|
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 
|
12.27.2005
Yesterday I had the pleasure of witnessing a conversation between two aging white guys who were (in their minds) doing their part in saving society from falling apart. One guy was working with a group to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as "one man, one women" because, in his mind, gays were attacking marriage and that was what was "causing such problems with families". That this mentality is right out of the hateful Pat Robertston's playbook is obvious, but what instantly came to my mind was "scapegoating". People simply find ways of blaming any changes that they find distasteful on other people, which gives them a pass and keeps them from having to admit their own role in things. Its one thing to say "I don't like how things have changed", its another to be a part of that change, and in my opinion, a driver of that change, and then, when learning that the byproducts of your actions are leading to circumstances you don't like, find a scapegoat to blame it all on. Amanda at Pandagon had a good observation along these lines: The right wing war cry about saving traditional marriage makes no logical sense, but it does provide an easy scapegoat for a myriad of anxieties about the very real changes that have already happened to family life and that affect nearly everyone. Most people nowadays, straight or gay, already feel empowered to organize their family lives according to their needs and desires, not according to tradition. All the anxiety this is creating is getting exerted on banning just one choice out of the hundreds, if not thousands, that people feel have opened up to them--in this case, marrying someone of the same sex. I find it hard to take these people seriously when the targets of their ire are such small, insignificant parts of a greater mechanism. They're giving more weight to gays and people who refuse to say "Merry Christmas" than to other, more influential forces; the marketing of a hyper-comsumer lifestyle, for one. | 12.25.2005
The second most poorly organized war on "something", has fallen short again. Despite the recruitment of top retailers and random scrooges, we were unable to overcome the tremendous obstacles we faced; no funding, no leader, no organization, and most of all, no representiation in government... The Global War on Christmas has failed yet again. Damn you Bill O'Reilly!!! | 12.23.2005
President Discusses Accomplishments and Future Priorities: "THE PRESIDENT: I hope you all have a happy holiday. This has been a year of strong progress toward a freer, more peaceful world, and a prosperous America. We had three sets of elections in Iraq. This is an amazing moment in the history of liberty. A new parliament has been seated in Afghanistan. Our economy is strong and getting stronger; people are working, we've added 4.5 million new jobs since April of 2003; productivity is up; small businesses are flourishing; home ownership is high. It's been a good year for the American people." With a link to a detailed "fact sheet" of Our Dear Leader's many accomplishments... But what about the chocolate rations? The fabulous statistics continued to pour out of the telescreen. As compared with last year there was more food, more clothes, more houses, more furniture, more cooking-pots, more fuel, more ships, more helicopters, more books, more babies -- more of everything except disease, crime, and insanity. Year by year and minute by minute, everybody and everything was whizzing rapidly upwards. Once upon time I came across a conservative who proclaimed that the primary reason for his support of the Republican party came from his ardent anti-communism. For many, its seemed that the "problem" with communism was not its tendency to devolve into a tyranny, it was its emergence as a competitor to our own sphere of power. For nowadays we have conservatives, who used to be rabid anti-communists, apologizing for the very same tactics once utilized by the soviet government. So what if the government spies on its own citizens and patrols the parking lots of mosques to take radiation readings? To swallow the line "we're bringing democracy to Iraq" means that we have to accept a very limited and dumbed-down version of what democracy is supposed to mean. Its an organic acceptance of self government, not an imposed election process. Inhabitants of a democracy need not only vote every so often for a small slate of handpicked candidates, they need to be active participants in government. Most importantly, members of a democracy have to believe in the process of self government. We seek a result without completely understanding the process first. Words are containers for ideas. I cannot be a "vegetarian" if I still eat meat. We cannot "love freedom" if we accept tyranny in our name. We cannot "promote democracy" if we don't respect and practice it here first. Words as symbols are empty vessels. | 12.22.2005
ok, I haven't given you guys much to read lately. I can't explain it other than that I have other pursuits that I've been enjoying more than writing. But, never fear, this is NOT one of those dreaded "I've decided to take a hiatus" blog posts that annoy the hell out of some of us. When too much of your brain power is being diverted to other tasks, such as, CHRISTMAS SHOPPING and planning fun things to do with loved ones it leaves less time for the brain to dwell on political subjects. Its a dusty old suitcase easily jettisoned when the load gets too heavy. But, I still read. And Michael Berube is an excellent writer and here he addresses a phenomenon I've experienced as well. Liberals turned pro-authoritarian wingnut. I’ve been wondering about this for about four years now: how is it that when former liberals pledge allegiance to George Bush (because, you know, everything changed on 9/11), they not only jettison many of their former beliefs, but they take on every single last one of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Wingnut Faith? | 12.18.2005
shorter bush: "I take responsibility for my decision, which was correct. I blame bad intelligence and other nations for all that stuff I swore was true but turned out to be false. So... you either see that every decision I've made is turning the world into a paradise on earth or you don't. If you disagree with me, don't dispair, don't spend your nights crying about what a loser you are, for I will continue to spend billions, send other people's kids off to die and believe in my own infallibility even if you are a defeatist who wants destroy the hopes and dreams of everyone on earth." Thanks prez. | 12.16.2005
I've been saying it for a while now, and its become one of my "fundamental" issues regarding what's wrong these days. And its this: media shills. Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow at the esteemed Cato Institute admits that he took money from Jack Abramoff for writing columns that were favorable to Abramoff's clients. Bandow confirms that he received $2,000 for some pieces, but says it was "usually less than that amount." He says he wrote all the pieces himself, though with topics and information provided by Abramoff. He adds that he wouldn't write about subjects that didn't interest him. And this is the part that amuses me. Of course these columnists will all adamently declare that they are writing their own opinions and that they are not paid to push certain agendas. But few will go so far as to admit that they would never have a career as a "professional" opinion maker if there was not someone out there willing to pay them for their "useful opinions". Its a market, and having a better product means you'll go further. Bandow isn't the only think-tanker to have received payments from Abramoff for writing articles. Peter Ferrara, a senior policy adviser at the conservative Institute for Policy Innovation, says he, too, took money from Abramoff to write op-ed pieces boosting the lobbyist's clients. "I do that all the time," Ferrara says. "I've done that in the past, and I'll do it in the future." Ferrara is more honest about what he does. He sells his opinions. Now it stands to reason that if your opinion is not marketable then you will never make a living at writing op/eds. Its not hard to come up with a few opinions that might be easy sells:
There's more, but the trend is easy to spot. Any opinion that promotes the idea that powerful people should become more rich, more powerful and more protected will get support. They are, after all, just protecting their interests by making sure that their point of view gets airtime. But it should come as no suprise to us that the majority of people out there making their living by writing opinions are pushing a pro-wealthy set of ideas. Which is fine, except that most of these columnists seem to think that they are part of the journalism profession when in fact they are just freelance salesmen. more at eschaton, Cursor, and Media Transparency | 12.11.2005
"The enemy is the gramophone mind, whether or not one agrees with the record that is being played at the moment." -Orwell | 12.09.2005
$56 Billion in Tax Cuts Passed: "The House approved yesterday $56 billion in tax cuts that would keep alive the deep reductions in the tax rates on dividends and capital gains passed in 2003" (sarcastic) Greeaaaat... take it away from old people, students and mothers and give it to investors, because they've been having a such a hard time lately. Its funny that people used to scoff when I would suggest that the tax cuts would be used to justify cuts in services to the poor. Well, here it is, happening right in front of our eyes. Class warfare. The other day I was trying to explain to a friend that I have no problem with people earning lots and lots of money, especially if they provide a valuable service to the country. But I have a real problem with the government picking the winners and losers and trying to sell it as economic stimulas. I do think that we should offer incentive to people to achieve and invent and to put their money to use towards the greater good. To take that away would be detrimental to us all. But at the same time I'm not a big fan of negative reinforcement. I resent the people that seem to think that if we didn't dangle the threat of starvation and premature death over people's head they wouldn't feel the need to work or create. Because that's what we do when we make it harder and harder for people to even put food on the table. It makes me angry when I see government policy guided by the idea that we should take away any sort of safety net because it might keep people from looking for work. Without the threat of homelessness and starvation, it is reasoned, people would just sit around and watch tv, eat free food and smoke cigarettes. That may be true. But don't you think that the people who want more out of life would go for it anyways? Wouldn't it be better to resort to positive incentives to entice people to take jobs? But no, that would cut into profits. Much better to lobby the government to create a favorable labor environment where people are scared not to take jobs at poverty wages. | 12.08.2005
So, if you live in Oklahoma and filed state taxes last year you've probably received a check by now. Mine's for $45. A letter of explanation, very similar to the one we all got when Bush issued his "Relief" back in the day, reads that the State of Oklahoma needs to send us this money because of the surplus $91 million it collected. Interesting... Because we have all this excess money but we still have all these toll roads? Why not use that money to pay off those roads and make them free like most of the nation? Because we've just started a state lottery, the rationale of which included raising money for the Oklahoma Schools. Are we to assume that the schools are past that crisis and that we wouldn't benefit from putting a little extra money into fixing up some of our schools? Because, last I heard we were way behind on fixing our roads and bridges...$9 billion according to one group. I was also wondering whether this tax "relief" check would be a smokescreen for larger, more destructive tax cuts to come in the future. For we all know (yet some deny) that those checks we got from the federal government were an attempt to get us all to think that we all shared in tax "relief", when in fact, the majority of the budget busting tax cuts are just starting to roll in and are very heavily tilted to benefit the wealthy. Seems the same might be true on the state level as well, if we are to believe this press release from Senate Republican Leader Glenn Coffee, R-Oklahoma City "Senate Republicans are pleased that Senate Democrats have acknowledged that tax relief is needed in Oklahoma. However, we believe it is better to enact job-creating, long-term tax reforms such as broad-based reductions in the income tax, reducing the estate tax to that of surrounding states, and fully eliminating the state capital gains tax." Income, estate and capital gains... all rich people's taxes*. Silly me, I thought we solved all the problems with Oklahoma when we passed Right to Be a Serf back a few years ago? It seems like Brad Henry and the State legislators are playing games with us. They are either giving us money that should be used to do the state's business, lying to us about the needs of the state, or buying our silence on future tax cuts to come. * yes, captain obvious I know that working people pay income taxes as well, but I've written about the way that different taxes affect different economic segments and I'm not going to rehash them again, go do some research. | At 87, Wallace still tells it like it is - The Boston Globe: "Q. President George W. Bush has declined to be interviewed by you. What would you ask him if you had the chance? I know why he was chosen as the nominee, because he just accepted that he deserved to be president because of who he was. That, and he had no personal agenda other than self-glorification, others could happily make policy while the boy king played with his toys. George Bush was to be nothing more than a Mr. President of America pagent winner who would attend ribbon cuttings and make prepared speeches in support of pro-corporate policies. An honest answer from our president would go something like this: "I was qualified to be president because I was wealthy, had a good name that people recognized and could rally the Republican faithful, and I had connections to powerful people that could make it happen." George W. Bush is president because it was handed to him, and he was too convinced of his own superiority to know that he would be an awful president. (via eschaton) | 11.30.2005
I was just wondering a few things. If religious people think that their religion is directly handed down from God, where do they think the other religions come from? It seems that there are only two other choices; other religions are either culturally derived, or inspired by satan. If you think of institutional religion as a cultural byproduct then you understand the non-religious point of view, we're just spectators without a horse in the race. I find it interesting that people can have an objective view of other people but not of themselves. But that condition seems more the norm than the deviation. Take for instance, this article, quoted and linked by Dan at NBoS. Heshu Yones, a West London teen, fought off her father for a frantic 15 minutes. She ran from room to room in her family home one Saturday afternoon until he cornered her in a dingy bathroom, held her over the tub and slit her throat. Dan reads this article and says: "Such a kind and tolerant, peaceful religion Islam is. Not." We both see the actions of the father as disgusting and wrong. But where he sees fault in the religion, I simply see a religion that reflects a culture that accepts punishing/killing women as acceptable and right in response to what they see as dishonor. I see this same impulse in our own society, especially in arguments that assert that women should be made to carry a child conceived in a "dishonorable" fashion. Ben Shapiro over at ShillHall.com laments the fact that women are not made to feel shame at their choice to have an abortion. "The pro-choice crowd has never wanted abortion to be rare. Were abortion rare, women considering abortions would feel subtle societal pressure to preserve the life growing within them. Such societal pressure would create a "coercive" environment for women, inhibiting their ability to choose. For abortion to thrive, it must be common." ..or, as the guy I linked to in my last post might put it, we can add sexually independent people to the list of "...anti-social groups we've happily persecuted for their transgressive beliefs." After all, sexual deviance must be punished, its even in our own Christian history. 7 " 'Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the LORD your God. 8 Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the LORD, who makes you holy. [b] We can sit here and scoff at the concept of honor, or be appalled that a father might kill his daughter simply for dating a boy. But its just silly to dismiss how powerful cultural, or religious forces can be. ""The idea of honor is in our cultural backyard. Ethnically and culturally, we believe it," said Mohammed Ahmed, a white-haired man who said he was a peshmerga--a fearsome mountain-fighter--with Yones before they immigrated in 1990. umm, yeah... she must be put to death? So too the rebellious son? 18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. I see institutional religion as a hard-coding of societal norms disguised as the "will of god". Its not too hard to see that religious values change to reflect current cultural values. Nobody with a straight face can say that our current society is exactly like it has been for thousands of years prior, yet, amazingly the values we hold as a society still reflect "god's will". God used to be all hung up that we adore the monarch, submit to our lords and burn heretics, now he's cool with democracy, capitalism and letting heretics live on in their disobedience. Funny that... But it leads me to conclude that the path to civilization leads through a restructuring of societies, not religions. I think that Islam, like Christianity can be compatible with modernity but it will take a revamping of many long held cultural traditions and quite frankly, learning to ignore the parts of the religion that directly contradict modern values of tolerance and peace. | 11.27.2005
BrothersJudd Blog: SOONER OR LATER HE OPENS THE DRAWER NEXT TO THE BED (via Rick Perlstein):: "Witches are no more innocent than pagans, anarchists, Bundists, Nazis, Communists, homosexuals, white separatists, Islamicists or any of the other anti-social groups we've happily persecuted for their transgressive beliefs. We're an extremely conformist society which is why we thrive." interesting... anti-social = non-christian. In other words: When you reject Christianity, you reject American culture, thus you deserve to be persecuted until such time that you convert back, rot in prison, or die. Sometimes it seems like you can't throw a rock in a random direction without hitting someone that feels perfectly justified in defining right and wrong based on their own special reading of scripture. I am right, therefore, everyone that is not like me is wrong and deserves to be persecuted. | 11.22.2005
Reading through the various blogs that have linked to me I came across this little nugget which I found amusing... A take on the story of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer: by The Rambling Taoist What rubs me the wrong way is the fact that the young reindeer was ONLY accepted into the "in crowd" WHEN it was discovered that his shiny red nose would benefit the plans of others. Had the thick fog NOT descended upon the North Pole, Rudolph would still be considered a "leper". This is a convenient remainder that economies are artificial constructs and that our worth within an economy depends NOT on our worth as individuals, but on our usefulness to that system. In essence, you are valuable when you become useful to the money making system. All non-productive aspects of who you are are considered worthless. In the Rudolph example, he is only considered valuable when the fog is keeping Santa from flying his sleigh, and only then does Santa have a use for him. Until that point, in the "non-fog" economy, Rudolph is of little use to anyone, and his individualism is considered a negative factor. The other reindeer probably made fun of him, and preached to him about "moral values". Rudolph probably even considered having a painful nose-replacement surgery. In America, and possibly elsewhere, its easy to use a person's financial worth as a measure of their personal worth. People, both rich and poor, think that having money confers a greater since of worth on the person that has it. I've heard it said, mostly amongst right-wingers, that if you can't find a way to make lots of money then there is something wrong with you morally; you're lazy, or unmotivated, or irresponsible. Or maybe you're just a red-nosed reindeer in a non-fog economy? I personally feel that it is a horrible mistake to make value judgments on people simply because they are wealthy or poor. Not all rich people are fine, upstanding, moral people. Some are crooks and assholes. Not all poor people are lazy, irresponsible criminals. Some are really kind and hard-working. And it goes the other way as well. Not all rich people are evil and greedy, and not all poor people are selfless saints. Economic status really is a poor indicator of a person's value. But, there is, in my opinion, a fundamental truth about human beings, and it is this: We assign greater value to the decisions we make than to those of others. So going back to the example of Rudolph; let's say that Rudolph had decided that having a bright red nose was a detriment to his goals in life. So he goes and has it surgically replaced with a normal black one. Its at that point that Rudolph sees possesing a black nose as even more important than most reindeer. If another red-nosed reindeer were to come along, Rudolph would be the first to scorn that new reindeer if that red-nosed reindeer decides that having a red-nose is not so bad, and that rather than replace his nose he'll just learn to live with the consequences. Seeing this new reindeer lead a happy productive life without having to make the same sacrifices, without having to go through the painful nose-replacement surgery, drives Rudolph over the edge. He starts a blog to denounce all red-nosed reindeer as immoral and dangerous to society. In real life though people very much need to place a higher value on the decisions they have made in their own personal life. If a someone has devoted a large majority of their life to a cause or an idealogy they are going to place a greater value on people that have done so as well. People that have made sacrifices to survive or to make themselves useful to the system will find people that haven't made those same sacrifices to be deficient, when really it just means that those people made different choices with their lives. Knowing this about human beings makes them a lot easier to understand. | 11.18.2005
House Republicans Respond to Murtha - New York Times: J.D. Hayworth, Representative from Arizona: (whose " ...media career included both radio and television, most notably seven years as a sports anchor on channel 10 in Phoenix.") "As was mentioned earlier, the majority's exit strategy is victory and freedom for the people of Iraq. Now, sadly, many on the Democratic side have revealed their exit strategy: surrender. The American people will not stand for surrender. The American people are made of sterner stuff. And the American people understand that if we turn tail and leave now more problems will visit our shores and the consequences will be far greater. And, if there's a doubt, take a look at the people of Old Europe. Take a look at the French. Take a look at what is transpiring in the streets of France. ... in respose to Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania (whose notable career included 37 years in the marines.) I believe that and I have concluded the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress. Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, the Saddamists and the foreign jihadists. And let me tell you, they haven't captured any in this latest activity, so this idea that they're coming in from outside, we still think there's only 7 percent. ...and My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces, to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq. Part of the debate that got shunted to the side in the rush to go to war was the issue of occupation. The prowar people pooh poohed the idea that the United States would get stuck in Iraq for years. They were wrong about that too. | 11.17.2005
ABC News: Cheney calls war critics 'dishonest, reprehensible': Since the latest Republican talking points have infiltrated my comments I shall address them here. "Administration officials have acknowledged intelligence on Iraqi weapons was faulty, but say Democrats, Republicans and foreign intelligence agencies all believed Baghdad had deadly weapons before the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion." Ah yes, now we trot out the "Well, we all thought it was true" defense. More evidence that Rove is back in charge of the propaganda writing department at the White House. "The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone — but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history," said Cheney, a principal architect of the war and a focus of Democratic allegations the administration misrepresented intelligence on Iraq's weapons program. Rewriting history? "We're not going to sit by..."? There's something trademark about the false victimhood of the GOP talking points that instantly makes them recognizable. And of course the claim that others are trying to rewrite history is laughable if you can remember back about six months ago when the talking points were that we needed to invade Iraq to spread democracy throughout the Middle East, and that the WMD argument was simply a convenient rallying point. Not too long ago the WMD argument was considered moot, as we were about to see the emergence of a democratic Iraq which would lead the Middle East in a wave of peace and freedom. Then, it was said, we would realize why Bush needed to use the WMD argument to get the American people on board for this invasion. The ends would justify the means. But that is in the past, and we have a new set of definitions of reality to abide by. I just wish I could get a refund for the all the time I spend refuting each new set of talking points.... ok... Anyone who reads this blog closely understands that I am not a partisan. But that doesn't keep people from assuming that if they can score one on the Democrats that they can get me to back down. Not true. I'll repeat it again for all the obtuse: I don't care about what the Democrats do or say, it doesn't affect what I believe one way or the other. There are, as hard as it may be to believe, people that ignore the partisan bickering and consider it mostly trivial. When we were being lead to this invasion back in '03 I distinctly remember being left out to dry by a large contingent of the Democratic party who thought it would be safer to play along with Bush and his rush to start bombing than take what was then considered "unpatriotic" or "soft" positions on "the war". So you can see why I'm not in any rush to defend them from the Republican attacks. Make no mistake, Bush, as the one who advocated for the war, deserves the bulk of the blame for the deception and mistakes surrounding the debacle in Iraq, but the Democrats who failed to stand up to him are responsible as well. Cheney is right in some regard, the Bush administration DID fool the Democrats into supporting them, but he's also being a world-class asshole by trying to use that fact to diminish his role in leading us into this mess in the first place. right... Since everyone believed that Saddam had WMD's then Bush was right to invade. Since I was actually alive back in 2003 and had the ability to read I will tell you what really happened. Many of the world's intelligence agencies did indeed SUSPECT that Saddam may have rebuilt some of his WMD program. But, and this is a vital point, most people were not sure about the accuracy of this information as there was very little means to actually verify or deny its reliability. The idea, as it was presented, was that Saddam had the INTENT to redevelop his programs, that he had the resources available to him in terms of knowledge provided to him by the United States years ago, and that without inspectors in the country to watch over him it was LIKELY that he was working on something. This was the case, mostly circumstantial, that was presented by Colin Powell before the United Nations. The nearly unanimous verdict by MOST OF THE WORLD, was that this was insufficient proof for invasion. But most people conceeded that it might be prudent to use the threat of force to push Saddam to comply with prior UN resolutions. Most of the world pushed for inspections to verify or deny the existence of dangerous weapons. Many of us (gasp!) thought that taking the drastic step of toppling a nation's government and opening that hornet's nest of trouble should be done with the most reliable evidence available. hence... Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by Unscom in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure. ok, so choke on that... and reality as it really happened. The authorization to use military force was passed in early October to accomplish compliance with United Nations Security council resolutions. SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. ...and the part that gets overlooked, the same resolution also calls for diplomatic efforts as well. SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS The Democrats, in my opinion, were wrong to support this resolution, because Bush was showing no inclination that he would make a good faith effort to let diplomatic means play out. The administration was already preparing for an invasion and even efforts by the United Nations inspectors or the other members of the Security Council at finding a peaceful means to ensure that Iraq posed no threat were discounted. Upon hearing that Iraq had agreed to allow inspectors back into Iraq a Bush official said: ""If [Saddam] thinks this is about letting inspectors in, or playing the same old game of give a little when under pressure, he is about to learn differently." I like many others thought the whole ordeal with the Security Council was nothing but a game to get congressional support for a invasion that had been planned since the days immediately after 9-11. This turned out to be the case, the United States went ahead and invaded without the support of the Security Council. When it became obvious that the case for the war; that Saddam was not in compliance with Security Council resolutions, that he had hidden weapons, and that he was intending to use them to harm the United States, started to unravel, Bush went ahead and attacked anyways. But whew... getting the facts straight sure does take time and effort. | 11.16.2005
...as seen on Pandagon: : Christopher Flickinger, conservative chickenhawk. "I'm not in Iraq because I don't have to be in Iraq. We have brave men and women who volunteer and dedicate their lives to fighting for our country so those of us back here at home may carry on with our livelihoods in comfort and security. But, make no mistake, Americans who cherish freedom and liberty will not hesitate to defend the values they hold dear." he goes on to say: "The price of 2,000 lives over a two and a half year period - for the cause of freedom - is small compared to what our forefathers paid." I'm sure there are thousands more disposable people out there to die for his "comfort and security"? That this war is doing nothing more than inflaming even more hatred towards the United States seems inconsequential to people that fetishize war. Here's my issue. People that volunteer to be in the military serve under the command of the political leadership; the president, the congress, and the senate, who have the responsibility to use the military in a way that will protect and defend the United States. We have the responsibility to hold those politicians accountable so that they don't abuse the good faith of the people who volunteer. I personally don't consider 2,000+ lives to be small, especially when you ask the all important questions: Is this war essential for the safety of the United States? Were the political leaders honest and forthcoming about why this war was necessary to protect the United States? I think the answers to those two questions are no, and no. 2,000 lives are too many to be wasted on a war that was conducted primarily to boost political and economic fortunes. That's the way I see it. That's the way the evidence points. And if that is true, only people that think wars should be fought to enrich corporations and make politicians look "manly and strong" should enlist. I think that will be a small army. |  Kicking Television came out this Tuesday. You can hear a sample of four songs here. Many places have great prices the week of release.... I'm just saying. | 11.15.2005
Andrew Leigh on Pajamas Media on National Review Online: "'If we're not certain a story is real,' Simon said, 'we immediately ping our eight wise men and check it out.'" Wise men = people like Michelle Malkin and Glenn Reynolds? You see, I find this whole "bloggers will factcheck the mainstream media" idea kinda silly, as many of these "factchecking bloggers" are nothing more than people sitting around coming up with farfetched theories and pushing their agenda. Its akin to politicians who think they can diagnose a terminally ill patient over the TV. These are the people that got a big head after they caught CBS using a memo of dubious origin. It wasn't, as they claimed, that CBS was deliberately passing a forged memo, attune with their liberal slant, but rather that most mainstream media outlets are sloppy when it comes to making sure their sources are legit before they hit the air. You see, they never produced enough evidence that the document was forged, but they did show that CBS didn't do a good enough job of determining the memos authenticity before running with it. They chased a rabbit into the bushes and came back out with a squirell; hardly a victory. But that does not stop them from using that accidental victory as a basis for their legitimacy. Isn't this all a little pie-in-the-sky, however? Who could imagine supplanting the venerable Associated Press wire service, for instance? Oh good lord!! Charles Johnson is the owner of Little Green Footballs, a blog I consider the most odious of the right wing attack blogs, hurling out insults and smear on a daily basis, with little to no regard to facts at all. Another of their "wise men" is Michelle Malkin, whose new book, "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild" is slowly, and methodically being torn to journalistic shreds by David Neiwert. Its not that ordinary bloggers aren't useful in providing different points of view, and even closer coverage of events, because they are, its that these partisans are basically setting up a network of likeminded people to act as an echo chamber for their attacks on the media's critical coverage of their issues. They've been wrong too many times to count and seem to think that the one time they accidentely hit paydirt makes them credible. As a little point of fact, nearly all of these "fact checking" bloggers were on board with Bush's claims that Iraq had a functioning WMD program and was intent on using it against Americans. Even a broken watch is right twice a day. | 11.13.2005
We shouldn't get too excited at Bush's bad poll numbers as of late. I doubt it will be a true indicator of the rejection of the corruption of the GOP by the majority of Republican voters. Obviously the Democrats would like to portray this as the greater implosion of the GOP and the inevitable electoral losses to follow, but from where I see it, the media has received the signals indicating that the various higher ups and talking heads of the GOP will not be as vigorous in defensing the president as they have in the past. Thus, the language has been getting more critical when stories about Iraq and the president hit the air. The Republicans now have to become focused on bringing Bush's successor into the warm glow of the GOP's "heavenly" light as Bush himself fades into the background. What we are seeing now is the faithful disciples of the Republican party shifting their adoration from Bush in anticipation of the coming annointing of his replacement. ... and then that man will be the "can do no wrong" savior, who will defend the faithful of the world form the evils of terrorism and liberalism. I can't wait... | 11.10.2005
Saw this over at Streak's blog, and I thought it would make a good multiple choice question. Today Pat Robertson, on his 700 Club show said this: “I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover. If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there.” ok, what did Dover do to reject God from their city? Did they... a) Burn a stack of Bibles and crosses in the city square as they chanted passages from the Communist Manifesto? b) Actually serve God an eviction notice to vacate the city in 90 days or risk forcible removal? c) Round up all the Chrstians and ask them to renounce their religion or risk deportation to Kansas? d) Vote out school official that wanted to teach Intelligent Design in the science classroom? Answer in the comments: (source) | 11.09.2005
Bloomberg.com: Top Worldwide: "Exxon Mobil Corp. Chairman Lee Raymond said Congress should avoid any policies that interfere with oil industry profits because they would discourage investments in exploration, production and refining. In essence he's letting us know that the energy companies have the power to majorly screw us over if we try to dip into their profits for the sake of providing relief. Its a threat guys. Their profits jumped over 50% in the third quarter. Of course they try to justify the high prices and the record profits by citing the damage done by Hurricane Katrina. But we have to wonder; if they were raising prices to compensate for lost production, shouldn't that offset the loses and simply allow the company to keep from losing money in the wake of a natural disaster? Instead of breaking even, or maintaining current profit margins, which might have given them some cover for the high prices, they reported their highest quarterly profit in history. They lost production but still made more money then ever before? Isn't that a bit fishy? Something tells me that they used the hurricane as cover to raise prices above and beyond a fair price. The oil companies know they walk a fine line. They want to raise prices and increase their profits, but they know that if they go too far in what looks like an arbitrary fashion, people might start thinking about moving to alternatives; lower consuming vehicles, less driving, etc.. so they have to make thier price hikes look like a natural reaction to an event. People are willing to accept short term price spikes if they feel that they are in some way justified. But they will not accept sustained price gauging, especially if it looks like profit simply for profit's sake. High energy prices have a huge negative impact on our economy. Its essentially a cost of living increase for anyone that has to use a vehicle for work or transportation. Because of our utter lack of planning when it comes to providing people with viable alternatives to cars, people are forced to keep driving even as prices double. If you factor that into the daily costs people incur, it quickly obliterates the savings some of use have seen from tax cuts. Energy cost are a fixed value, independent of income. Driving a mile costs roughly the same for everyone. So energy prices are going to hurt low income consumers the most. It eats away at disposable income very quickly. The money spent on gas for the car gets displaced other places. So here we have Lee Raymond talking about the "unintended negaive consequences" of transfering some of that profit they gained by spiking gas prices in the wake of Katrina for the sake of providing heating oil assistence to poor people? We should read his statement as it is intended, as a threat. The financial markets and the major corporations have a very clear idea of how money should flow in our economy, and they have the power to punish us if we should tamper with that lucrative cash flow. We should notice the utter lack of "unintended negative consequences" that result from price gauging, excessive executive compensation, or collusion. The intended positive consequences of their actions post-Katrina was that massive amounts of money shifted from worker pocketbooks into the hands of the major oil companies as they kept prices high. The intended positive consequences of their actions resulted in soaring stock prices for September even as we were watching people lose everything they owned. The intended positive consequence of spending over $8 million on think tank shills over the past few years to refute climate change research means that we have done little to address the issue. Funny that, ExxonMobil spends millions making sure that we stay dependent on their products, spiking prices, and paying people to refute claims that their product is causing shifts in global climate that might result in more severe weather, and they have the audacity to talk about "unintended negative consequences"? | 11.08.2005
Sometimes I get tired of politics. It seems to be the same pattern repeating itself over and over again. We're seeing the inevitable fall from grace of the Bush presidency. I should be happy right? Here it is, the thing that I have been predicting all this time, finally coming true for all to see. But, its just sad really. Its not like I'm some sort of seer or something, this was just simple common sense. That so few people, especially those in positions of top opinion makers held their tongues for so long in the face of reality is depressing. That others are still in denial that Bush and his cronies are dangerous is even more depressing. That over two thousand people had to die in Iraq because of a fool's ego is depressing. That we'll see Bush discarded by the right, only to have them trot forth another idiot is depressing. Admitting that this idiot will probably win the next presidential election is depressing. Yesterday as I was driving around Tulsa I saw lots of signs that simply said "Do it for the kids!" in reference to a school bond issue. I started to think that voting wasn't the act of change, but rather the realization of change. Votes reflect general attitudes. I see the general attitude of the nation changing very very slowly. They are starting to realize that Bush is a scoundrel. But that doesn't change what I consider to be the real damage done by years of rightwing attacks on common sense. We still seem to be avoiding the key issues that need to be addressed in our society. We're trapped in patterns of thinking defined by "conventional wisdom". We get trapped in a two dimensional concept of political identity. If you've ever been part of a company, team or other organization with effective leadership you can recognize that we are suffering not just from lack of leadership, but the scourge of bad leadership. Democrats and Republicans alike have totally given up on the idea of governing. They have decided that political gamesmanship is more important than actually taking this country in a direction we might all benefit from. To that end we are bombarded with stupidity from all angles. We are told to find trivial matters more important that real issues. Sometimes I watch in disbelief as we ignore the health care crisis and the erosion of the consumer base of our economy. Leadership is about finding solutions to problems, not just finding a way of blaming others for those problems. | 11.04.2005
Salon.com News | Abramoff-Scanlon School of Sleaze: "'The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees,' Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. 'Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them.'" As if it wasn't already blindingly obvious that the rich and well connected were playing the religious right for the fools they are, Scanlon, a former aid to Tom Delay, comes out and says it. String a little Jesus on that hook and the religious nuts will bite every time. I have this mental image of a bunch of rich assholes sitting around laughing their asses off as they make hand puppets talk like Jesus... "Blessed are the insurance companies and healthcare conglomerates, for they will get protection from liability." "Blessed are the sons and daughters of the filthy rich, for they will inherit billions tax free." hahahahaha!!!!! oh.. wait, I got one!! "Blessed are the shareholders, for they will be blessed with government pork." For the sake of clarification, the "wackos" are those politically motivated religious right wingers that seem to think that god wants them to vote their bigotry and paranoia. They go to the polls to vote for people that are turning this country into an economic backwater because they see themselves fighting some holy war against secular humanists and the homosexual agenda. tools. | 11.02.2005
SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT - cp.sonybmg.com/xcp: "1. Will this disc play on my computer? Then the answer is "NO, IT DOESN'T FUCKING WORK!!!" I mean, if the audio sounds distorted when I play it in the player of MY CHOICE, then screw you, I'm not going to purchase a crippled disc. The really sad part? In one instance, with My Morning Jacket, neither the band or the label knew that their release would be issued with new copy protection that would render it useless to people wanting to transfer their music to their iPods. We at ATO Records are aware of the problems being experienced by certain fans due to the copy-protection of our distributor. Neither we nor our artists ever gave permission for the use of this technology, nor is it our distributor's opinion that they need our permission. Wherever it is our decision, we will forego use of copy-protection, just as we have in the past. Its the issue that never seems to die. People (consumers) want greater freedom to copy and transfer music, companies, like Sony, want to restrict the use of that purchased music in a lame attempt to corral you into using their portable products. More info at The Big Picture, and sysinternals | Have a good Halloween weekend? Hope so. Here I am back home again... I spent the weekend out near the mountain props with e. We had a wonderful time, laughing and dressing up like a gray-bearded wizard and a dollar wielding sexy fairy to go see Okkervil River play a great (except for that one long boring song in the middle...) concert. Hey Will, what was up with that one song? oh well... at least you stayed awake for the whole show... The first opening band sucked something awful, but the second opener, Born in the Flood, a Denver band, was pretty decent. You can check out a few tunes here. We picked four nice, diverse pumpkins from over a hundred acres of pumpkins and carved them into happy, robot, M&M and not so happy, faces. We climbed (not scrambled) up hills, making new trails (for no extra charge) and followed the fragrant trail of horse manure back to safety! Apparently, Siam, is now Thailand. So are they now Thailandese Twins? Food from all four food groups (Pizza, Indian, Faux Hamburger and Mexican) was consumed. Tummies gurgled, Pepsi was blamed. Alas, back to work. thanks e. | 10.26.2005
A short nifty guide on how to screw our employees (and the rest of the country) for our own benefit - by Wal-Mart The NYTimes has published a memo from Wal-Mart's executive vice president for benefits outlining ways in which they can save money, by forcing out long tenured employees, employing more part timers, and healthy people that will require less cost for their health care plans. In short - more cost shifting. Some pearls of wisdom: "Given the impact of tenure on wages and benefits, the cost of an Assocuate with 7 years of tenure is almost 55 percent more than the cost of an Associate with 1 year of tenure, yet there is no difference in his or her productivity (Exhibit 2). Morever, because we pay an Associate more in salary and benfits as his or her tenure increases, we are pricing that Associate out of the labor market, increasing the likelihood that he or she will stay with Wal-Mart." In other words, they need to increase turnover and keep people from thinking of Wal-mart as a long term employment opportunity. Wal-Mart comes to the obvious conclusion (people get payed to think this up?) that employing an army of young, part time, healthy employees with no intention of working for Wal-Mart long term, should be their ultimate low cost solution to their benefits "problems". Suffice it to say that other employers have come to the same conclusion. Let someone else employ the "undesirables". "The so-called "low utilizers" are the most attractive Associate segment because they cost Wal-Mart less in terms of healthcare expenses and are more productive in their jobs." We find that Wal-Mart is also very concerned about their public reputation, as they should, because people might just stop shopping there if they only knew how the company plans to treat present and future employees "Wal-Mart's critics, however, hold it to a "large company" standard, not a retailer standard. Despite the difference in industry economics, critics believe we should behave more like a GM or a Microsoft than a Target or a Sears." Considering that Wal-Mart may end up being the largest employer in a small community I don't think it too unrealistic for people to think of their jobs there as being worthy of a living wage; with pay and benefits generous enough to raise a family. Wal-Mart thinks otherwise, the problem, in their eyes, is one of perception. People need to stop thinking about Wal-Mart as a responsible employer. Its ok for your kids to work at Wal-Mart for a year or so, but they don't want all you old people working there, expecting to make a living. Despite the heavy losses of high-paying, unionized jobs in the manufacturing, don't expect Wal-Mart, one of the largest employers in the nation, to take up the slack. from the NYTimes article: Ms. Chambers said she was focusing not on cutting costs, but on serving employees better by giving them more choices on their benefits But.... somehow they plan on saving more than $1 billion over the next 6 years? Wal-Mart also plans on playing a bigger role in shaping the national healthcare debate, so that they might "help shape the outcome of the public debate about the healthcare crisis in a way that is at least somewhat advantageous to our interests." Oh goodie, national healthcare, Wal-Mart style! What can the United States do to attract healthier, more productive, less costly citizens, and discourage older, "high utilizers" from staying here? Message: don't get old, don't get sick, we don't have a place for you. (via eshaton, and Labor Blog with special mention to Jib Jab) | 10.24.2005
Went to Petsmart to get some dog food. There should be a wall down the middle of Petsmart with two separate entrances, one for Dogsmart and one for Catsmart. I'm just saying... And am I the only one that thinks that "checking out" should go fast? I'm not just talking about Petsmart, where I stood behind a cat lady filling out a card with her personal info for the privilege of saving three dollars, I'm talking about everywhere. Its not a secret how to make the checkout process go faster. You make sure there are more than enough checkout people and you keep it simple. That means no special offers, or cards that require filling out lengthy forms. | 10.20.2005
I've said it here before, that I don't really consider myself a partisan Democrat. I find writers that spend a considerable portion of their time trying to imagine ways to revive the Democratic party a bit tedious. While I understand that living in a two party system means you end up supporting the least offensive party, I also think that breaking up the two party system (and adapting a proportional voting, or coalition system) is in our best long term interests. (I think we're in denial about why so many people don't find it worthwhile to vote; they just don't see candidates that are addressing real issues to them.) But to say that I would be just as hard on the Democrats if they were in power is not quite accurate. After some consideration, I would like to add something to that. I would be just as hard on the Democrats if they were in power and willfully trying to drag our country back into the 19th century as I feel the Republicans are doing. They'd also have to be just as dishonest, corrupt, and against the interests of the majority of ordinary working Americans as the modern Republican party. That's a tall order. The Democrats just haven't reached that level of threat yet. They've been horribly ineffective as an opposition party, paying lip service to some of the worst policies of the Bush administration, especially their lukewarm support for the invasion of Iraq. But aside from a valiant effort put forth by the DLC Democrats, they just haven't hit upon the genius idea (as the Republicans have) that destroying the middle/working class in America would be best for all (campaign donors) involved. Personally, I would like to see more varied parties in America. Then we might have one party for the Theocrats, who could vote for whichever whacko candidate claimed he talked to God the most, and one party for the Feudalists, who could vote for whichever candidate promised to bring back the good ol' days of Lords and Serfs (which was a very profitable system for the landowners...). So, if you think that I'm a partisan Democrat because I simply feel that the Republicans are a greater threat to my freedom and ability to live my life the way I wish, then so bit, you can use that as your definition. Whatever. | 10.18.2005
Ok, here's what I said in a previous post: "You lose because an army of paid shills sit around all day blaming everything on the Democrats." To which reader Dan Paden responded: "But still, I find the initial notion, that the Democrats' losses can be blamed on right-wing media to be the most interesting. For years, conservatives griped about a leftist media, and the leftists and Democrats, more or less, said, "Quit whining!" Now, talk radio is largely dominated by conservatives, paid for by advertising, which is purchased by people who know that millions of people like to listen to those conservatives, and Bruce sees those conservatives as being "...an army of paid shills." Silly of me, I guess its all those vitamin commercials that are fueling the right wing movement, not the millions and millions of dollars donated every year to conservative based think tanks whose mission on Earth is to promote a wealthy-friendly agenda in American politics? But I'm not just talking about radio, which to some degree, after you get past the fact that most were started by individuals for ideological reasons, does indeed generate its own revenue. I'm talking about the legions of opinion makers who stand at the ready to "comment" on the daily goings on in the political world. And oh my golly molly there are a ton of "conservatives" ready and willing to push their GOP talking points. Heritage Institute has thirty-three "fellows" on hand American Enterprise Institute lists twenty-nine "scholars" who can "Comment on Katrina and Rita", they have seventy people listed as fellows or scholars in total. Cato has thirty-seven "scholars" on the payroll. So that means there are at least one hundred and forty people drawing paychecks for the sole purpose of promoting a "conservative" agenda in American media. These think tanks were started for this very purpose. From Heritage's own website: 1973: The Heritage Foundation opens its doors. The Heritage Foundation is founded on February 16, 1973 with backing from Joseph Coors, Richard Scaife and Edward Noble in order to deliver compelling and persuasive research to Congress providing facts, data, and sound arguments on behalf of conservative principles. So yeah, rich people decided to start a think tank to promote *gasp!!* ideas that will help make them richer; tax cuts, reduced government spending on poor people, and more spending on military contracts. Sheesh people, is it really so hard a concept to grasp? Paying a little to create a political climate that promotes a "conservative" agenda pays off in a big way. According to Heritage's Annual Report their "...analysts appeared on National Television 98 times in 2004" influencing the debate on everything from taxes to public education, all with a heavily right wing bent. In 2004 Heritage raked in $32,544,251 in donations from individuals, corporations and foundation. Quite a hefty chunk of change if you ask me. Most of those contributions come from many of the same sources. The names Scaife, Bradley, Olin etc. just keep popping up. You see, its not a secret people. Heritage itself admits that part of its mission is to put people with their message in front of your eyeballs so that you can consume their ideology. They claim that they get 6.5 radio and television interviews a day on the world's most watched media outlets. You see why I say paid shills? That's what they are. They take a bunch of rich people's money to promote an agenda that will further enhance the wealthy's ability to make and retain more wealth. Put it this way: Just one think tank, Heritage, takes in over 30 million dollars each year to promote the conservative agenda by paying people to appear on major media outlets. I'm sorry, I just can't see how my characterization is off base? | 10.15.2005
Boortz: Faced with an impending national disast ... [Media Matters]: "You just be logical. Get all of the emotion out of this. Get all of the emotion out of this. But if we are faced with a disaster in this country, which group do we want to save? The rich or the poor? Now, if you have time, save as many people as you can. But if you have to set some priorities, where do you go? The rich or the poor? OK? Who is a drag on society? The rich or the poor? Who provide the jobs out there? The rich or the poor? Who fuels -- you know, which group fuels our economy? Drives industry? The rich or the poor?" First off, yes, its offensive to base people's worth on their income. But sadly, in this society that is precisely what we do day after day. What I wanted to take issue with is the whole notion that the rich are the drivers of the economy. Boortz, and people who agree with him, seem to think that working people are disposable. This is a convenient way of thinking, especially if you need dirt cheap labor. They also seem to think that all rich people are a product of hard work. The reality is a little more complex than that. Sure there are people that don't contribute much to society. But its also true that there are millions of working poor who, despite sometimes working two jobs, still live in poverty. It is also true that there are rich people who earned their money the hard way; by putting in long hours, educating themselves, and making sacrifices. But it is also true that there are scores of rich people who did nothing more than pop out of a rich womb. Boortz's comments exemplifies his poor grasp of economic realities. Work creates wealth. Consider what would happen if you had a man with hundreds of acres of fertile land but only his own two hands with which to work that land. Now consider that same land with fifty workers on it. Which is going to create more wealth? The first situation is what lead to American slavery. You had people from Europe claiming huge tracts of land in the "new world", but with only their own two hands there was only the potential for wealth, because you can't escape the economic reality: Wealth is the extraction and transformation of a raw material into a marketable commodity. That requires work. No way around it. Even the basic act of extracting raw materials takes work. The only real way to get something for nothing is if you just stumble upon some gold or diamonds just sitting on the ground somewhere. Minimal work required there, but otherwise its going to require some labor to become wealthy. You also have to realize the hierarchy of needs. In the larger scheme of things, those well paid professional jobs are the first on the chopping block. Which is more essential to survival, a marketing director, or a guy who picks crops? You know the answer, we can't eat marketing campaigns. If you had to pick a team to survive out in the wild, would you take a guy who knows how to pick food and build shelter, or a guy that can whip up a glossy ad campaign? The marketing guy might turn out to be one heck of a survivalist, but what I'm trying to say is that sometimes we fail to recognize that the skills needed to become rich and successful in this society are very much geared to a very specific time and place. Given different circumstances there might be a completely different set of winners and losers. The very existence of a well paid, highly skilled professional class of people is very dependent on ample (even excess) supplies of food, water, shelter etc... Which leads to my next point. Wealth loses its value pretty quick if it can't be used. The reason we seek wealth is for the material goods and services that it buys for us. If I had millions of dollars I could buy nice cars, take long trips, build a fancy house and deck it out in the latest in technological goodies, among other things. But all that is very dependent on workers who make cars, workers who build houses, workers who pilot planes and workers who put together all those tech goodies. Without that infrastructure of working people wealth becomes less valuable. If in Boortz's world a huge tidal wave comes and washes away everyone but a small group of wealthy people who were herded up to the highest mountain tops for safety, they could stand there and wave their money all day long, but unless someone wants to start working not much is going to get done. His assumption, which is flat wrong in my opinion, is that we live in a society that rewards hard work with wealth and punishes sloth with poverty, and that there is a direct correlation between a person's net worth and their work ethic. I feel this confuses an economic argument for a moral one. I've known many hard working people that never get rich, and we've witnessed many rich people that posses none of the virtues that we claim to value. While there might be a correlation between wealth and work ethic, its by no means a strong one. The mythology that we accept in this country is useful for many reasons. By devaluing the worth of essential work we can get people to perform those tasks for little compensation, without this work we would all starve and have nothing. If we can get the working class to create wealth with little to no compensation it leaves more for the rest of us; a very desirable thing in a profit driven society. By assigning moral values to the type of work a person performs we can justify low wages for what we call menial labor and defend inequality in a society. Boortz's comments were based on the conventional wisdom among most conservatives. Which explains why conservatives have such problems with immigration issues. On one hand they have the undesirables that they want to keep out of the country, but on the hand, the corporate funders realize the value of an influx of cheap labor. Just consider that. | 10.13.2005
Rob says: But it’s more than aesthetics; environmental infrastructure also has a cost component. The millions it would have cost to preserve the wetlands and bayous of coastal Louisiana would have been repaid a hundred-fold for their value in mitigating the damage of Hurricane Katrina. Stricter building codes and land-use regulations could have reduced the death toll from the Kashmir earthquake and other disasters that strike the Third World by orders of magnitude. The future economic prospects of large tracts of the industrialized Third World, including China, Russia, India and Brazil, are clouded by the environmental blight of poorly-regulated manufacturing and extraction industries. The list goes on. In fact, nearly every aspect of environmental regulation can be shown to have a strong economic justification that redounds to American competitiveness and outweighs its short-term costs. wow, I was actually just thinking about this very thing today. Here in the States we seem to take it for granted that the effects of large scale disasters will be moderated by the technology and regulations that we've put in place. We take the stance that preventative measures should be taken to prevent large scale death. Here in Tulsa we've taken steps to prevent flooding. In the 80's we had some serious flooding probems and the city took pains to address these problems. From the City of Tulsa website: Tulsa's flooding problems also mirror many other towns. Our community was founded a hundred years ago on a major river and has a long history of floods, compounded by post-war growth, floodplain development, and frequent rainstorms. I remember the 1984 flood. I also recall how the city decided to built a bunch of new parks and flood management areas to try to prevent another flood like that again. And that, is the difference between good governance and no governance. I seriously doubt that the private sector would have been able to address such a large issue. Traditionally, this supporting role by government in dealing with larger community issues has been beneficial to the American economy. Effective action by the part of our leaders can mean reduced cost of doing business and greater opportunites for small businesses. The anti-government movement would like us to believe that ineffective leadership means we should simply throw up our hands, demand our money back and hope for the best. That, is not a good idea. | Kevin, a commenter at Streak's Blog recently made this comment:: "Christianity (real Christianity - not the domesticated, ideological brand touted by the Religious Right, which is not Christianity at all) for all it's historic and contemporary flaws, has, at its core, a fundamental love for the world and has, on the whole, been a force for good in the world." Which illicited a few thoughts. 1) Christianity, of the variety that is practiced by Streak and Kevin is in the minority amongst religious believers. There are, in fact, many christians in the world that are tolerant of other faiths, respectful of other people's rights and mindful of their place in this world, but the trend seems to tilt in the other direction. Reading through their remarks I can't help but feel that their Christian faith is just one of many factors that they consider when deciding what is right. While religious faith may be important, it never overrides common sense or other equally influential ideas. It is this moderation of faith, putting it on equal footing with other beliefs, that some religious people consider "lukewarm", or not sufficiently religious at all. Fundamentalism will always appeal to people that wish to ascend the pecking order of religiousity. 2) Christianity, as a religious faith, still suffers from the fundamental flaws of all religious faiths, in particular, a reliance on irrational beliefs. As long as a believer limits their willingness to believe in that which can neither be proven or seen to a basic belief in a divine entity, things can stay relatively sane. But all too often, once they've crossed that treshhold into accepting that which must be taken on faith, people can and will be manipulated into them believing a whole host of irrational things. Thus, religious faith becomes the small opening through which the larger institution of religion enters. In the modern age, it has been other institutions, government, law etc.. that has kept the more dangerous tendencies of religion in check. 3) Christianity is the dominant religious faith of most of the advanced countries in the world. But I have to wonder whether Christianity has been a contributer to modern progress, or whether it has benefited from merely being in the right place at the right time? Has Christianity been, in Kevin's words "a force for good" or has it just been less of an impedment than other religions? The religious right in America likes to argue that Christianity plays a crucial role in our society in terms of maintaining civility and morality; that without a strong Christian tradition a whole host of evils would pervade our culture. I wonder what a nation like Japan, with less than 1% Christian population, thinks of this argument? It would seem to me at least that Christinity has not ben the determinant factor in a country's success, other institutions, such as representative government, free markets, etc have been more influential by far. Just some thoughts. | 10.11.2005
Daily Kos: State of the Nation: Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.) (from Roll Call) "'Democrats fell short in '02 and '04 because we didn't make a compelling case of how Republican policies have allowed American families to lose ground,' he said. 'We have to make that case.'" Nope. You lose because an army of paid shills sit around all day blaming everything on the Democrats. Our radio and TV friends tell us how Democrats will creep into our homes at night, turn ours wife/girlfriends into man-hating feminists, steal our guns, give our jobs to a dirty immigrants and stick us with a tax bill that will leave us penniless. "They will emasculate you!" Its an emotional argument; not one that can be easily countered with facts. Because let's face it, only the most brainwashed amongst us actually believe that George Bush is better suited to run this country than either Gore or Kerry. It was never an issue of competency. Bush had little to no credentials for running for President. And even aside from that, he never showed the capacity to figure it out on the job. He still hasn't done the legwork when it comes to talking about issues of the most pressing concern to Americans. Its all still talking points and scripted remarks. The Democrats have but a few chances to win this next election. The first depends on a complete and utter meltdown of the Not Democrat Party. This, it seems is the Democrat's best opportunity, as the Not Democrats play out their hand, showing us just how corrupt and wrongheaded they are on most issues of importance. We've elected a niwit and his band of corrupt businessmen to run our country, and the only thing keeping them in office is the illusion that the alternative would be much worse. They are working hard to prove to us that any alternative would be preferable. The second relies on the Democrats borrowing a page from the Not Democrat's playbook and running a campaign in 2008 that focuses heavily on character assassination and myth-building. Each party will focus their energies on making their candidate seem like the tough "You Can Trust Me!" man to beat. The Democrats will still gets their asses handed to them, because the Not Democrats simply have more shills on the payroll. Their only hope lies in a candidate that has enough personal charisma to deflect the inevitable "pointing and laughing" that will come his/her way. Right now I can't see how focusing on the issues will be a winning strategy for the Democrats. Its like always playing "paper" in a game of Rock Paper Scissors. The Not Democrats know how to beat that hand. They get their shills to attack the candidate's electibility and trustworthiness. No matter who the Democrats run, and no matter what issues they decide to bring forward, the Not Democrats will run the same strategy. | 10.07.2005
...is connected to a sewage, water and electrical system and accessible by well paved roads and bridges. Rob at Emphasis Added says this well: The current conservative position on most of those things seems to be that they’re not important problems. Indeed, a lot of conservative anger at Bush has less to do with his ham-fisted attempts to solve them with poorly-crafted, pork-larded and ill-conceived legislation, and more to do with his attempts to solve them at all. In the minds of hard-core corporate-Right libertarian fanatics, there is no such thing as the public good, and any attempt to solve public problems through collective investment is considered socialism. The right wing libertarian dream, in theory, looks like a hidden mountain refuge of utopian wealth, but in practice, looks more like the third world. People voting for Bush and the Not Democrats because they are for limited government and more personal freedom are a bit like people that would vote for a serial killer because they support population control. I can "sort of" see it, but there are better and more effective ways to go about it. I'm not against some ideas of limited government spending. Heck, everyone except the most hard core communists think that government should be limited in scope. That debate, which the right continues to argue with its myriad of phantom enemies, is over, in my opinion. Yeah, I agree with you, but that doesn't mean that we have to go the way of the poorest countries of the world who seem to perpetually suffer from bad governance. The real debate, which sensible people are having, is over how we should direct the formidable power of the government for the benefit of its citizens. The right lib's contribution? "Fuck the government!" That's why we ignore them. Companies that fail to invest - die, countries that fail to invest - fall behind. It really is that simple. Look at the rising powerhouses in Asia. While they are simultaneously opening up their economies, they are also spending vast amounts positioning their economies so that they can trample the shit out of America and other countries that are standing around trying to decide whether it would be ok to force our old people to eat dirt as they drive to Canada for drugs. There is a mantra amongst the right libs: "Government cannot create wealth". Which has always puzzled me, because I can't help but wonder just how much wealth has been created by the existence of the interstate highway system, or the internet, both creations of the federal government? Immense amounts of wealth have been created by individuals and companies through the use of public infrastructure, and to deny this is insane, but people still do it. Money spent wisely, and in the service of a overall goal, can be tremendously beneficial to a nation. Every leading economy of the world has a government that is active in economic matters. But somehow the debate has shifted from WHERE and HOW MUCH we should invest in our future, to WHETHER we should at all. And its not as if the people that are arguing for less government are actually getting what they want from the people they vote for. What they ARE getting is less government that benefits everyone, and the SAME AMOUNT of government that benefits the well connected. This spending, the corporate welfare system, is conveniently absent from the debate. I can truly understand why people would choose not to pay taxes when the government itself has turned its back on the task of public investment. Seriously, why pay for something that you're never going to get? We're in this weird place, where we still pay taxes, but it goes into the pockets of the well connected, our infrastructure is crumbling and in need of improvement, and we're starting to wonder why we even need to pay taxes at all. The corporate crony's answer is that we just need to pay less taxes and expect less from the government, but that we should still pay enough in so that the government that can line the pockets of its best donors. (That's where we're heading now!) So, we can either say "fuck it!", demand our money back and enjoy what we have until we sink into a third world mess, or we can demand that the money that we pay into the government gets used for the benefit of the people paying and not just for the benefit of the people who can afford to give to campaigns. So sure, money spent by the government may not be as powerful to an economy as private investment, but its just as silly to assume, as some do, that that money gets buried in a hole somewhere, lost forever. No, it usually goes into some worker's pocket, or to pay some company to perform a task. In turn that money goes back into the economy in the form of spent wages, or used by the company to pay its bills. | |
About Me
Any Box 
|
||
|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
