|
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) | |
About Me
Any Box 
|
||
|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
