding off the feast of past conquests. "We" conquered and stole land that "we" have yet to digest. Show me anywhere else in all the pages of history such national decency, forgiveness, and generosity. You can’t do it. It is, like so much of our history, unique. Maybe being an okie, close to the heart of Native American anguish, causes me to find this statement myopic to say the least. Or maybe its that little bit of native blood that runs through me as well. We do not enjoy sending our sons and daughters to die overseas. But when we have to fight we fight to win, and win quickly. “War is cruelty; you cannot refine it,” wrote Grant’s friend and subordinate, William T. Sherman. You cannot refine it, indeed. You can only do it and get it over with as quickly as possible. On the contrary I think we do enjoy sending our sons and daughters off to fight. After Sept. 11th there was a palpable feeling of near-glee at the prospect of yet another generation of Americans going off to fight the good fight. It was blasphemous to say that any other option was considerable. Bush knew what all the flags meant, it was a national cry for battle. He merely gave us what we craved. It was our rebirth, reliving for yet another generation our genesis bathed in blood. For those Americans that only know one side of the American legend they cannot understand that I look at the birth of this nation through the lens of my ancestry. It was birth, and it was death, and to pretend otherwise is a false picture. One that Bill Whittle is content to repaint yet again. I know that when he invokes the term "Americans" he refers not to a nation of people but to a constituency. One to which I only partially belong. | 10.01.2003
Didn't Scripture also Supposedly Condone Racism? flyovercountry.blog-city.com: "What happens when scripture, which I believe is inerrant, violates another American's human rights? Could our pastors who preach the truth be jailed? Could Christians be called upon to practice civil disobediance? Clearly, homosexuals are waging an aggressive and cleverly executed war to normalize their behavior in American culture. Gay-themed TV shows are among the highest rated shows, gay couples are putting dents in the marriage armor, and gay couples are making significant inroads in the upbringing and educating of our unwanted children: foster kids. Am I prepared to lose my job and my freedom over this? Will my children have to make that decision?" Update: Upon further reflection I deleted most of what I had previously said. I dont feel confortable trying to make a value judgement like that. I do however still feel that bias against homosexuals masked behind the facade of merely following scriptures is a bit hard for me to take seriously. Would you go on to say that "if it wasn't for scripture I would be totally fine with gays being more acceptable in mainstream society"? My line tends to be drawn at accepting anybody as long as they don't victimize others or deny somebody else their rights to liberty. I feel that preaching intolerance is the first step towards advocating violence. If you tell someone that you don't like their lifestyle and they refuse to change what are your options then? I think its an easy decision. I dont have to make that decision between religious doctrine or human rights. And in reality its not all christians that feel the bible condemns homosexuality. I hope when of if that decision ever comes, you side with your heart. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. --1 John iii. 15. | Framing a Democratic Agenda: "Social programs give people things they haven't earned, promoting dependency and lack of discipline, and are therefore immoral. The good people – those who have become self-reliant through discipline and pursuit of self-interest – deserve their wealth as a reward. Rewarding people who are doing the right thing is moral. Taxing them is punishment, an affliction, and is therefore immoral. " Right? can I hear an amen? | |
About Me
Any Box 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
