|
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 
|
3.30.2005
The New York Times > Washington > Movement in the Pews Tries to Jolt Ohio: The conservatives point to the governor's race as an example of what they consider wrong with the state Republican Party. Of the three Republican candidates, only Mr. Blackwell has the solid support of religious conservatives. Jim Petro, the attorney general, opposed the same-sex marriage amendment on the grounds that it would invite litigation against companies that provided domestic partner benefits. Betty D. Montgomery, the state auditor, has supported some abortion rights. If you balk at relegating gays to second class citizens, or you think it might be a really bad idea to ban abortions, then the religious conservatives have zero tolerance for you. Onward Christian Nation, and anyone that stands in their way must be pushed aside. "'We're very confused that you have a Republican Party platform, and yet people running for higher office pay no attention to it,' said Phil Burress, the leader of the Issue 1 campaign, who is also helping organize the Restoration Project. 'Why don't they just become Democrats?' he asked." They will. "They understand what happens when 100,000 people committed to our views are on the same page," Pastor Johnson said. "In their little political gatherings and cocktail meetings at the country club, they can't build that kind of loyalty. They can't spend millions to buy what our people will give for free." In other words, the fat cats that think they own the Republican party better watch out. The uneasy alliance between the corporate cronies and the religious whackjobs might be coming to an ugly end. We shall see which is mightier, the cross or the dollar. I think Pastor Johnson is in for a bit of a surprise when he discovers that the real religion in America has nothing to do with Jesus. The rich are happy to get the votes that religiously motivated people can bring them, but they don't share their values. They feel insulated from the culture war with their money but they have gay friends and they like the culture that liberalism has created. What good is it being rich if you can't enjoy it? The wealthy also recognize that in the long run, if the religious conservatives get what they want, it will be horrible for business. Its one thing to bitch and moan about the evils of Hollywood, but its another to shut it down. Hollywood makes a lot of people very rich. Porn, violent video games and crass sitcoms provide a steady source of revenue for some of America's most respected corporations. Wasn't it Fox that brought us "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" and "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance"? Consumer culture can be pretty ugly, with all its appeal to our base fears and desires. But I seriously doubt that we'd be willing to give that up to put the American Taliban in charge. | Dear Blogger, Get your act together. I'll put up with quite a bit from a free service but I think people are getting a little peeved that blogger winks out of existence for extended periods of time. Dear Alicia Silverstone, Thank you for your recent appearance on Conan O'Brien. That is all, for now. | 3.29.2005
Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy (washingtonpost.com) Lacking direct evidence, Bush administration officials argue that Iran's nuclear program must be a cover for bomb-making. Vice President Cheney recently said, "They're already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy." Snap! At the time lie-master Kissinger was the big honcho and he and his buddies thought that a little deal to sell nuclear technology to Iran would be a good idea. The United States was allied with the Shah, and the companies involved would make a killing, 6 billion dollars according to this article. U.S. involvement with Iran's nuclear program until 1979, which accompanied large-scale intelligence-sharing and conventional weapons sales, highlights the boomerang in U.S. foreign policy. Even with many key players in common, the U.S. government has taken opposite positions on questions of fact as its perception of U.S. interests has changed. If you're going to say mean things, I'm just not going to listen. In 1975, as secretary of state, Kissinger signed and circulated National Security Decision Memorandum 292, titled "U.S.-Iran Nuclear Cooperation," which laid out the administration's negotiating strategy for the sale of nuclear energy equipment projected to bring U.S. corporations more than $6 billion in revenue. At the time, Iran was pumping as much as 6 million barrels of oil a day, compared with an average of about 4 million barrels daily today. Story then: Short term financial gains at the expense of long-term security. Story now: Short term financial gains at the expense of long term security. Currently we are looking at providing Pakistan, a country prime for revolution, with more fighter planes. Asked why he reversed his opinion, Kissinger responded with some surprise during a brief telephone interview. After a lengthy pause, he said: "They were an allied country, and this was a commercial transaction. We didn't address the question of them one day moving toward nuclear weapons." People often wonder why I dislike Kissinger so much. Just read that quote, just read it! If that sale had gone through before the overthrow of the Shah and the resulting clusterfuck that followed, those same nuclear reactors would now be in the hands of a clerical theocracy. Good idea. But as we all know, things didn't happen like that. Before the sale was completed, the Shah was run out of Dodge and the Mullahs took over. We decided that it might be a good idea to cozy up with Saddam Hussein in Iraq and provide him with arms, including chemical and biological weapons. You know the rest of the story, the President of Amnesia whips us all into a frenzy about the Madman Hussien that had weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION and used them against his own (kurdish) people, and we go to war. The military budget is still huge, and we are still arming the world so that big business, companies like Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrup Grumman and more can make a ton of money. Why do they hate us? I'm not supposed to say. But it could have something to do with putting our own commercial interests ahead of any kind of principle. So when people hear us say things like "Freedom is on the march" they never know if we are doing it for good reasons or just to make some money for our friends. | 3.28.2005
India buoyed by F-16 offer: analysts - Sify.com: "The US proposal came even as it announced plans to beef up the military of New Delhi's nuclear rival, Pakistan, by selling it an undetermined number of sophisticated F-16 combat planes." There we go, arming both sides again. How nice of us, you see, all those bad things people think about us, "only concerned with money". "willing to deal with the devil himself", and "would sell their mother for a few greasy bucks" was all so true. The United States : Arms dealer. And in a few years when the pentagon is warning us that we need to spend billions on new technology to push the bounds of lethality we can all conveniently forget that our enemies have these weapons because someone needed to make a little scratch. | 3.27.2005
GOP Governors Fight Tax Limits (washingtonpost.com): So, what happens when you finally give the backseat drivers the wheel? They drive you off the road, that's what. "All of these tax-raising Republicans offer the same basic reasons for their change of heart. 'I have done something that is absolutely not part of my fiber,' Kempthorne said when he proposed Idaho tax increases in 2003. 'But I'm not going to dismantle this state, and I'm not going to jeopardize our bond rating, and I'm not going to reduce my emphasis on education.' People claim they want everything for nothing. "Our taxes are too high!" they shouted. And when the Republicans ran against those "tax and spend liberals" people thought that they could have their cake and eat it too. That is, until it came time to start yanking old people's medicines, dumping kid's scholarships and driving on shitty roads. Then the tune changed... Lesson learned, until next time some one says they can run the government without money. So I've been wondering if its too soon to say that the Republicans have Jumped the Shark? I think not. Tom Delay is holding the rope. I'm sure that by now even slow-witted moderate conservatives have realized that the "movement" of right-wing religious fundie whackos are going to drag the Republican party into political irrelavance if they continue to lead the party in the direction its going. I have fun imagining some corporate CEO sitting in his den watching FOX news, seeing the crowds of "pro-lifers" waving their Christian Nation flags and calling for the dismantling of the judiciary, sipping a glass of fine scotch and saying a little prayer that the Democrats can hustle up a decent candidate before the shit really hits the fan. Putting so much of your political capital in the hands of a small minority of people can pay off big during an election; you can get a motivated base of voters turning out to vote and canvas on a small set of issues. But then they actually expect you to do their bidding. And they'll keep expecting more. I'm most encouraged by the voices of religious moderation that see a threat to the freedom of religion by those seeking to impose their narrow view on everyone else. People realize that having freedom means having a choice. The same walls that protect our freedom protects others as well, and you only hurt yourself by attacking those barriers to get to your "enemies". | 3.25.2005
FOXNews.com - The Big Story w/ John Gibson - My Word - Desperate Times, Desperate Measures?: "But for me the big one is the judicial tendency to say, as long as the law and the process has been followed correctly and justly, doesn't matter if she lives or dies. (via atrios) Where does all this talk about "activist judges" take us? Well, right where you think it takes us. If judges are standing in the way of the cultural revolution, then they must go. The new culture warriors have convinced themselves that we have gone too far, that the "true spirit" of this country has been subverted in the last few decades of change, and that drastic measures need to be taken. "The elites, have turned against themselves and have tried to destroy the very society from which they drew their nurture. The academic elites, the money elites and the government elites, turned on their own society. And into that void steps an organization called the Christian Coalition." - Pat Robertson That was Robertson in 1992. Throughout the eighties and nineties, Robertson, Falwell, Reed and others politicized Christians and worked to take over the local Republican party politics, an idea spawned from a successful caucus victory over Vice President George H.W. Bush in 1988. "We are talking about Christianizing America. We are talking about simply spreading the gospel in a political context." - Paul Weyrich, Founder of the Heritage Foundation Weyrich also started ALEC, The American Legislative Exchange Council, a group who writes bills with the help of corporate interests. The pre-written bills would then be presented to the states for passage. With more than 2,400 state lawmakers as members -- roughly one third of the nation's total -- ALEC is a year-round clearinghouse for business-friendly legislation. Its nine task forces, each composed of legislators and representatives from private industry, sit down together to draft model bills on issues ranging from agriculture to school vouchers, which are then introduced in state legislatures across the country. So... what you get is a large group of motivated voters pushing for a Christian theocracy funded by big corporate interests pushing for deregulation and special favors from Washington. That, in a nutshell, is the Republican party as it exists today. Still, I'm not convinced that the Republican leaders really care about the "spiritual revolution". They're just your typical powermongers, only really concerned about consolidating political power. They're opportunists, people who gravitate towards the path of least resistance. If it means you have to litter your speeches with Biblical references and pander to polluters so be it. With control of the White House, the Congress and the Senate, the only thing that really stands in their way is the judiciary, a weakened Democratic party and us. | 3.24.2005
Christian Women and Sports: "Given that sports may very well foster pagan and humanistic attitudes, I urge parents to think deeply about this issue and about whether or not any members of their families should participate in organized sports programs. As a minimum, I hope you will agree with me that we should keep our daughters away from competitive sports and spend our time training them how to be Biblically feminine women, wives and mothers." Amanda, of Mouse Words has a few words to say about this. I think some of these guys are pissed they missed out on the "glory days" where they could get their hands on a little teen virgin wife who would never resist their advances, serve them night and day, take care of the young 'uns, and even come with their own livestock. | 3.22.2005
You know how you hate to get out of bed on wet, rainy, cold days, and you grumble and curse as you fling the covers off your body, feel the cold air on your skin, and scamper to the shower? You just wish that you could stay in bed a little while longer, wrapped in the comforters, thinking happy thoughts. That's what I did today. I laid in bed for way too long, tucked into a blissful warmth, thinking about sweet, beautiful women; thinking that the collective memories of small moments would somehow compensate for the lack of real companionship. It doesn't. But it beats nothing at all. Goodbye Pepper. | My good friend and former drinking buddy Sadie has some advice about flirting. She makes it sound so simple. I think I'm off to go flirt. oh.. wait.. | I have my own definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" that I use. I've written about it before: Things I Know Conservatives and liberals see the world in two fundamentally different ways. One, the conservative, in a very two dimensional way. There is a right and wrong and we know what is right and we know what is wrong. The other, the liberal, lives in a world of constant reassessment. Right and wrong are a matter of perspective, subject to evidence. The conservative draws his conclusions based on what he "knows", this usually means he goes with what is familiar, or traditional. The liberal is constantly looking for new ways to see the world and measuring up tradition versus inquiry. Right and wrong are subject to further testing. Too many people think that being a liberal or being a conservative is simply about a set of policy issues; pro-life, big government, civil rights, etc. Is the Media Liberal? -- My Thoughts from February of 2004. So is the media liberal damnit? I don't know. When I watch news programs I see a bias but I would not go so far to call it liberal. I see it as sensationalism mixed with journalistic "professionalism"; a strange system of "rules of behavior". For the most part I see the claims that the media leans liberal as an attempt by the GOP to shame the news media into giving their viewpoints and appointed mouthpieces favorable treatment, even to the point of letting them promote specious claims. This was evident during the buildup to the war where Bush Administration claims were constantly given air to the point of building a consensus for invasion where none existed prior. The voices that have since been proven right existed but were drowned out by the stampede of official propaganda. My current thoughts on the issue are that journalism, the search for truth through observation and deduction, is a liberal pursuit, but that the "media" institutions are not idealogically oriented. Most media, especially TV networks are owned by large corporate interests, GE, Disney, etc, that are in the business of attracting viewers so that they can sell advertisements. They have a vested interest in catering to the conventional wisdom and appealing to people with money and power. Many point to the individual views of journalists as proof of the media's liberal slant. Oft quoted is a study that found that the majority of the reporters in the media support liberal issues and vote Democratic. But is this sufficient to prove that the "Media" is liberal in its slant? I'm not so sure. To assume so ignores the power of institutions and their intended purposes. Television media in particular is very illiberal when it deals with corporate power and religious issues, preferring to avoid these topics to protect their own interests on the one hand and to keep from alienating viewers on the other. The media can only be liberal to the extent that it helps ratings. The conventional wisdom was that news programs gained viewers by being more accurate and "probing", but that's not necesarily true anymore when news networks are created to cater to a certain demographic and seek to present news in a way that appeals to the idealogical bias of their target market. (Last night I rented Dodgeball and watched the feature plus I listened to the commentary by the writer and director Rawson Marshall Thurber. What I found most interesting was the original (alternate) ending of the movie (spoilers ahead...) that had the Average Joe's losing in the end. The theatrical version has the Average Joe's winning and Peter Lefluer getting his gym back. The ending was changed because the studio tested the original and people didn't like it. They wanted the good guys to win in the end. The intent of the writer was subserved to the demands of commercial viability.) The limits to liberalism are that you sometimes fail to come to conclusive answers. There is only so far that you can go with observation and deduction. Some people find that lacking and seek greater answers that can only be found through "faith". Liberalism also tends to challenge the conventional wisdom of the day; such notions that used to be accepted as "true"; the divine wisdom of kings, the infallibilty of the church, the moral superiority of a given race, culture, nation, etc.. and much of what we are tought to be true by our parents. People naturally seek the assurances of what they know to be true and many of our tribal connections come from those shared beliefs. Being a liberal can be very isolating and people get kinda pissed when you start asking questions that make them uncomfortable. But it can be rewarding in its own way, things make a lot more sense and there are fewer contridictions. Buts its not just about being right or wrong. | 3.20.2005
... might learn at a grocery store: 1) That the watermelons have stickers informing you that "United We Stand", which is odd coming from a fruit that shatters when dropped from even the smallest heights. But more likely trying to let us know that the growers and distributers of said melons are good, pro-American troop-loving fruiters, as opposed to the American-hating melon peddlers that only seek to tap the lucrative summer melon market as a way to fund their next nefarious plot against us. 2) That Monopoly costs $13.99, and is located on the bottom shelf next to the assorted boxes of Nascar puzzles on the aisle next to the one with the cookies. 3) That if you are listening to your headphones whilst wandering back and forth through the deserted aisles of a sunday night supermarket, Coldplay is oddly appropriate. 4) That some people feel its entirely consistent with the "spirit" of an express lane to pay with a check, and then spend precious time after that transaction standing at the register so that they may manage their finances, rearrange the contents of their purse, or put their bills in ascending (or descending) order by denomination. | 3.19.2005
In comments, Lotharbot made this assertion: The point is, the study was designed by people who hold the exact same opinion as you -- they expected Fox News viewers to be misinformed, and they asked questions about events where Fox News viewers tend to be misinformed. And I'm not going to pick on Lotharbot, because I love debate, and I'm glad that he's here to give me things to think about. But I wanted to take his comment and expound on it. Here are the questions asked in the survey by PIPA (I linked to the HTML version, and the relevent information is on page 15) that drew the conclusion that FOX news viewers were more likely to be misinformed. 1) Is it your impression that the US has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization? US has. FOX 67% PBS-NPR 16% 2) Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the US has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? US has. FOX 33% PBS-NPR 11% 3) Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the US having gone to war with Iraq, do you think: The majority of people favor the US having gone to war. FOX 35% PBS-NPR 5% The survey found that FOX News viewers were more likely than other news viewers to believe that the US had found clear evidence that Saddam was working closely with Al Qaeda, that the US had found Iraqi WMDs and that the majority of people in the world favored the US invasion Iraq. Are these questions designed to take advantage of events where FOX news viewers would tend to be misinformed? That might just be the case. Because FOX news is intentionally biased. Biased in favor of supporting conservatism, Republicans and President Bush, even if that means giving false impressions about the war and the justifications. Why Fox News Beats the Mainstream Media Nowhere does FOX differ more radically from the mainstream television and press than in its robustly pro-U.S. coverage of the war on terror. After September 11,the American flag appeared everywhere, from the lapels of the anchormen to the corner of the screen. Ailes himself wrote to President Bush, urging him to strike back hard against al-Qaeda. On-air personalities and reporters freely referred to "our" troops instead of "U.S. forces," and Islamist "terrorists" and "evildoers" instead of "militants." Such open displays of patriotism are anathema to today's liberal journalists, who see "taking sides" as a betrayal of journalistic objectivity. FOX News was created as a counter-balance to a news media in America perceived to be too liberal. It is intentionally conservative because it feels that the mainstream media is intentionally liberal. Whether or not you think that the MSM is too liberal depends on who you ask and what you consider to be liberal. I think what irks many about the news media is that their (occasional) refusal to take sides comes across as being anti-american. But personally, I don't see much use for a media that aligns itself with the government. I find Fox News' use of such phrases like "our troops" and "the enemy" as disturbingly Orwellian. The book 1984 scared the shit out of me. It was written as a critique of totalitarian regimes and their use of propaganda to control public opinion. If there is none willing to question the actions of the government or the intentions of the citizenry then what is the media but a self-reinforcing feedback of our own biases and beliefs? Roger Ailes, the Chairman of Fox News asks, "Can you wake up in the morning without assuming the U.S. is in the wrong?" The alternative is to wake up in the morning assuming that the U.S. is in the right. But, the constant questioning of your own motives and the tendency for self-examination is what makes a person/nation wise and self-correcting. If you assume that you are always right, then their is always someone else to blame. Just as it is foolish to always assume that the United States is to blame, it is just as foolish to assume that the United States is always right. Fox News is a far cry from a real state run propaganda system, but it is a step in that direction. A small step, but one taken deliberately. If you look at the last question, asking whether the majority of people in the world was in favor of us going into Iraq, the clear answer there is "no". Even in countries that eventually supported us, like Spain, there were large majorities of people who opposed the war. Millions marched in England, our closest partner. To believe that most people in the world supported this war is divorced from reality. FOX News has an agenda, battling the "liberals" in the MSM. Some people like that agenda, and support FOX with millions of viewers. But their priorities ARE NOT to make their viewers the most informed. They seek to advance an idealogy, conservatism. So its really no surprise that they score so low with regard to accuracy. So yes, the questions did emphasize events about which FOX viewers tend to be misinformed; reality. | The New York Times > Arts > Frank Rich: Enron: Patron Saint of Bush's Fake News: "The Bush administration, eager to sell the country on 'personal' Social Security accounts, cannot be all that pleased to see Kenny Boy again. He's the poster boy for how big guys can rip off suckers in the stock market. He also dredges up some inconvenient pre-9/11 memories of Bush family business. Enron was the biggest Bush-Cheney campaign contributor in the 2000 election. Kenny Boy and his lovely wife Linda flew the first President Bush and Barbara Bush to the ensuing Inauguration on the Enron jet. Even as Enron was presiding over rolling blackouts in California, Dick Cheney or his aides had at least six meetings with the company's executives to carve up government energy policy in 2001. Even now what exactly transpired at those meetings remains a secret." You might recall that this is the same energy policy, shrouded in secret, written with the help of America's top energy executives, that is being pushed by Bush yet again, as the answer to high gas prices. And it looks like we are also one step closer to drillng in Alaska. Which I view more as a symbolic battle, whether we would step over a line rather than look for an alternative solution. People seem pretty clear about this one, only 14% of people in a Gallop poll really want drilling in ANWR, while 43% are strongly opposed. Most people don't particularly care whether we drill there or not. So its not like there is any demand for this action. But they keep pushing for it anyways, even though in the long term, drilling in ANWR will only "kick the can down the road" as they say in the White House. So why do it? For a political win. Its like when a roommate eats your last favorite frozen dinner when the freezer is still stocked full of theirs. Its just to show you that they can, and that they have that power over you, and that they just don't give a shit about what you think. Some additional thoughts from Mike at Okiedoke that I thought worth repeating here. Serving a nation of oil addicts, legislators know that to be re-elected, you gain a lot more favor from users by reducing the cost of their fix than forcing them into a treatment program to ease their dependence. and.. Our oil reserves in that region are like money in the bank, gaining in value while also providing an asset that could be used for our national security in the future when our survival may depend on it. Using it now is like burning your furniture to stay warm because it’s easier than insulating the roof and chopping some firewood. Nicely put. | 3.18.2005
Frank Luntz writes a defense of his swarminess in the LATimes. The Lexicon of Political Clout: "They say I'm manipulating the debate in an attempt to obscure the true effect of the policies I advocate. Yet this lexicon genuinely seeks to establish a common language for a pro-business, pro-freedom agenda." I think that speaks for itself. The man no longer grasps the concept of telling the truth. Admittedly, in these times, most political language has taken a partisan tone. But my suggestions are meant to help reach that critical, nonaligned swing voter, just as product advertising is designed to appeal to nonaligned consumers. Great. Have you seen that new ad where the hot chick on rollerskates glides around while her Diet Whatever spews sparkling bubbles? For example, why not use the term "death tax" for the taxes paid on an estate? How about "estate tax"? Not everyone gets taxed at death, just people that have large estates. Saying death tax implies that everyone will get taxed when they die, just for dying. Not true. What is the event that triggers it? I pay a sales tax when I am involved with a sale, and I pay income tax when I earn income. And when I die, if I'm successful and forget to hire smart accountants, I may pay a tax. What else would you call that other than a death tax — a "permanent sleep tax"? A fucking ESTATE TAX you slobbering moron!!! To me, calling for a "cleaner, safer, healthier environment" and supporting helicopter rides over the Grand Canyon and, yes, snowmobiling in Yellowstone Park is not a contradiction. And when seals wash up onto shore covered with oil, we can clap our hands and say "Ooooo, shiny seals!!!" Conservationists are mainstream and environmentalists are extreme. Fuck you. (Yeah, I know I'm really digging deep here, but he pisses me off!) Even under the most innovative reform proposals, the vast majority of your Social Security contribution (12.4% of your income up to the first $90,000, just in case you had forgotten) would remain completely unchanged and untouched, so Washington can continue to spend your retirement savings on other programs and you can continue to collect that great 1.6% return on your Social Security "investment." Funny, I have my W-2 right here in front of me and when I plug in the numbers I pay only 6.2% of my income to Social Security taxes. And for that amount I get a guaranteed income from the day I retire till the day I die. Sounds like a pretty good "investment" to me. And if the problem is that big bad Washington keeps spending that money, I think maybe that should be the problem we fix, not cutting the value of my investment. In the end, this ongoing battle over language is more about comprehension than articulation. In other words, we seek to get you to believe what we want you to think, not to inform you about the actual facts of our policies. We want you to feel, not to understand. We want you to make connections between feel-good words and the truly wrongheaded policies we seek to implement. Next week we'll discuss the "Apple Pie Amendment". | 3.17.2005
Streak's Blog: Thursday rant Streak pretty much wrote the post that I had been pondering for a bit. In short, no wait, in summation... in order to get promoted in the Bush administration you need be only one thing: a loyalist. Being competant and honest is very optional, maybe even detrimental. Just ask Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, or Joe Wilson. Let's go over this once again. Say you have a guy who hates the UN and jokes about the UN building losing 10 floors (not really funny anymore)? Well, of course, you make him ambassador to the UN. What about a lawyer who says that the US doesn't have to adhere to the Geneva Conventions and suggests that the President can authorize torture if he wants? Of course, you make him Attorney General so he can go after the porn industry. How about someone who oversaw intelligence failure after intelligence failure? You make her Secretary of State. Yeah, what he said. I need to start thinking faster. It really is like living in a funhouse hall of mirrors, especially when you still have people fixated on the Dan Rather non-story. Hello? The documents were never actually proven to be fake, just as they were never proven to be authentic. The appearance of impropriety and sloppy factchecking got the network in trouble. But please, tell me something I didn't already know. | " Yeah. Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem." HA! | 3.16.2005
Yeah, I know I'm repeating myself, and I apologize to those that have been reading along. But, I've been accused of being incomplete in my analysis. I dislike Bush, I freely admit it. But I dislike him because of the things he does and says, not out of some partisan bias. Got that? And when I say harsh thing about people its because I find them deplorable. Why do I say that Bush is being dishonest about his Social Security plan? Because in his speeches he spends loads of time talking about personal accounts, making social security solvent, and helping the next generation. But he never mentions what his own administration admits is the key to his reform plans: lowering benefits. Exhibit A: Peter Wehner, President Bush's director of strategic initiatives, on the White House's plans for Social Security reform: Second, we're going to take a very close look at changing the way benefits are calculated. As you probably know, under current law benefits are calculated by a "wage index" -- but because wages grow faster than inflation, so do Social Security benefits. If we don't address this aspect of the current system, we'll face serious economic risks. But when you listen to Bush its all about the fabulous power of the private accounts and compounding interest. Why are the private accounts so important? We'll go back to Peter Wehner first: For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win -- and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country. We have it within our grasp to move away from dependency on government and toward giving greater power and responsibility to individuals. That's why I say that conservatives have been waiting some sixty years to destroy social security. They see it as a moral wrong, government meddling in the true goodness of the market. The world of the 1920's was a utopian paradise, low taxes on the wealthy, few consumer and worker protections, and rampant corruption in the market. It was a rich man's playground and it all fell apart. The conservative agenda is nothing more than going back in time nearly eighty years. Let's look to another conservative at Cato, José Piñera, Chile's former secretary of labor and social security. Today, all workers in Chile are capitalists, because their money is invested in the stock market. And they also understand that if government tomorrow were to create the conditions for inflation, they would be damaged because some of the money is also invested in bonds -- around 60%. So the whole working population of Chile has a vested interest in sound economic policies and a pro-market, pro-private-enterprise environment. The real benefit of private accounts is that it aligns the concerns of the working class with the investor class, with the wealthy holding all the cards and the workers living in fear that they'll lose everything if they ask for too much. Its all stated quite clearly. I'm not even quoting hostile sources! I don't have to make this up. They see it as a fundamentally good thing to create a pro-business environment that strips away all government protections and guarantees. I don't. Should you? I think that's the better question. Should you be a conservative? Consider this equation: If the majority of your income comes from your wages then you live on the left side of this equation. You are a cost of doing business, your wages, your insurance, your benefits, your social security, get in the way of higher profits, just like the cost of wood, oil, steel etc. You are a member of the working class. If the majority of your income comes from investments then you live on the right side of this equation. You are a part of the investor class. I think some people get confused. They think that if they have some money in a 401K plan, or own some stock in their company that they are now somehow part of the investor class. Not so. If you cannot live off the value of your investments then you are still a worker. I don't care how well paid you are. (Short story, I onced worked for a company that had a employee stock plan, you would get a small share of company stock after several years with the company, not becoming fully "vested" until nearly five years, meaning you didn't actually own the stock till you worked there for five years. I looked up the on the web the number of shares owned by employees, it was less than 0.1%. The company president and his brother owned the controlling majority. But that didn't stop the company from pushing "ownership" of the company to its employees, and even the belief by some employees that their small "ownership" was going to make them richer someday.) It seems strange to me that we are only a few years past the Enron Debacle, and the lessons most clearly learned by that event have nearly been lost yet again. A spokesman for Gillette, one of the offenders, [using stock to make 401K contributions] told the Journal that his company "believes it is important that employee interests be aligned with company interests." Do you recognize the language, the basic concept? Maybe at this point that little light in your head goes off and you think, "Wow, with all of us dependent on the market for our retirement we'll feel pressured to supporting a strong pro-Wall Street policy and hesitant to believe naysayers that might try to warn us of rampant corruption and wrongdoing." The Republicans, the official party of the investor class, see George W. Bush's re-election as proof that they have the political capital to push through their agenda. Of course the investors who own the lion's share of the market see it as a wonderful idea that workers see the advancement of their wealth as being in their own benefit. And the useful shills who are well paid to push the wealthy's agenda think its a grand idea as well. But is it a good idea? I think you should be asking yourself that question. Do you really think that its a good idea that we should go back to putting so much of our fate in the hands of Wall Street, like we did in the 1920's? If so, feel proud in calling yourself a conservative. | 3.15.2005
Rod Stewart pops the question "I was stunned, threw my arms around him and burst into tears." She 33, he was 27 when she was born. He still has to get a divorce from his last model wife, Rachel Hunter. 1. Money 2. Looks 3. Charm 4. A Sense of Humor 5. Everything Else | 3.14.2005
CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: "Article 24. The state strengthens the building of socialist spiritual civilization through spreading education in high ideals and morality, general education and education in discipline and the legal system, and through promoting the formulation and observance of rules of conduct and common pledges by different sections of the people in urban and rural areas. The state advocates the civic virtues of love for the motherland, for the people, for labour, for science and for socialism; it educates the people in patriotism, collectivism, internationalism and communism and in dialectical and historical materialism; it combats the decadent ideas of capitalism and feudalism and other decadent ideas." I wonder just how many people have read the Constitution of China. I hadn't until today. Following a discusion that started here (Amanda at Mouse Words) which led me to a discussion at The Sideshow, and to a provoking article by Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. If one US company or a few move offshore, their profits improve and consumer prices are lower. However, when work in general moves offshore, American lose the incomes associated with the production of the goods they consume. Domestic production is turned into imports, with the result that America draws down its accumulated wealth in order to pay for the imports on which it is dependent. Which ties into a candid talk given by John Chambers, the chief executive officer (CEO) and president of Cisco Systems Inc. "We can have a healthy discussion about whether that's in 2020 or 2040, but it will (become the world's largest economy) and China will become the IT center of the world," Chambers said, speaking at a press conference in Beijing last week. Of course a few years ago when people where warning Americans that the loss of manufacturing would inevitably lead to the loss of other jobs, there was a general air of pride and disbelief that anyone else in the world would be able to point and click a mouse with as much talent as American IT workers. But as it turns out, writing code, maintaining a network and other such "skilled" work can be done by just about anyone with a little bit of training. Go figure... and they might even spend less time sending IM's to each other as well. Pride is a horribly delusional trait, but one useful in re-inforcing a deeply held belief in one's own moral, physical and mental superiority. It was pride again that convinced many American IT workers that they didn't need to take any measures to ensure their own livelihoods, convinced as they were that they were such an invaluable (if horribly overpaid) asset to their employers that they held all the cards. Not so. (And yes, I am engaging in little bit of "I told you so.") The BLS reports that the number of employed US technical workers has fallen by 221,000 in six major computer and engineering job classifications during 2000-2004. The largest drops were suffered by computer programmers, followed by electrical and electronics engineers, computer scientists and systems analysts. Back then it was common knowledge that the key to future success was simply going back to school, training yourself in trades of the "new economy" and moving into the 21st century. Well, the 21st century moved again. And are we to go back to school again? What are we to learn this time? The fastest growing segments of the economy are the service sectors, anything that cannot be outsourced will stay here. I doubt you'll need much schooling to be a Wal-Mart greeter. And people are still not putting together the pieces. Its one thing to complain about the guy on the other end of the tech support phonecall having an Indian accent. Its another to realize that you voted for that circumstance with your purchase decisions. Moral indignation isn't worth squat when you insist on going to the store and buying the lowest priced good. How do you think they are saving costs? Your big fat paycheck was an obvious choice. But honestly, its too late for that now. We had our chance and we didn't care. Pride was too powerful. The middle class was all too willing to sell out the working class, and now they're happily selling out each other, convinced that they will be left standing with a comfy little house in the burbs, a growing 401K plan, health insurance and a spiffy SUV in which to motor about town. But hey, what do I know? I'm just some retail salesclerk that writes a blog in his free time. | Its a bigger word than I thought. 1. Money 2. Looks 3. Charm 4. A Sense of Humor 5. Everything Else | 3.13.2005
Seeing The Forest - a Weblog of Politics: "Is Kristoff unaware that there is a well-funded right-wing movement in this country that uses lies, smears and humiliation as a primary tactic to sway public opinion? 'Extremist' is the wording the Right uses to discredit environmentalists, and Rush Limbaugh uses to describe environmentalists on his 20-some-million-listener radio show. No wonder 41 percent of Americans use the word! But Kristoff unintentionally echoes the 'conventional wisdom' of the Right's smear campaign -- it's environmentalists' fault people think they're 'extremists' because they scream 'the sky is falling' like Chicken Littles. It's like saying 'if only Jews [blacks, gays, women, etc.] didn't act that way people wouldn't hate them.' Its a wonder to behold the so-called old school media type soberly reporting public opinion when they should know that public opinion polls are only a read on how well Public Relations Campaigns have worked. If say a majority of people believe that Saddam was responsible for 9-11 despite overwhelming evidence against this belief, the media's analysis should include at least a few articles on how it has failed to inform the people. If a poll says public opinion feels that people who want to protect the environment are "extremists" the question they should be asking is "Is this belief founded on good information"? Of course, I feel that these polls tell us something more important. It tells me that we are woefully uninformed about the most critical issues of our day. This is a predictable consequence of current trends in "news" infotainment. You can't watch the cable news networks for more than a few minutes without realizing (if you're smart) that it has become an outlet for PR agents and political operatives pushing bad information. This is not in our interest as a nation. So when we learn that this bad information has become the conventional wisdom, it only shows what success some interests have had in changing our overall perception of reality. Because you and me, average people, have little access to the world outside of our small geographic stomping ground. Ad most people don't have the time to do their own factchecking. So we have to rely on others to provide us with a view to the outside world and the facts as they exist. But I don't think that its an exhaggeration to say that the most easily accessible forms of "news' have become nothing more than outlets for corporate America's message. For Example: The local Fox news outlet leads with the latest results from "Hometown Hero" Carrie Underwood perfomances on Fox Network's American Idol. And that's just the most egregious example of how most media corporations see their "news" outlets as just another forum to push their products. Pandering to people = ratings. And we should never forget what these networks are selling, our eyeballs to advertisers. Whether or not they do so with good information or bad information is irrelavant. What they have learned over the past several decades is that people are not tuning in to become informed, they are tuning in to be reassured in their worldview. The traditional view of news reporting says that people will reward "news" outlets that provide them with the best source of information by watching. The success of FOX News, CNN and MSNBC has shown that accuracy matters less than your presentation. Studies have shown that people who watch FOX are the least informed amongst consumers of similar news outlets, but that doesn't change people's loyalty to that channel as it presents a worldview that aligns nicely with their own biases. FOX and others know that people don't want to be preached at, or reprimended, or reminded that their own greed and negligence are responsible for so much harm in this world. So even an easily debunked lie will live on. There are some environmentalists that are little overzealous; squatting in trees, destroying equipment, and in some cases putting people's lives in danger. But the VAST MAJORITY of people that support protecting the environment are just regular joes like you and me that hate that the world that we have enjoyed all our lives is in danger of being lost to future generations. There is a long recorded history of business interests that have put the health of people or our envirnment at risk for the sake of profits. We have learned that we have to remain vigilant and aware so that these cases are few and short-lived and that people are not needlessly killed or that beautiful climates aren't destroyed. This feeling of self-preservation and a desire to protect our environment is seen as "extreme" by big business who would rather we not stand in their way as they seek to make their money. It is not extreme. It is common sense. Most people who come to environmenatlism do so after witnessing the callous disregard for life and environment that business interest's exhibit. But commen sense has become "extreme". | 3.12.2005
Democracy Now! | Juan Cole and Osama Siblani on Middle East Politics, U.S. Media Coverage of the Region, and the Arab American Landscape I'm just going to post this straight for you all to read. If you haven't noticed this trend then you just haven't been paying close enough attention. JUAN COLE: Sure. Well, there is – obviously, there has been for some time in the United States a lively set of culture wars, and I think there are people who are very disturbed by the way in which universities have resisted being taken over for ideological purposes. You know, most opinion in the United States that's presented on the media now, and you can -- this can be proven statistically -- is coming out of think tanks. And what are think tanks? Some wealthy group of people endows these institutions and hires people to be in them, academic scholars, often, but to present a particular ideological point of view, and of 17 major think tanks, 15 are pretty far right. So, the universities really have had an end run pulled on them. Their voices are much less heard in the mainstream. And I think that there's frustration that they're still there at all, that there are professors who speak, who don't tow the party line, so to speak. And so there are various forces that are working to try to use Congressional funding as a carrot to move universities in a particular ideological direction. There are campaigns of harassment. I, for instance, at one point was targeted to get 1,500 emails a day in order to cripple my activities on the internet. And people are blacklisted. They're libeled. I have been accused of being an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, because I objected to the Likud Party policies of military occupation and colonization of the West Bank. So, this is an ongoing campaign. And it's nothing new in American history. We have seen these things before, but it is very worrisome. Of course this leads to people feeling informed when they consume this right-wing stupidity. Recently Fox New's John Gibson was reported as saying that should a democracy elect people hostile to America then we could bomb them with a clean conscience, Nice huh? "Well, fine. At least we'd know; at least we'd know we tried. And if we have to bomb a democracy back to the Stone Age because it was sticking with its roots and sending terrorists to attack us, we could bomb it back to the Stone Age with a clean conscience" Well yeah, if people don't fall into line, that's why we got these bombs. And every cock-stroking yahoo thinks that they have the launch codes in their pockets and gets to decide who to bomb back to the stone age. | The New York Times > National > Evangelical Leaders Swing Influence Behind Effort to Combat Global Warming: "In October the association paved the way for broad-based advocacy on the environment when it adopted 'For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility,' a platform that included a plank on 'creation care' that many evangelical leaders say was unprecedented. oops, someone's not following orders from their corporate masters. (via norbizness) | 3.11.2005
President Discusses Strengthening Social Security in Kentucky When I listen to the words of the president I hear blatent, but very subtle dishonesty. I say "lie" because I think there is not much difference from misleading people and lying to them. It amounts to the same thing the way I see it. If you're not being straight with people then you might as well be lying to them. On Social Security, there is no other way to say it, he's lying his ass off. Saying that his plan with make Social Security permanantly solvent and talkign about personal accounts as the key to that solvency. Not so, the key to the solvency of Social Security under the Bush plan is benefit cuts for future retirees. Its really that simple folks. What he plans to do is put curent retirees off the table for cuts and borrow the difference so that he can avoid the political liability from current seniors. Well, just the stupid ones I suppose. They never really talk about the jioggering of the payouts for future retirees, that's because they are liars who are trying to get you to fixate on that big pile of personal money that you'll get to leave to your kids. Leave to your kids? Yeah right, not after they've cut your benefits and made living under Social Security an impossibility. The only way you could leave anything to your kids is if you croak right after you reach retirement. Oh, the things we can look forward to? Right now, people can live a meagre lifestyle on their Social Security, some estimates say that under Bush's plan for future retirees they can see nearly a 50% effective reduction in benefits. Because, well that's how they plan to save money! But in exchange for selling out half you future benefits you get a chunk of cash. Bush uses the $250,000 figure in his talk, so I will too. If say, you only spend $10,000 a year to supplement your reduced SS check then you 25 years out of that money. If you live longer than that you are screwed, poverty city for you. Nice to know huh? But let's say you take that $250,000 and buy an annuity at 65, you'll get about $24,000 per year till you die. I much cleaner setup if you live a long time, but still bad news if you die early because none of that money gets passed on. So much for the nest egg? Again, we find that the only people that can afford to retire without relying on Social Security get the benefits of a lump sum that can be passed on to their heirs. But we're not really surprised are we that the plan to "fix" a system designed to reduce poverty amongst the nation's less fortunate benefits the most fortunate? The only honest thing that Bush says throughout the whole speech is his recognition of the success that Social Security has had at reducing and elimating poverty, especially amongst the elderly. First of all, I do want to applaud Franklin Roosevelt. I thought he did a good thing with Social Security. It's a very important system. It made a lot of sense to have a safety net for people when they retired. But the dynamics of Social Security have changed. Which anyone with a brain should notice this as hogwash and political pandering. Conservatives have always hated Social Security as creeping socialism, Conservative Herbert Hoover called "unemployment insurance the most dangerous idea ever proposed in the United States". Bush himself has predicted the demise of SS before. Ever since I was a kid I was told over and over again that Social Security would be gone when I retired. My father recalled people telling him that Social Security would be long gone by the time he ever retired. Of couirse, now he's retired and drawing Social Security. Funny how some things never change. Conservatives still hate the working class. Bush, as a card carrying member of investor class, whose money came from a shady deal involving confiscated land, taxpayer money and a ballpark has no clue about working class issues. He only understands investor class values, which is why he can sit in a room full of people and tell them that he "believes" that he's right. Its because he has no other frame of reference. Selling out Social Security to the stock market makes perfect sense to him. What is completely ignored from the current discussion of Social Security is the historical context for the creation of Social Security in the first place. Wall Street had failed. While Roosevelt was still governor and Herbert Hoover was still President, the need for social security became critical. The stock market crashed, and the economy collapsed. The unemployment rate grew to 25 percent, and only 25 percent of the unemployed received any kind of assistance. The plight of the 7.6 million elderly Americans was even direr. Over half of them relied on private charities, public poorhouses, or their families for support. After several years of Depression, many younger people could no longer help their older relatives—they were struggling just to feed themselves and their children. Private charities were strapped. So were the few local-government relief agencies. Twenty-eight states had newly-formed old-age assistance programs. However, the benefit amounts from those programs were tragically inadequate: payments averaged just 65 cents per day, and only 3 percent of the elderly received any payments at all. Some of the more pessimistic observers might point out that we are once again at a point in history where the safegaurds are weakened, corruption at the corporate level is rising, job security is falling, unions are all but gone, energy security is becoming a crisis and foriegn nations hold the vast majority of our debt. In other words, those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it. May 1, 1930 Of course the United States spends another eight years mired in the Great Depression and only really recovers due to massive government spending for War World II. "Resources, intelligence and character" were not enough. My favorite quote I came across: Hoover again. October 22, 1928 True genius huh? But this is still the fundamental philosphy of the Republican Party, let the rich have their way and hope for the best. Of course it didn't work then, but that doesn't seem to deter them from making another go at it. So when you hear Bush talk about putting the fate of the working class into the hands of Wall Street it might be helpful to remember that Social Security came about in large part because of the failures of Wall Street and the corruption of the nation's elites. Far from causing a slide into socialism, many people consider Social Security and the New Deal efforts by FDR to keep the nation from turning its back, wholesale, on capitalism and its failures. | 3.10.2005
Survey says, Top five reasons people like ketchup. 1. Its red. 2. It tastes like tomatoes, only funkier. 3. Its fun to mix with bright yellow mustard. 4. You get at least 20 packets each time you go through the drive-thru. 5. You can put it on anything, even tomatoes. Answering machines should have warning music, like the Oscars when you are running out of time. A nice gentle swell of classical music... She has her own website, where you can buy autgraphed 8x10's with a personalized message. I was thinking of going with this one, with the caption "I waited for two hours for you, where the hell were you!?" Today I'm listening to : Dream Theater - A Change of Seasons |
Just this once, for my ego. | 3.09.2005
RollingStone.com: Jimi Hendrix : The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time : News Rolling Stone succeeds yet again at fucking up a list. This time, The Greatest Guitarist of All Time. I'm not going to argue with a few of the blues and jazz guys I've never heard of, because I'm sure that they're good in their own right. I only know guys like Robert Johnson and B.B. King from reputation as I'm not a blues fan. I've been a guitarist for about thirteen years and I can recognize greatness when I hear it. And yeah, it pisses me off to hear some guy kick my ass. I want to mention a few ommisions to the list: Some personal favorites. Joe Satriani Steve Vai Nuno Bettencourt (Extreme) Slash (GNR) Vito Bratta (White Lion) John Petrucci (DreamTheater) Eric Johnson Yngwie Malmsteen Al Di Meola Jason Becker Paul Gilbert (Mr. Big) The case for Satch and Vai should be obvious to anyone that has heard them play. In particular, from just an objective "Holy shit!" point of view, Steve Vai is one of the most awe-inspiring guitarist to ever walk the earth. I've seen the G3 tour with Satch and Vai twice and each time I am more amazed at the skill levels achieved by each on the guitar. Listening to Vai play For the Love of God live is a spiritual experience that can bring a guitar worshipper like myself to tears. They may not be everyone's cup of tea, but they are awe-inspiring on their instruments. Listen to: Flying in a Blue Dream by Satriani or Passion and Warfare by Vai. Guys like Nuno and Vito may best be known for songs like More than Words, Hole Hearted or When the Children Cry but you don't get your ass kicked by these guys until you hear their other tunes that venture beyond mere sappy crap, songs like Get the Funk Out, Rest in Peace, Let's Get Crazy or Little Fighter. Say what you will about the 80's with its barrage of cheesy hair bands, there was, in that time, a real emphasis on skill when it came to guitar playing. It lead to an enormous amount of wankery, but some real talented players emerged and had a chance to capture the spotlight for a brief time until knowing how to play became a sin again. In progressive metal circles, or even amongst serious instrumentalists the names Portnoy and Petrucci of Dream Theater have the same kind of weight that maybe Lennon and McCartney have in songwriting circles. I'm still amazed at the combination of styles utilized in a solo like the one in Under a Glass Moon or the agility and stamina of Metropolis - Part 1. But I wouldn't have nearly as much respect for players like Petrucci if they were simply about speed and technique. Good players still have to have an ear for melody and the abilty to squeeze out an aching note now and then. For that listen to the first five minutes of When the Water Breaks from Liquid Tension Experiment 2 or Scarred from Awake. Admitedly most people that write off the 80's as pure cheese couldn't find a G chord to save their lives. Its merely cultural shorthand and mental laziness to look past some real talent that emerged and was overshadowed by the need to pander to a marketing trend. But to ignore the real skill exhibited by people that spent a good amouint of time and effort learning how to play the instrument is a gross oversight, especially given the high ranking inclusion of such mediocre players like Kurt Cobain (#12) and Jack White (#17). | 3.08.2005
You ever notice that some people's mouths fly open the minute a camera is aimed at them? You start to notice that every picture of them has their mouth wide open. Its like a reflex. I hardly ever smile in photos. So today I'm sitting here reading something, and I see this shadow pass through my vision. So I look around, behind me, and at the window to my right. Nothing. I go about reading again. A few seconds later another shadow passes through my vision. I wipe my eyes thinking it might a random bit of something stuck to my eyelash or on the surface of my eye. But it happens again. So I take off my glasses and inspect them, and there, crawling around the outer edges of the frames is an ant. So I'm not going crazy after all. Today I snacked on "Party Mints", a product of Canada, that contains liquid sugar, high fructose corn syrup, and icing sugar. Tomorrow I might as well just eat spoonfuls of pure granulated sugar straight from the sack. Washed down with Coca-Cola of course. Its 57°F and it Feels Like 57°F. If you come up on somebody that's driving slow in the leftmost lane and there's plenty of room for them to get over into the slower lanes, and they're not getting over, tailgating them isn't going to help any, they are oblivious and they're not looking in their rearview mirror. Go around them. Today's Song : The Ponytail Parades by Emery | Frank Luntz is a political strategist, whose giude for the GOP is now available for anyone to read, and provides a good look into the inner workings of the GOP propaganda machine. I'll be making comments as I read through it little by little. I do this for you, because nothing is too good for the honest hard-working people of America, nothing can stand in our way if we just embrace freedom, opportunity, eagles, flags and apple pie. This is Class Warfare is all about providing justice and fairness to all its readers. We understand that Americans love Democracy and want the next generation to reap the rewards of ownership and opportunity that only TICW can provide. Political Strategy - Politics, Strategies, Tactics, News and Opinion: "9) The root cause of outsourcing is the inhospitable business climate in the US. And the best way to address this problem is found in reducing taxation, regulation, and litigation, which allows innovation and education to bring more jobs into America." "Hospitable business climate" = Third world countries with no worker protections. And the GOP is working to make that happen here in the United States as well. Witness the new law that seeks to make it harder for people to file bankruptcy, keeping them under the yoke of their creditors for years and years, in effect making them serfs. Senate still battling to pass bankruptcy bill In addition, some experts say, the changes proposed in the Senate bill would fundamentally change long-standing American legal policy on debt. Under bankruptcy laws as they have existed for more than a century, creditors can seize almost all of a bankrupt debtor’s existing assets, but they can’t lay claim to future earnings. The proposed law, by preventing many debtors from seeking bankruptcy protection, would compel financially insolvent borrowers to continue trying to pay off the old debts almost indefinitely. In other words, you just thought you were done being screwed. The credit card companies have been pushing for this bill for years but now have a good chance to pass it, thanks to the "ooportunity" given to them by the landlords at the GOP. What's happened is that the credit card companies have been issuing credit like crack, and people, desperate to keep up their standard of living, pay off medical bills or make up for their stagnate incomes have been taking up the offer of free money. Credit card companies have been ignoring the risk of extending absurd levels opf credit to people that have no means in which to pay for them. Case in point. I now have access to credit well in excess of my entire income of last year. This is because the few cards that I do have keep bumping up the credit limit. Every so often I get another letter that congratulates me on my "success in life" and reminds me to enjoy it by blowing another chunk of "free money" treating myself to expensive gifts of vacations that I simply cannot afford. Rope, neck, noose. But I don't wan to get too far away from Luntz and his "Weasel Words that Work" handbook. So I present to you more GOP "wisdom". 4) September 11th changed everything. So start with 9/11. This is the context that explains and justifies why we have $500 billion dollar deficits, why the stock market tanked, why unemployment climbed to 6% and why we are still in a rebuilding mode. Much of the public anger can be immediately pacified if they are reminded that we would not be in this situation today if 9/11 had not happened, and that it is unfair to blame the current political leadership or corporate America for the consequences of that day. 9-11 The emphasis is mine. You see, I thought it was all Clinton's fault, as the GOP likes to remind us, the recession started before Bush got into office? As it might be unfair to blame Bush and corporate america for 9-11, it is not unfair to ask them to be accountable (another weasel word) for their actions before and after, in particular their failure to collect enough revenue to pay for the costs of their programs. I would think that Luntz, a so called master of language would cringe in refering to "pacifying" the public. But I can't say that I am surprised by this tactic, its been in the GOP playbook for years, hide behind eagles, flags, troops and weasel words as you do the dirty work for the big donors of your special interest groups, credit card companies, banks, brokers, energy companies and military contractors. Words that work : To manipulate you. The American people cannot always be expected to directly grasp the connection between your policies and your principles. Symbols bridge this gap, so use them, and use them liberally. Slap a flag and an eagle on everything. Call any bill, no matter how odious, the "American and Apple Pie Freedom and Opportunity Act". Assume the American people are too stupid to see the contradiction between your words and your actions. I'll be talking more about this as I read through more of the Luntz document so kindly tranferred to a searchable, text version by the people at Political Strategy. | 3.07.2005
Like a near death experience, Americans, post 9-11 seemed shocked that they had paid so little attention to the world that had come knocking with three targeted airliners and we swore that we would change our ways. The soul-searching was followed by solemn vows that we, and all of america, would never again be lulled into the world of crass celebrity voyeurism at the expense of good information about the world outside our borders. The Michael Jackson trial? | 3.06.2005
booze church Driving around listening to music. Today's soundtrack - Neutral Milk Hotel - Song Against Sex. "Debbie now enjoys going to art museums, surfing and reading classic literature." | 3.05.2005
Read my lips: No free WiFi - Engadget - www.engadget.com Story: Guy in Texas decides that providing free WiFi to low income residents might be a good way to empower them. You know, give them access to the same level of information as say, rich people? This could include access to government websites, job searches, health information, porn, and shopping. Sounds good right. I mean, if someone wants to give away something for free that all good right? Espcially if it means that people might have a way to make their lives better for it? Right? Wrong. Texas legilsator (sic) Rep. Phil King (R-Weatherford) wants to stop him, and prevent cities from providing any free public wireless whatsoever. The argument is that providing WiFi for free undercuts fair competition with private enterprise. You might remember that I said this: "Any earnest and effective attempt to address an real problems will be met with resistence by the people wishing to make money providing the services that the government (or church) would offer for free". I thought this might serve as a good example of my point. Yeah well, but that's boring. Look at this. I am. | Its strange what your brain will recall at such random times. Today while driving home I remembered a scene that happened over a year and a half ago. I was working late with a bunch of other people getting ready for the big day after Thanksgiving sale and the topic of my vegetarianism came up. Not sure why, but I started to go over my reasons to this girl I was working with. After explaining that I thought becoming a vegetarian was a good way for someone to get a new perspective on the food we eat and the things we take for granted she looked at me with this look of utter disinterest and said "Oh, you're one of those philosophical types." | 3.04.2005
Sweet Adeline : Elliott Smith Whenever I think that I've found an Elliott Smith song that I don't like so much, I put on the headphones, quiet my brain, and realize just how utterly wrong I am. I lived for so many years without this music in my life. Don't make that same mistake. (update: Better link, thanks to red-harvest) | 3.02.2005
Fishbowl DC tries to get a day pass, figuring that if a fishy character with a fake name managed to snag one for two years they could get one easy as well. Well... two days in... and no luckert. Day One Meanwhile, we leaned on the fence outside the guard house and read John Steinbeck's "Travels with Charley: In Search of America." A steady trickle of reporters passed by, and we spent several minutes chatting with an old friend, AP's Nedra Pickler, as she went in for the day. After about twenty minutes, another officer came out of the guard house and explained that he had just talked with the Press Office: Fishbowl D.C. had officially been denied access for the day. No further reason. He presented us with the Media Affairs phone number scribbled on a napkin. We thanked him and departed. Day Two The last time we called yesterday, we thought we'd employ a little trickery: Call late and hope that someone other than the interns were answering the phones by then. Unfortunately, perky Caroline headed us off at the pass: the mysterious spokesperson we needed was finally out of his marathon meeting but now he had already left the office. Damn. The plus side? We knew wer were making progress because Caroline at least recognized Fishbowl this time. She seemed more amused than annoyed, thankfully. And the saga will continue... Good reading. | Kentuckians will attend commandments debate: "But Emily Tucker, 15, said she doesn't understand what the fuss is about. Sounds innocent, if wrongheaded, when voiced by a youngster, just downright xenophobic when voiced by an adult. Which is why I get so sick and fucking tired of this place sometimes. You have to wonder why Emily thinks that only people "coming here" are different. I was born here and I'm not a Christian. I'm a citizen and the laws that I obey are the ones that we get to debate and choose, not some ancient mystic set of stones. Founded on Christian principles? Thou shalt enslave, slaughter and make thyself filthy rich off the sweat and blood of others? Try for a second to picture Jesus as a slaveholder cracking the whip on the backs of insolent slaves, or as the leader of a charge of men slaughtering native women and children. Let's not kid ourselves, this country may have been settled by a bunch of christians but the principles they were practicing where ones of self-enrichment. You see, I grew up in a household that paid no attention to issues like "heritage" and nobody sat at the kitchen table and ranted about "our country" as if we had some sort of right to ownership. But that doesn't mean that I haven't had to sit at other kitchen tables and listen to people from other familes go on about such things as if it were a common practice. Kids heads have to be FILLED with nonsense by adults. So when little Emily says that people "coming here" should be like the rest of us she had to have heard that from somewhere. People do not spontaneously learn how to be idiots, they have to learn it from the previous generation of idiots. And if you feel I'm not being particularly forgiving today, then you're right. Day in and day out I'm surounded by people that feel comfortable, as a majority, pushing their religion in my face, with all sorts of little symbols and stickers. But I'm cool with that, because they have every right to express their opinions. If some dude wants to drive around with a "I Heart Satan!" bumber sticker on his Volvo I'm cool with that too, as long as he doesn't cut me off. Then I get pissed. But if I ever go to court or have to face the government I don't want religion (or my lack of religion) to be an issue. As much as people go on about the laws being "influenced" by the ten commandments, at the end of the day it matters little where those laws came from, they are not "god's laws" anymore, they are the laws of the United States of America, applied equally to each and every citizen regardless of religious affiliation. And yes, I'm one of "those people" that wants to take the "Under God" out of the pledge, the "In God We Trust" off the back of the money and yank down all those christian symbols from the halls of government. Because I care little about the intent of the founding fathers, what I care about is the idea that this nation be one free of prejudice, where it matters not what you do, or think, or who and what you worship as long as you follow the laws and be a good citizen. I don't think that civilization will crumble if we live up to the ideas of secular government, just as I didn't believe that I would become a bad person by rejecting the church. It didn't happen. In fact, I think I became a better person for it. We've come a long way towards what I consider is a noble and desirable goal of being a nation of equal opportunity. And I think that is what is pissing so many people off. There is a small but very vocal group of people that have been getting special treatment for so long that they feel that they deserve it, simply for being who they are. "This nation don't play that way!" | I know you are all craving some kind of wisdom imparted here on this little ol' website. Well, whether or not this counts is up to you. There's only so much time and effort we can give to any one person-thing-event. We set priorities in our heads and shuffle things up and down that list as they are deemed to be more or less important. We'll do just about anything to be somewhere with someone if we really want to, or we'll find just about any excuse not to be somewhere if we don't. What I don't understand, and I seem to use that phrase quote a bit, is when people seem incapable on interpreting their own priority system, or that of others. For instance, girls, if a guy never calls you back, or he never makes an effort to come around and see you, then yeah, "he's just not that in to you". Don't kid yourselves. This same advice applies to you guys. People aren't that hard to figure out. If you call up a friend and he/she is willing to drop what they are doing and lend you a hand then they're your friend, if they make an excuse, it might just be that they have a higher priority keeping them busy (work, school, spouse etc..) but excuses like "Dude, I'm just tired." just won't cut it. You should take this as a sign that you've slipped down the priority totem pole, somewhere way down below the big-beaked bird with the outstretched wings. ... and that's ok, because we've all got to realize that the only person that's going to live at the top of that pole for the duration is ourselves. Other people will come and go. Spouses, family, kids might stay at or near the top, but not even that is a guarantee, people cheat on their spouses, treat their kids like dirt and have bad relationships with their families. We're selfish creatures and we're always calculating the best reward for the effort. I don't say this in any sort of accusatory way, but I do wish we would be more honest with ourselves about it. |  Eu não sinto realmente como afixar qualquer coisa ainda. Mas eu quis dizer que eu gosto de meninas brazilian. | |
About Me
Any Box 
|
||||
|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||||
