.JPG)
Occupy
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Armstrong's Fall from Grace
Lance Armstrong is an inspiration. As a survivor of testicular cancer, Armstrong returned to his level of athletic achievement and then surpassed it in a feat that seemed impossible. He won seven straight Tour de France championships from 1999-2005. In a sport that no one cared about, Armstrong willed Americans to pay attention to his success and be inspired by his struggle. He then turned that fame and success into a foundation that has done incredible amounts of good in terms of spread of information and fundraising for cancer research.
All of this you knew already. If you were cognizant of sports, pop culture, or that annoying person with a rubber LiveStrong bracelet, Armstrong was and still is a commercial behemoth. Last week, the US Anti Doping Association suggested that they will revoke all of Armstrong's victories and erase his name from the record book after he decided to stop fighting allegations and investigations of his alleged doping and/or use of Performance Enhancing Drugs.
So, we are left in the lurch without a satisfactory answer... He never tested positive, but there were supposedly 10 former teammates who were ready to testify under oath that Armstrong did dope during his winning stretch. Reports have also emerged that Armstrong might have been tipped off before tests, allowing him to perform 'alterations' to compensate for doping. Another clear fact is that doping is anything but uncommon. Just a cursory list of riders who either tested positive or were accused of doping is enough to make you question whether this sport is one that can be competitive without such banned practices. Watching those riders push through the Pyrenees shows me that you'd have to be insane to even try.
Lance Armstrong acted as many symbols during his seven year reign. First as a cancer survivor, but as the winning continued, more causes seemed to attach themselves to him (whether he wanted them to or not). Remember, much of this was post 9/11 during the War on Terror, where a good portion of the nation wanted nothing else but to stick their nose up at any foreign nation. Especially France. Remember Freedom Fries? Lance was going into their country and beating them at their sport. While not saying that Armstrong himself felt this way, his sheer existence fed into the unhealthy jingoistic fervor that originated with our own Bush Administration.
All during Lance's run, French newspapers (especially Le Monde) were desperately trying to find proof of cheating, something to discredit Armstrong. And through this, Lance was defiant. He never tested positive, and he was tested hundreds of times. His defiance only has one parallel in my mind - track star Marion Jones, who held as many press conferences as she could gloating that she'd never tested positive for PEDs... until she did test positive. After such a self-righteous stance of denial, the fall from grace for each has to be even more severe.
Lance will be fine. The LiveStrong Foundation has received a record amount of donations in the wake of this news, and Armstrong will be able to hold onto the fact that he never tested positive. That's something Marion Jones can't say anymore. But, it's tough to imagine that his 'golden boy' reputation will ever recover. Did he cheat? I read a book a few years ago called From Lance to Landis that chronicled a sprawling system of doping from Armstrong's time to later American Tour de France winner Floyd Landis (who has also had his title stripped). Everything in it is circumstantial, but I found it convincing.
I just don't know how to feel about this. It's tough, because I like Lance and I think his story is one that we should aspire to. But he won't be remembered the same way... and he shouldn't be. Something about Idols and their clay feet. Oh, and no one cares about cycling again.
All of this you knew already. If you were cognizant of sports, pop culture, or that annoying person with a rubber LiveStrong bracelet, Armstrong was and still is a commercial behemoth. Last week, the US Anti Doping Association suggested that they will revoke all of Armstrong's victories and erase his name from the record book after he decided to stop fighting allegations and investigations of his alleged doping and/or use of Performance Enhancing Drugs.
So, we are left in the lurch without a satisfactory answer... He never tested positive, but there were supposedly 10 former teammates who were ready to testify under oath that Armstrong did dope during his winning stretch. Reports have also emerged that Armstrong might have been tipped off before tests, allowing him to perform 'alterations' to compensate for doping. Another clear fact is that doping is anything but uncommon. Just a cursory list of riders who either tested positive or were accused of doping is enough to make you question whether this sport is one that can be competitive without such banned practices. Watching those riders push through the Pyrenees shows me that you'd have to be insane to even try.
Lance Armstrong acted as many symbols during his seven year reign. First as a cancer survivor, but as the winning continued, more causes seemed to attach themselves to him (whether he wanted them to or not). Remember, much of this was post 9/11 during the War on Terror, where a good portion of the nation wanted nothing else but to stick their nose up at any foreign nation. Especially France. Remember Freedom Fries? Lance was going into their country and beating them at their sport. While not saying that Armstrong himself felt this way, his sheer existence fed into the unhealthy jingoistic fervor that originated with our own Bush Administration.
All during Lance's run, French newspapers (especially Le Monde) were desperately trying to find proof of cheating, something to discredit Armstrong. And through this, Lance was defiant. He never tested positive, and he was tested hundreds of times. His defiance only has one parallel in my mind - track star Marion Jones, who held as many press conferences as she could gloating that she'd never tested positive for PEDs... until she did test positive. After such a self-righteous stance of denial, the fall from grace for each has to be even more severe.
Lance will be fine. The LiveStrong Foundation has received a record amount of donations in the wake of this news, and Armstrong will be able to hold onto the fact that he never tested positive. That's something Marion Jones can't say anymore. But, it's tough to imagine that his 'golden boy' reputation will ever recover. Did he cheat? I read a book a few years ago called From Lance to Landis that chronicled a sprawling system of doping from Armstrong's time to later American Tour de France winner Floyd Landis (who has also had his title stripped). Everything in it is circumstantial, but I found it convincing.
I just don't know how to feel about this. It's tough, because I like Lance and I think his story is one that we should aspire to. But he won't be remembered the same way... and he shouldn't be. Something about Idols and their clay feet. Oh, and no one cares about cycling again.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
The Rich and John Galt
I had an thought the other day, is there another reason for the fact that the largest corporations in the country have higher profits than ever yet they aren't hiring more workers? OK, other than the inherent flaws in Supply Side economics. Why would employers increase their workforce when there isn't a larger market for their products if they were given more money? They wouldn't, it's as simple as that.
My hypothesis is that their behavior is based more in ideology rather than economics. One of the sacred tomes for conservatives is Ayn Rand's gargantuan novel Atlas Shrugged. The premise of the novel is that in a dystopian future, where the 'burdens' that politicians and greedy workers place on the job creators of America, the rich all decide that America doesn't deserve their genius so they abandon the country to create a utopia somewhere else. This was done under the overarching pseudonym 'John Galt.' After the cultural impact that the novel had, the term 'Going Galt' came to signify the possibility that a similar tactic might be employed by the corporate heads in our country.
If you look at the majority of these disgustingly rich individuals (the Koch Brothers, and the Walton Family are great examples), and you can see them modeling themselves as Randian heroes in opposition to the lowly workers. Through union-busting and putting out propaganda against any talk of forming a union... they defeat the Proletariat before they even put up a fight.
My point is this, for the past 30 years our country has been operating under the premise that if we gave the wealthiest of the wealthy billions upon billions in tax cuts, they would hire more workers and grow the economy out of the goodness of the hearts. Shockingly, that hasn't happened. Any growth that we've experienced as a nation is a byproduct of bubbles that have been inflated beyond any reasonable value (Tech, Housing), only to have said bubble burst and jolt our economy into recession. The wealthy have pocketed the vast majority of this money for themselves.
I will call this phenomenon 'John Galt Syndrome.' It's the best possible situation that corporations could hope to achieve. They continue to rake in outrageous profits that they wouldn't be able to if they did really 'Go Galt,' they are able to refuse to put money into an economy that desperately needs investment and they are able to put unlimited amounts of money into political campaigns of Republicans that have vowed to regulate and ask of them even less than they are expected to now (Thanks Citizens United!). So, there you have it. Right wing ideologues are able to fulfill their ideology all while making an ungodly amount of money. And if that doesn't work, there's always government bailouts! It isn't Socialism when its given to bankers and not poor people.
I am part of the 99 Percent and I'm pretty fair in assuming that you are too. Let's change this paradigm and set up an economy that actually works.
My hypothesis is that their behavior is based more in ideology rather than economics. One of the sacred tomes for conservatives is Ayn Rand's gargantuan novel Atlas Shrugged. The premise of the novel is that in a dystopian future, where the 'burdens' that politicians and greedy workers place on the job creators of America, the rich all decide that America doesn't deserve their genius so they abandon the country to create a utopia somewhere else. This was done under the overarching pseudonym 'John Galt.' After the cultural impact that the novel had, the term 'Going Galt' came to signify the possibility that a similar tactic might be employed by the corporate heads in our country.
If you look at the majority of these disgustingly rich individuals (the Koch Brothers, and the Walton Family are great examples), and you can see them modeling themselves as Randian heroes in opposition to the lowly workers. Through union-busting and putting out propaganda against any talk of forming a union... they defeat the Proletariat before they even put up a fight.
My point is this, for the past 30 years our country has been operating under the premise that if we gave the wealthiest of the wealthy billions upon billions in tax cuts, they would hire more workers and grow the economy out of the goodness of the hearts. Shockingly, that hasn't happened. Any growth that we've experienced as a nation is a byproduct of bubbles that have been inflated beyond any reasonable value (Tech, Housing), only to have said bubble burst and jolt our economy into recession. The wealthy have pocketed the vast majority of this money for themselves.
I will call this phenomenon 'John Galt Syndrome.' It's the best possible situation that corporations could hope to achieve. They continue to rake in outrageous profits that they wouldn't be able to if they did really 'Go Galt,' they are able to refuse to put money into an economy that desperately needs investment and they are able to put unlimited amounts of money into political campaigns of Republicans that have vowed to regulate and ask of them even less than they are expected to now (Thanks Citizens United!). So, there you have it. Right wing ideologues are able to fulfill their ideology all while making an ungodly amount of money. And if that doesn't work, there's always government bailouts! It isn't Socialism when its given to bankers and not poor people.
I am part of the 99 Percent and I'm pretty fair in assuming that you are too. Let's change this paradigm and set up an economy that actually works.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Bin Laden has won, while America cheers
Osama bin Laden is dead. Ten years after the tragedy of 9/11, the figurehead of Al Qaida was shot in the head in Pakistan. The amount of euphoria that has poured out of so many Americans is kind of shocking to me. People who don't care about politics or foreign policy were on the streets shouting "USA!" And as this seemingly monumental moment in American history makes me wonder, how important is this news? And what can we learn from it?
What does this ultimately mean? Is the War on Terror over? Can we leave Afghanistan and Iraq? Are we now magically free of danger? The answer to these are obviously No. Directly after the horrific events of 9/11, world opinion was on the U.S.'s side. There was a candlelight vigil in downtown Tehran (Iran) in support of America. This proves that Islam is NOT a monolith. The world saw what radical Islam was capable and rejected it. How we got from that support to the mess that we're in now is due to the ineffective diplomacy (or lack thereof) by the Bush Administration.
Before the Afghan invasion, the Taliban offered to hand over Osama bin Laden to a third party where he could be put on trial. This could have be done without a single soldier setting foot in Afghanistan. This was unacceptable to the Bush Administration. They were using loaded terms such as 'crusade' (which hearkens back to the Christians' Crusades against Muslim 'barbarians'). Bush wanted bin Laden dead and, more importantly, the political benefits of being a wartime President and a conquering hero.
He quickly lost interest in the capture of bin Laden when there wasn't quick success. After bin Laden's escape in the mountains of Tora Bora, resources weren't allocated to finding him. Attention was turned towards convincing the American people of Iraq's involvement in the 9/11 plot. There was NEVER any proof of such connection.
It's important to look at what bin Laden's goals were. He didn't plan to topple the United States with one grandiose act, but to draw them out. In quotes, he made it quite clear what his plan was - draw the U.S. into a ground war in Asia and bleed the economy dry. His plan was to bankrupt us just the way that he and the Mujahadeen defeated the Soviet Union in their invasion of Afghanistan.
We have spent $1.2 Trillion in our wars in the Middle East, along with tax cuts and a Medicare prescription drug plan that were completely unpaid for. It's clear to see that bin Laden's strategy has been successful, as you can see by the harsh austerity proposals that are becoming more and more commonplace. If we continue these wars, the problem will only become worse. It is important to note this - Osama bin Laden has won. He has affected our economy in a near lethal way and we show no signs of wanting to reverse the damage.
I don't mean to sound 'unpatriotic,' but I am not heartened by the news of bin Laden's murder. By answering his display of violence with violence of our own, we proved that we aren't on a moral high ground in relation to terrorists. Thousands of our soldiers are dead and hundreds of thousands of Afghanis and Iraqis are dead. I don't see a winner in this. Death shouldn't be something to be cheered for.
What does this ultimately mean? Is the War on Terror over? Can we leave Afghanistan and Iraq? Are we now magically free of danger? The answer to these are obviously No. Directly after the horrific events of 9/11, world opinion was on the U.S.'s side. There was a candlelight vigil in downtown Tehran (Iran) in support of America. This proves that Islam is NOT a monolith. The world saw what radical Islam was capable and rejected it. How we got from that support to the mess that we're in now is due to the ineffective diplomacy (or lack thereof) by the Bush Administration.
Before the Afghan invasion, the Taliban offered to hand over Osama bin Laden to a third party where he could be put on trial. This could have be done without a single soldier setting foot in Afghanistan. This was unacceptable to the Bush Administration. They were using loaded terms such as 'crusade' (which hearkens back to the Christians' Crusades against Muslim 'barbarians'). Bush wanted bin Laden dead and, more importantly, the political benefits of being a wartime President and a conquering hero.
He quickly lost interest in the capture of bin Laden when there wasn't quick success. After bin Laden's escape in the mountains of Tora Bora, resources weren't allocated to finding him. Attention was turned towards convincing the American people of Iraq's involvement in the 9/11 plot. There was NEVER any proof of such connection.
It's important to look at what bin Laden's goals were. He didn't plan to topple the United States with one grandiose act, but to draw them out. In quotes, he made it quite clear what his plan was - draw the U.S. into a ground war in Asia and bleed the economy dry. His plan was to bankrupt us just the way that he and the Mujahadeen defeated the Soviet Union in their invasion of Afghanistan.
We have spent $1.2 Trillion in our wars in the Middle East, along with tax cuts and a Medicare prescription drug plan that were completely unpaid for. It's clear to see that bin Laden's strategy has been successful, as you can see by the harsh austerity proposals that are becoming more and more commonplace. If we continue these wars, the problem will only become worse. It is important to note this - Osama bin Laden has won. He has affected our economy in a near lethal way and we show no signs of wanting to reverse the damage.
I don't mean to sound 'unpatriotic,' but I am not heartened by the news of bin Laden's murder. By answering his display of violence with violence of our own, we proved that we aren't on a moral high ground in relation to terrorists. Thousands of our soldiers are dead and hundreds of thousands of Afghanis and Iraqis are dead. I don't see a winner in this. Death shouldn't be something to be cheered for.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Killing The Myth of Reagan Part One: Supply-Side Economics
Ronald Reagan is seen as a deity by a large portion of our population. According to Conservatives, he single-handedly defeated the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War, he cut taxes for everyone and brought our nation to its rightful place as the 'shining city on a hill' for the rest of the world to aspire to be. This... is a bit of a reach. Beyond the Iran-Contra scandal - which simultaneously implicated the Reagan Administration in helping an enemy state (Iran) as well as illegally arming Guerrillas in Nicaragua in direct violation of Congressional decree - the one aspect that Reagan was most popular for (Reaganomics) is deeply flawed.
Reading in textbooks, it's a bit difficult to understand what Reaganomics was exactly. We're simply supposed to nod and agree that it was great for everyone. The crux of Reaganomics was the theme of 'Supply side economics' - that if more money was given to the wealthy (the business owners), that would spur them to hire more workers, create jobs and grow the economy. To facilitate this, Reagan passed the biggest tax cut in American history. Taxes were cut for everyone, but the vast majority of them were given to the wealthy. The highest tax rate was lowered from 70% to 28%.
At first, this doesn't seem bad. We're told that tax cuts are good for everyone. No one likes taxes. But, a government needs funds to function. And while Conservatives may rail against 'Big Government,' no one can actually decide what to cut. This is a phenomenon that occurs again and again in polling. Americans want to shrink government (buying into a Conservative talking point), but when asked exactly what programs to eliminate they cannot name one. Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment insurance, Military and Education funding are hugely popular. So, with all of these programs needing funding, tax revenue needs to track their increases. This was completely undercut by Reagan's tax cuts. How was the gap bridged? Through borrowed money, adding to the National Debt. This tactic was relied upon by every single 'fiscally conservative' President from Reagan onward. Here's a link to a chart showing how the debt progressed from Jimmy Carter through George W. Bush: http://www.pensitoreview.com/Wordpress/wp-content/themes/mimbo2.2/images/Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg
This might be worth it if the growth of the economy grew exponentially. After all, these tax cuts should directly lead to job creation. There is a flaw in the Supply Side model, one that is quite obvious. If the only ones who are getting more money are the wealthy business owners, why should they hire more workers? The number of consumers wouldn't rapidly increase because those not in the top tax rates have the same amount of money. In economic terms, with demand stagnant there is no catalyst for supply to grow. If the money isn't put back into the economy, then it has to go one place - right in the richest people's pocket. In 1980, the average CEO made roughly 42 times more money than their average employee. Today, they make more than 300 times. With all this wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, it doesn't circulate through the economy. There are really only so many yachts and houses you can own. And as the rich get even richer, the poor get poorer.
The whole point of the high tax rate on the wealthy was to promote reinvestment in business. Through the high tax rates, business owners faced a stiff penalty if they decided to keep an astronomical amount from their business. If they weren't going to keep the money, then profits were usually put right back into businesses. This reinvestment paid for new factories, technology, research and development and, yes, jobs. These jobs gave the American public a larger portion of the income in the nation and increased the demand for products and services. It is this increased demand that can grow the economy consistently.
Our nation is now riddled with debt that has mainly been piled on during Republican administrations. From two perpetual wars, to even more tax cuts for the wealthy, to the Medicare Prescription Drug entitlement, huge costs have been put on the nation's credit card. The national debt is now over $14 Trillion, and Republicans are pushing to close the gap by cutting Social Services (i.e. Social Security, Medicare). These cuts will hurt low income individuals almost exclusively. I see another option - roll back the Reagan tax cuts and have the wealthy pay their share while stabilizing our economy.
The economy did grow during Reagan, which seems odd. It deceivingly appears to confirm Reaganomics' validity. Two other factors were key factors in why the economy grew and are also explanations for why our economy is in such dire shape now - deregulation and reliance on bubbles, and offshoring labor. Since this blog is huge already, I guess I'm going to have to break it into three parts. If you stuck with me this far, Thank You! This isn't the most interesting subject in the world but it's VERY important. I'll try to have Part 2 done this weekend and Part 3 done next week.
I spent this late night ranting and listening to some old school Saliva. I figured you should be able to have the same experience
Reading in textbooks, it's a bit difficult to understand what Reaganomics was exactly. We're simply supposed to nod and agree that it was great for everyone. The crux of Reaganomics was the theme of 'Supply side economics' - that if more money was given to the wealthy (the business owners), that would spur them to hire more workers, create jobs and grow the economy. To facilitate this, Reagan passed the biggest tax cut in American history. Taxes were cut for everyone, but the vast majority of them were given to the wealthy. The highest tax rate was lowered from 70% to 28%.
At first, this doesn't seem bad. We're told that tax cuts are good for everyone. No one likes taxes. But, a government needs funds to function. And while Conservatives may rail against 'Big Government,' no one can actually decide what to cut. This is a phenomenon that occurs again and again in polling. Americans want to shrink government (buying into a Conservative talking point), but when asked exactly what programs to eliminate they cannot name one. Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment insurance, Military and Education funding are hugely popular. So, with all of these programs needing funding, tax revenue needs to track their increases. This was completely undercut by Reagan's tax cuts. How was the gap bridged? Through borrowed money, adding to the National Debt. This tactic was relied upon by every single 'fiscally conservative' President from Reagan onward. Here's a link to a chart showing how the debt progressed from Jimmy Carter through George W. Bush: http://www.pensitoreview.com/Wordpress/wp-content/themes/mimbo2.2/images/Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg
This might be worth it if the growth of the economy grew exponentially. After all, these tax cuts should directly lead to job creation. There is a flaw in the Supply Side model, one that is quite obvious. If the only ones who are getting more money are the wealthy business owners, why should they hire more workers? The number of consumers wouldn't rapidly increase because those not in the top tax rates have the same amount of money. In economic terms, with demand stagnant there is no catalyst for supply to grow. If the money isn't put back into the economy, then it has to go one place - right in the richest people's pocket. In 1980, the average CEO made roughly 42 times more money than their average employee. Today, they make more than 300 times. With all this wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, it doesn't circulate through the economy. There are really only so many yachts and houses you can own. And as the rich get even richer, the poor get poorer.
The whole point of the high tax rate on the wealthy was to promote reinvestment in business. Through the high tax rates, business owners faced a stiff penalty if they decided to keep an astronomical amount from their business. If they weren't going to keep the money, then profits were usually put right back into businesses. This reinvestment paid for new factories, technology, research and development and, yes, jobs. These jobs gave the American public a larger portion of the income in the nation and increased the demand for products and services. It is this increased demand that can grow the economy consistently.
Our nation is now riddled with debt that has mainly been piled on during Republican administrations. From two perpetual wars, to even more tax cuts for the wealthy, to the Medicare Prescription Drug entitlement, huge costs have been put on the nation's credit card. The national debt is now over $14 Trillion, and Republicans are pushing to close the gap by cutting Social Services (i.e. Social Security, Medicare). These cuts will hurt low income individuals almost exclusively. I see another option - roll back the Reagan tax cuts and have the wealthy pay their share while stabilizing our economy.
The economy did grow during Reagan, which seems odd. It deceivingly appears to confirm Reaganomics' validity. Two other factors were key factors in why the economy grew and are also explanations for why our economy is in such dire shape now - deregulation and reliance on bubbles, and offshoring labor. Since this blog is huge already, I guess I'm going to have to break it into three parts. If you stuck with me this far, Thank You! This isn't the most interesting subject in the world but it's VERY important. I'll try to have Part 2 done this weekend and Part 3 done next week.
I spent this late night ranting and listening to some old school Saliva. I figured you should be able to have the same experience
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Words I Never Said
I was listening to the new Lupe Fiasco album, Lasers, and heard a song that really stuck with me. It was "Words I Never Said" and here are the lyrics:
It’s so loud Inside my head
With words that I should have said
As I drown in my regrets
I can’t take back the words I never said
I can’t take back the words I never said
I really think the war on terror is a bunch of bullshit
Just a poor excuse for you to use up all your bullets
How much money does it take to really make a full clip
9/11 building 7 did they really pull it
Uhh, And a bunch of other cover ups
Your child's future was the first to go with budget cuts
If you think that hurts then, wait here comes the uppercut
The school was garbage in the first place, that's on the up and up
Keep you at the bottom but tease you with the uppercrust
You get it then they move you so you never keeping up enough
If you turn on TV all you see’s a bunch of “what the fucks”
Dude is dating so and so blabbering bout such and such
And that ain't Jersey Shore, homie that's the news
And these the same people that supposed to be telling us the truth
Limbaugh is a racist, Glenn Beck is a racist
Gaza strip was getting bombed, Obama didn’t say shit
That's why I ain't vote for him, next one either
I’ma part of the problem, my problem is I’m peaceful
And I believe in the people.
Chorus
Now you can say it ain't our fault if we never heard it
But if we know better than we probably deserve it
Jihad is not a holy war, wheres that in the worship?
Murdering is not Islam
And you are not observant
And you are not a muslim
Israel don’t take my side cause look how far you’ve pushed them
Walk with me into the ghetto, this where all the Kush went
Complain about the liquor store but what you drinking liquor for?
Complain about the gloom but when’d you pick a broom up?
Just listening to Pac ain't gone make it stop
A rebel in your thoughts, ain't gon make it halt
If you don’t become an actor you’ll never be a factor
Pills with million side effects
Take em when the pains felt
Wash them down with Diet soda
Killin off your brain cells
Crooked banks around the World
Would gladly give a loan today
So if you ever miss payment
They can take your home away
Chorus
I think that all the silence is worse than all the violence
Fear is such a weak emotion that's why I despise it
We scared of almost everything, afraid to even tell the truth
So scared of what you think of me, I’m scared of even telling you
Sometimes I’m like the only person I feel safe to tell it to
I’m locked inside a cell in me, I know that there’s a jail in you
Consider this your bailing out, so take a breath, inhale a few
My screams is finally getting free, my thoughts is finally yelling through
It’s so loud Inside my head
With words that I should have said
As I drown in my regrets
I can’t take back the words I never said
It leaves me with an interesting thought - do people really regret the things they don't say more than what they do? I think that the answer is yes. To take this beyond the petty issues and move toward the big picture, all you have to look at is the complete apathy of the average voter on politics and the inner-workings of the US. Our nation is in crisis, and in the hands of political parties that more and more resemble each other. As Republicans and Democrats take more and more corporate money, the less they give a fuck about the "Average American." This is not the view that is shown on our corporate media. Politics is shown as a horse race between ideologically opposed groups. The actual agenda is one that trends to the Right with no counterbalance. No matter your viewpoint, Gridlock is the word that best describes our Legislative situation.
Where does this leave the American public? Either to become entirely partisan and root for 'your side' in this sham of a horse race or to become apathetic. Just under 57% of registered voters voted for President in 2008 and only 37.8% voted in the midterms last year. That's a lot of voluntarily voiceless citizens. And while these people may not regret the decision to not vote in the short term, they sure as hell will have an opinion on what tax rates, spending, cuts, social issues that their 'representatives' will enact in laws in the future.
I, myself, will internalize this song and learn the lesson. Centrism and 'balance' does not equal fact. I truly believe that Liberalism is the correct lens to view the world through which you can build the best, most just society. Rush Limbaugh is a racist. Fox News DOES gin up support for causes that benefit only the wealthy through scare tactics and pitting 'real Americans' (White people) against the 'enemy' (non-whites).
The content of the speech is not the most important issue. Whether or not you agree with Lupe Fiasco on his opinions, you have to respect his willingness to share them. John Stuart Mill's philosophy on Speech in a democracy stated that it was bad to silence individuals' speech, whether they were incorrect or not. In a society with an open forum for ideas, all can be shared equally and the best of them can rise to the top. With today's media, there is a loudspeaker repeating the same ideas over and over that can drown out many if not all others. It is up to all of us to think for ourselves and say what we think. Vote. Become politically active by finding something that you're passionate about. Anything less can lead nowhere but regret...
It’s so loud Inside my head
With words that I should have said
As I drown in my regrets
I can’t take back the words I never said
I can’t take back the words I never said
I really think the war on terror is a bunch of bullshit
Just a poor excuse for you to use up all your bullets
How much money does it take to really make a full clip
9/11 building 7 did they really pull it
Uhh, And a bunch of other cover ups
Your child's future was the first to go with budget cuts
If you think that hurts then, wait here comes the uppercut
The school was garbage in the first place, that's on the up and up
Keep you at the bottom but tease you with the uppercrust
You get it then they move you so you never keeping up enough
If you turn on TV all you see’s a bunch of “what the fucks”
Dude is dating so and so blabbering bout such and such
And that ain't Jersey Shore, homie that's the news
And these the same people that supposed to be telling us the truth
Limbaugh is a racist, Glenn Beck is a racist
Gaza strip was getting bombed, Obama didn’t say shit
That's why I ain't vote for him, next one either
I’ma part of the problem, my problem is I’m peaceful
And I believe in the people.
Chorus
Now you can say it ain't our fault if we never heard it
But if we know better than we probably deserve it
Jihad is not a holy war, wheres that in the worship?
Murdering is not Islam
And you are not observant
And you are not a muslim
Israel don’t take my side cause look how far you’ve pushed them
Walk with me into the ghetto, this where all the Kush went
Complain about the liquor store but what you drinking liquor for?
Complain about the gloom but when’d you pick a broom up?
Just listening to Pac ain't gone make it stop
A rebel in your thoughts, ain't gon make it halt
If you don’t become an actor you’ll never be a factor
Pills with million side effects
Take em when the pains felt
Wash them down with Diet soda
Killin off your brain cells
Crooked banks around the World
Would gladly give a loan today
So if you ever miss payment
They can take your home away
Chorus
I think that all the silence is worse than all the violence
Fear is such a weak emotion that's why I despise it
We scared of almost everything, afraid to even tell the truth
So scared of what you think of me, I’m scared of even telling you
Sometimes I’m like the only person I feel safe to tell it to
I’m locked inside a cell in me, I know that there’s a jail in you
Consider this your bailing out, so take a breath, inhale a few
My screams is finally getting free, my thoughts is finally yelling through
It’s so loud Inside my head
With words that I should have said
As I drown in my regrets
I can’t take back the words I never said
It leaves me with an interesting thought - do people really regret the things they don't say more than what they do? I think that the answer is yes. To take this beyond the petty issues and move toward the big picture, all you have to look at is the complete apathy of the average voter on politics and the inner-workings of the US. Our nation is in crisis, and in the hands of political parties that more and more resemble each other. As Republicans and Democrats take more and more corporate money, the less they give a fuck about the "Average American." This is not the view that is shown on our corporate media. Politics is shown as a horse race between ideologically opposed groups. The actual agenda is one that trends to the Right with no counterbalance. No matter your viewpoint, Gridlock is the word that best describes our Legislative situation.
Where does this leave the American public? Either to become entirely partisan and root for 'your side' in this sham of a horse race or to become apathetic. Just under 57% of registered voters voted for President in 2008 and only 37.8% voted in the midterms last year. That's a lot of voluntarily voiceless citizens. And while these people may not regret the decision to not vote in the short term, they sure as hell will have an opinion on what tax rates, spending, cuts, social issues that their 'representatives' will enact in laws in the future.
I, myself, will internalize this song and learn the lesson. Centrism and 'balance' does not equal fact. I truly believe that Liberalism is the correct lens to view the world through which you can build the best, most just society. Rush Limbaugh is a racist. Fox News DOES gin up support for causes that benefit only the wealthy through scare tactics and pitting 'real Americans' (White people) against the 'enemy' (non-whites).
The content of the speech is not the most important issue. Whether or not you agree with Lupe Fiasco on his opinions, you have to respect his willingness to share them. John Stuart Mill's philosophy on Speech in a democracy stated that it was bad to silence individuals' speech, whether they were incorrect or not. In a society with an open forum for ideas, all can be shared equally and the best of them can rise to the top. With today's media, there is a loudspeaker repeating the same ideas over and over that can drown out many if not all others. It is up to all of us to think for ourselves and say what we think. Vote. Become politically active by finding something that you're passionate about. Anything less can lead nowhere but regret...
Monday, February 21, 2011
Merging Sports and Politics: The NFL Lockout
People look to sports as something that is a refuge from politics and divisive topics. I admit that it's really easy to look at it that way - there isn't much that my dad and I agree upon but we both really love football and the Chicago Bears in particular. But, this ideal is really a lie. Nothing is separate from politics, because while professional sports masquerades as completely privately owned, owners deliver ultimatums to taxpayers demanding millions for new stadiums or they'll take the hometown team to wherever will pony up the money. And then, after taking the money, they still charge $90 a ticket. In fact, during the chaos of Hurricane Katrina, the Louisiana Superdome housed countless homeless individuals. That was the first time that any of them had stepped foot in the stadium that they helped build with their tax dollars.
One interesting aspect of the current Super Bowl champions - The Green Bay Packers - is that there is no one owner of the team. It is collectively owned by the citizens of Green Bay, Wisconsin. Written in the bi-laws of the team is a clause that any profit made from the sale of the team must be donated to the United Way. The Packers are quite literally a product of Socialism. During the Super Bowl broadcast, this fact was not mentioned once. Sure they had time to show Cameron Diaz feeding popcorn to Alex Rodriguez, but not to mention that the Packers had a completely opposite ownership structure to that of the Dallas Cowboys and Jerry Jones' $1 Billion stadium that the game was played in.
The negotiations between the NFL owners and the Player's Union is the interaction that I'm really most interested in at the moment. If you listen to casual sports fans, you're likely not to find that much interest. They see the disagreement as millionaires fighting with billionaires, something that just does not matter to the common fan. But the fact is this - if March 4th passes and there is not a new collective bargaining agreement between the players and the owners, there will be a lockout and there might not be any NFL football next year.
How did it come to this? Well, there was an agreement between the sides in 2006. It was set to last for seven years, but the owners dissolved the agreement after the 2010 season in hopes of getting a greater share of profits. The NFL makes $9 Billion a year. The original agreement was a 60/40 split in favor of the owners after taking an agreed upon amount off the top for the owners (This is to account for stadiums and other 'additions' that improve the game that the players agree to help subsidize the owners). So, in real terms as of last year, out of the $9 Billion the owners kept $1 Billion off the top and split the remaining $8 Billion 60/40.
Coming into these negotiations, the owners' position is that they want to keep the 60/40 split but increase the amount off the top to $2 Billion. The players' counteroffer is a 50/50 split with the original $1 Billion. So, who is right here? The NFL is a growing business and profits will only increase. Upon getting the offer for the $2 Billion subsidy for the owners, the players asked to see the financial activities of the teams to see both where the money would go and whether or not they actually need it. The owners refused.
My take is this, NFL owners are trying desperately to retake any losses that they supposedly took in the 2006 agreement and then some. Owners have been preparing for this lockout for years. They have secured guaranteed TV contracts that will pay the owners next season whether there is any football or not. They have started rescinding coaches' health care as well as players'. Their plan is this - settle in with the TV money and paint the players as greedy athletes who are at fault for there being no football until the players finally cave.
This cannot happen. The players are the talent that feeds this machine and without them, all the owners really have is REALLY expensive fields. How can anyone think that the players should agree to the ultimatum placed before them? With an additional $1 Billion taken away from the players over the length of the contract (7 years), you're asking the players to voluntarily give away $7 Billion. The average player only plays 3.4 years, and that lack of revenue is a huge hit to the amount of money that a player can make in their career.
The main hope for the NFLPA (the players union) is that fans side with them in this struggle. Players want to play this game and only ask for an equitable share of the money that this sport generates. I ask everyone to educate themselves on the matter and show this country that organized labor is a vital part of this country's greatness (I'm also talking to you Governor Walker)
Head to nfllockdown.com and sign the petition to send a message to the owners
Also, this ad was rejected for play at the Super Bowl because of 'content' issues. I guess supporting the game is just too controversial. Watch the ad and pass it on... It's powerful
One interesting aspect of the current Super Bowl champions - The Green Bay Packers - is that there is no one owner of the team. It is collectively owned by the citizens of Green Bay, Wisconsin. Written in the bi-laws of the team is a clause that any profit made from the sale of the team must be donated to the United Way. The Packers are quite literally a product of Socialism. During the Super Bowl broadcast, this fact was not mentioned once. Sure they had time to show Cameron Diaz feeding popcorn to Alex Rodriguez, but not to mention that the Packers had a completely opposite ownership structure to that of the Dallas Cowboys and Jerry Jones' $1 Billion stadium that the game was played in.
The negotiations between the NFL owners and the Player's Union is the interaction that I'm really most interested in at the moment. If you listen to casual sports fans, you're likely not to find that much interest. They see the disagreement as millionaires fighting with billionaires, something that just does not matter to the common fan. But the fact is this - if March 4th passes and there is not a new collective bargaining agreement between the players and the owners, there will be a lockout and there might not be any NFL football next year.
How did it come to this? Well, there was an agreement between the sides in 2006. It was set to last for seven years, but the owners dissolved the agreement after the 2010 season in hopes of getting a greater share of profits. The NFL makes $9 Billion a year. The original agreement was a 60/40 split in favor of the owners after taking an agreed upon amount off the top for the owners (This is to account for stadiums and other 'additions' that improve the game that the players agree to help subsidize the owners). So, in real terms as of last year, out of the $9 Billion the owners kept $1 Billion off the top and split the remaining $8 Billion 60/40.
Coming into these negotiations, the owners' position is that they want to keep the 60/40 split but increase the amount off the top to $2 Billion. The players' counteroffer is a 50/50 split with the original $1 Billion. So, who is right here? The NFL is a growing business and profits will only increase. Upon getting the offer for the $2 Billion subsidy for the owners, the players asked to see the financial activities of the teams to see both where the money would go and whether or not they actually need it. The owners refused.
My take is this, NFL owners are trying desperately to retake any losses that they supposedly took in the 2006 agreement and then some. Owners have been preparing for this lockout for years. They have secured guaranteed TV contracts that will pay the owners next season whether there is any football or not. They have started rescinding coaches' health care as well as players'. Their plan is this - settle in with the TV money and paint the players as greedy athletes who are at fault for there being no football until the players finally cave.
This cannot happen. The players are the talent that feeds this machine and without them, all the owners really have is REALLY expensive fields. How can anyone think that the players should agree to the ultimatum placed before them? With an additional $1 Billion taken away from the players over the length of the contract (7 years), you're asking the players to voluntarily give away $7 Billion. The average player only plays 3.4 years, and that lack of revenue is a huge hit to the amount of money that a player can make in their career.
The main hope for the NFLPA (the players union) is that fans side with them in this struggle. Players want to play this game and only ask for an equitable share of the money that this sport generates. I ask everyone to educate themselves on the matter and show this country that organized labor is a vital part of this country's greatness (I'm also talking to you Governor Walker)
Head to nfllockdown.com and sign the petition to send a message to the owners
Also, this ad was rejected for play at the Super Bowl because of 'content' issues. I guess supporting the game is just too controversial. Watch the ad and pass it on... It's powerful
Friday, February 18, 2011
Fighting the Fox Noise machine with facts
The protests at the Statehouse in Wisconsin against Scott Walker's proposals set up the classic Right/Left conflict in our Infotainment media - The Right calls unions lazy and overpaid and everything up to and even including un-American while the Left mumbles something about how those claims are false without really creating a rival narrative. This position is stupid. The majority of Americans who pay only a passing glance at the news believe what is shouted loudest at them, whether or not it is true.
ACORN's demise was relished by the Right because of the Slam Dunk investigative video from James O'Keefe and Andrew Breitbart that proved that the organization was corrupt and openly facilitated prostitution and countless other seedy offenses. The Right trumpeted that Obamacare was really, truly only about one thing - Death Panels that would allow the "Government" (Note the scare quotes) would have final say as to if you got life saving treatments or died.
There's one commonality of those two stories - they're complete bullshit. O'Keefe used highly edited filming that, after seeing the unbiased version, clearly showed that he and his 'prostitute' did not wear their outfits inside the building, and that nearly all of the employees chose not to help them and one even called the authorities on them. None other than the California Attorney General took a look at the unedited tapes and said that there were absolutely no crimes displayed. The Death Panel nonsense really was nothing more than the delusions of Sarah Palin. It was started as an amendment by a Republican representative that called for the option of individuals to have a meeting with a doctor paid for that allowed them to construct a living will if they saw fit. There was no mandatory facet of this provision or any language that prevented individuals from demanding every last bit of possible life-saving measures. After all the negative press, the provision was stripped from the bill before it ever even passed the House.
Looking at the Democratic response to these two incidences, another commonality can be seen. After withstanding the initial salvo from the Right, the Democrats calmly say that the claims are untrue and leave it at that. While this response at first seems logical and well thought out, it cannot handle the barrage that is the Right Wing Noise Machine. Fox News feeds talk radio and vice versa. Each becoming louder than before until the 'disproved' story until it reached a tipping point when the Mainstream media then must take the story seriously and thus report it as if it were fact. Then, after ACORN is defunded or the provision in 'Obamacare' is removed by the Democrats to stop the Right from making hay on the issue, the Right can claim victory and that they were right all along because 'why would they have caved in if we weren't right all along?' After this song and dance, it doesn't matter if the initial claim was disproved or not - the Right won because they were able to scream down the truth with convincing lies.
This is how the events in Wisconsin tie into the narrative. Walker came into the Governorship with a projected $121 million budget surplus at the end of the year. He promptly began his term this year by giving out $140 million in business tax cuts, creating a budget deficit. His answer for this? Breaking public unions and stripping their ability to collectively bargain.
Never mind that the three unions he gave exceptions to (Police, Firefighters and State Troopers) were the only unions who supported him in the election or that stripping the right to collectively bargain would have no effect on the deficit. Walker's fight is one of politics, trying to eliminate the major fundraisers for the Democratic Party - public unions. It's blatantly partisan and any claim to the contrary is insane. Balancing the budget isn't going to happen by taking public employees' pensions away from them. Doing that will only make the poor poorer and the rich richer.
I hope that the Democrats, and the 'supposedly' liberal media will not let the unions be hung out to dry. That false claims will be shouted down with facts. That unions can and will be strengthened and rightfully celebrated as the institutions that helped create the middle class and might again once more.
ACORN's demise was relished by the Right because of the Slam Dunk investigative video from James O'Keefe and Andrew Breitbart that proved that the organization was corrupt and openly facilitated prostitution and countless other seedy offenses. The Right trumpeted that Obamacare was really, truly only about one thing - Death Panels that would allow the "Government" (Note the scare quotes) would have final say as to if you got life saving treatments or died.
There's one commonality of those two stories - they're complete bullshit. O'Keefe used highly edited filming that, after seeing the unbiased version, clearly showed that he and his 'prostitute' did not wear their outfits inside the building, and that nearly all of the employees chose not to help them and one even called the authorities on them. None other than the California Attorney General took a look at the unedited tapes and said that there were absolutely no crimes displayed. The Death Panel nonsense really was nothing more than the delusions of Sarah Palin. It was started as an amendment by a Republican representative that called for the option of individuals to have a meeting with a doctor paid for that allowed them to construct a living will if they saw fit. There was no mandatory facet of this provision or any language that prevented individuals from demanding every last bit of possible life-saving measures. After all the negative press, the provision was stripped from the bill before it ever even passed the House.
Looking at the Democratic response to these two incidences, another commonality can be seen. After withstanding the initial salvo from the Right, the Democrats calmly say that the claims are untrue and leave it at that. While this response at first seems logical and well thought out, it cannot handle the barrage that is the Right Wing Noise Machine. Fox News feeds talk radio and vice versa. Each becoming louder than before until the 'disproved' story until it reached a tipping point when the Mainstream media then must take the story seriously and thus report it as if it were fact. Then, after ACORN is defunded or the provision in 'Obamacare' is removed by the Democrats to stop the Right from making hay on the issue, the Right can claim victory and that they were right all along because 'why would they have caved in if we weren't right all along?' After this song and dance, it doesn't matter if the initial claim was disproved or not - the Right won because they were able to scream down the truth with convincing lies.
This is how the events in Wisconsin tie into the narrative. Walker came into the Governorship with a projected $121 million budget surplus at the end of the year. He promptly began his term this year by giving out $140 million in business tax cuts, creating a budget deficit. His answer for this? Breaking public unions and stripping their ability to collectively bargain.
Never mind that the three unions he gave exceptions to (Police, Firefighters and State Troopers) were the only unions who supported him in the election or that stripping the right to collectively bargain would have no effect on the deficit. Walker's fight is one of politics, trying to eliminate the major fundraisers for the Democratic Party - public unions. It's blatantly partisan and any claim to the contrary is insane. Balancing the budget isn't going to happen by taking public employees' pensions away from them. Doing that will only make the poor poorer and the rich richer.
I hope that the Democrats, and the 'supposedly' liberal media will not let the unions be hung out to dry. That false claims will be shouted down with facts. That unions can and will be strengthened and rightfully celebrated as the institutions that helped create the middle class and might again once more.
Monday, February 14, 2011
The Murderous Anti-Abortion movement - Fuck You
First off, it's been way too long since I've posted on this blog... I guess it just takes the right story to rile me up and bring forth the word vomit.
Watching Maddow tonight and saw the latest batch of death threats from the "Pro Lifers." This constant threat of violence has single-handedly kept Topeka, Kansas from having an abortion provider in over a year. Abortion, by the way, is not a sin but a Constitutionally protected right that all women in this country should have access to.
How is this OK? How can someone who claims the moral high ground be so obviously depraved? Sure, these movements claim that by killing these 'murderers' they're saving countless souls. Doesn't this COMPLETELY undercut the moniker of Pro Life? Sure all life is sacred unless the person is willing to perform legal women's health care services... in that case, kill the motherfucker. Let's look beyond the hypocrisy that these live in - that most of these people believe in the Death Penalty and War (I guess Muslim or American soldiers lives aren't that sacred) - and cut to the heart of the matter; that this constant threat of violence (along with the tacit approval of those who oppose abortion) creates a de facto ban on abortion.
Is that something we're ok with? What does the Law mean if a group can Terrorize a practice and all of those involved until it goes away? Where does it end? Guns and fanaticism take a precendent over even the fucking Supreme Court? If a challenge to Roe v. Wade was put before the Supreme Court today it would be Affirmed because Kennedy would rule with the Liberal minority for a 5-4 decision. If even the archaic Conservative Supreme Court can't overturn Roe v. Wade, then this fucking crazy movement wants this nation even to the right of them.
So, fuck you 'Pro Life' movement. And fuck you religious individuals who secretly approve of what these nuts are doing. Until religious leaders or the damn Public disavow this group from all semblance of legitimacy then those silent are complicit. Abortion is not a happy thing. But it is a legal act if done within the parameters of the law. Until this threat of violence is lifted, women are not free (especially poor women)
Randall Terry, Operation Rescue and ever single other Anti-Abortion group:
Fuck you for being sexist
Fuck you for trying to control women's bodies
Fuck you for ignoring the fucking rule of law
Fuck you, seriously...
FUCK YOU
Watching Maddow tonight and saw the latest batch of death threats from the "Pro Lifers." This constant threat of violence has single-handedly kept Topeka, Kansas from having an abortion provider in over a year. Abortion, by the way, is not a sin but a Constitutionally protected right that all women in this country should have access to.
How is this OK? How can someone who claims the moral high ground be so obviously depraved? Sure, these movements claim that by killing these 'murderers' they're saving countless souls. Doesn't this COMPLETELY undercut the moniker of Pro Life? Sure all life is sacred unless the person is willing to perform legal women's health care services... in that case, kill the motherfucker. Let's look beyond the hypocrisy that these live in - that most of these people believe in the Death Penalty and War (I guess Muslim or American soldiers lives aren't that sacred) - and cut to the heart of the matter; that this constant threat of violence (along with the tacit approval of those who oppose abortion) creates a de facto ban on abortion.
Is that something we're ok with? What does the Law mean if a group can Terrorize a practice and all of those involved until it goes away? Where does it end? Guns and fanaticism take a precendent over even the fucking Supreme Court? If a challenge to Roe v. Wade was put before the Supreme Court today it would be Affirmed because Kennedy would rule with the Liberal minority for a 5-4 decision. If even the archaic Conservative Supreme Court can't overturn Roe v. Wade, then this fucking crazy movement wants this nation even to the right of them.
So, fuck you 'Pro Life' movement. And fuck you religious individuals who secretly approve of what these nuts are doing. Until religious leaders or the damn Public disavow this group from all semblance of legitimacy then those silent are complicit. Abortion is not a happy thing. But it is a legal act if done within the parameters of the law. Until this threat of violence is lifted, women are not free (especially poor women)
Randall Terry, Operation Rescue and ever single other Anti-Abortion group:
Fuck you for being sexist
Fuck you for trying to control women's bodies
Fuck you for ignoring the fucking rule of law
Fuck you, seriously...
FUCK YOU
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Auto Tune the News
After first hearing these guys on Rachel Maddow a couple months ago, I've become obsessed. These are the Gregory Brothers applying Auto Tune to regular news clips to much hilarity.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Why I will never watch Fox News again and ask everyone else to follow suit
With the assassination of George Tiller - which, mind you occurred within the sanctuary of his own church - culpability has been denied by all who spouted hateful and violence-inducing hateful speech. 'Pro-life' movements who can do anything but denounce this killing (note - even Sarah Palin denounced the act) are truly disgusting.
Olbermann, last night, chronicled the hateful language that O'Reilly, Ingraham and other talking heads on Fox News had used to demonize 'Tiller the Baby Killer.' These attacks were not only bombastic but also lies. The only instances that Tiller did in fact perform late term abortions was when at least two doctors found - in their professional opinion - that the health and/or life of the mother was severely compromised by having the child. In times such as this, no one is pleased when actions of this need be done... but it's important to note that these were in fact legal and these procedures were necessary.
Finally, here's the clip of Olbermann and this is my plea to you. No source of 'news' should spout this hatred. And if it does it loses the ability for it to be called news. People like this will continue to act in this way unless their bottom line is affected. Watch this and follow whatever course you see fit - thank you.
And one more from Rachel Maddow, where she interviewed Frank Schaeffer, a former vehement member of the far right Anti-Abortion movement - where he took some culpability for the violence perpetrated and how all others who shared his view also share the blame.
Olbermann, last night, chronicled the hateful language that O'Reilly, Ingraham and other talking heads on Fox News had used to demonize 'Tiller the Baby Killer.' These attacks were not only bombastic but also lies. The only instances that Tiller did in fact perform late term abortions was when at least two doctors found - in their professional opinion - that the health and/or life of the mother was severely compromised by having the child. In times such as this, no one is pleased when actions of this need be done... but it's important to note that these were in fact legal and these procedures were necessary.
Finally, here's the clip of Olbermann and this is my plea to you. No source of 'news' should spout this hatred. And if it does it loses the ability for it to be called news. People like this will continue to act in this way unless their bottom line is affected. Watch this and follow whatever course you see fit - thank you.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
And one more from Rachel Maddow, where she interviewed Frank Schaeffer, a former vehement member of the far right Anti-Abortion movement - where he took some culpability for the violence perpetrated and how all others who shared his view also share the blame.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Thursday, April 2, 2009
South Park as metaphor for the economic crisis?
I saw this episode of South Park last week and I found it surprisingly profound for three reasons
1)It showed the crisis (and religion for that matter) in all of their absurity.
2)The Margaritaville for Mortgage metaphor was brilliant in making it understandable but just as maddening.
3) The fact that Kyle just might be the economy's only son...
Here it is in four parts!
Part One -
Part Two -
Part Three -
Part Four -
1)It showed the crisis (and religion for that matter) in all of their absurity.
2)The Margaritaville for Mortgage metaphor was brilliant in making it understandable but just as maddening.
3) The fact that Kyle just might be the economy's only son...
Here it is in four parts!
Part One -
Part Two -
Part Three -
Part Four -
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The failure of Abstinence Only
Bristol Palin and Levi Johnson have broken off their engagement.
Their story is a story in which the legitimacy of Abstinence-only sex education has been removed. In an interview after the election, Bristol admitted that she believed that 'abstinence was unrealistic.' This is a view that many have, and those that choose to take that path have little information given to them in many public schools that have resorted to teaching abstinence only. I can understand the rationale of parents not wanting their children to have sex and their means of succeeding in this is not giving teenagers information and permission to have sex.
I see this as shortsighted and ineffective. Trying to avoid the elephant in the room is impossible. With the sexual culture that exists in the media and in everyday conversation between teenagers, simply ignoring the topic will not prevent individuals from partaking in it. In this culture and these conditions, mainly the high number of teenage numbers and surging number of sexually transmitted infections, safe sex must be taught in public schools. Referring back to Bristol Palin, in the same interview where she called abstinence 'unrealistic,' she was unable to explain why she and Levi did not practice safe sex. Surely some of the blame must lie with the schools, a problem that was not alleviated by the fact that Governor Palin unabashedly supports abstinence only education.
Teenage sexuality is a fact that cannot be swept under the rug. With STIs such as HIV out in the population, this is absolutely a life or death matter. Finally, safe sex education is the surest way to reduce abortions among teenagers. Whether you are pro life or pro choice, no one wants there to be more abortions than are absolutely necessary. By teaching teenagers ways to prevent pregnancy, the number will shrink and the use of abortion as a form of birth control will be shown to all as the wrong path.
Finally, I read online political news far too often. With Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer having a bit of a spat, the Daily Beast posted a few 'on air' feuds. This one I found particularly scathing and entertaining. Stewart, on Crossfire, holds his own with Tucker Carlson through humor and rational discourse... enjoy! (p.s. the link to the page is http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-11/7-best-cable-tv-feuds/)
Their story is a story in which the legitimacy of Abstinence-only sex education has been removed. In an interview after the election, Bristol admitted that she believed that 'abstinence was unrealistic.' This is a view that many have, and those that choose to take that path have little information given to them in many public schools that have resorted to teaching abstinence only. I can understand the rationale of parents not wanting their children to have sex and their means of succeeding in this is not giving teenagers information and permission to have sex.
I see this as shortsighted and ineffective. Trying to avoid the elephant in the room is impossible. With the sexual culture that exists in the media and in everyday conversation between teenagers, simply ignoring the topic will not prevent individuals from partaking in it. In this culture and these conditions, mainly the high number of teenage numbers and surging number of sexually transmitted infections, safe sex must be taught in public schools. Referring back to Bristol Palin, in the same interview where she called abstinence 'unrealistic,' she was unable to explain why she and Levi did not practice safe sex. Surely some of the blame must lie with the schools, a problem that was not alleviated by the fact that Governor Palin unabashedly supports abstinence only education.
Teenage sexuality is a fact that cannot be swept under the rug. With STIs such as HIV out in the population, this is absolutely a life or death matter. Finally, safe sex education is the surest way to reduce abortions among teenagers. Whether you are pro life or pro choice, no one wants there to be more abortions than are absolutely necessary. By teaching teenagers ways to prevent pregnancy, the number will shrink and the use of abortion as a form of birth control will be shown to all as the wrong path.
Finally, I read online political news far too often. With Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer having a bit of a spat, the Daily Beast posted a few 'on air' feuds. This one I found particularly scathing and entertaining. Stewart, on Crossfire, holds his own with Tucker Carlson through humor and rational discourse... enjoy! (p.s. the link to the page is http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-11/7-best-cable-tv-feuds/)
Friday, March 6, 2009
Fox News?!
Well, I was flipping around channels tonight and found myself watching Hannity... Wow, I actually missed Colmes. Anyway, there was this 'shocking piece' in which a 'New BRIDGE TO NOWHERE'
Anyway... this piece was shocking in three ways:
1)It gives credit to 'environmental concerns'
2)It feigns interest in the 'survival of the Everglades'
3)They actually interviewed Native Americans
4)It chides excess development as what hurt the Everglades
*RANT BREAK*
Wait, What?! Under the Bush Administration, just a few months ago, it was commonplace for the members of the Department of the Interior (Many of whom are now in jail for partaking in bribery in the form of drugs and hookers from the industries they were regulating) routinely auctioned off valuable protected land to the highest bidder. Not the least of which was contracts to strip mine for Uranium in the land near the Grand Canyon where possible spills into the Colorado River would endanger the main water supply of Las Vegas and Los Angeles?!? To me, these practices don't seem like the best way to maintain precious 'beautiful landscapes.'
*END RANT BREAK*
Ok, I've ranted enough... here is the clip for you to watch to see if you're as angered as me. And it's not just the reporting itself, it's just how disingenuous and hypocritical it is...
Well, here's a link to the video, http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3778357&referralPlaylistId=949437d0db05ed5f5b9954dc049d70b0c12f2749
Finally, this is shown to be a 'pork' addition to the bill that is CLEARLY one of many in this Spending Bill. I wanted to see who was the horrible congressman whose district this flaunting of money would go in. His name was Adam Putnam and he's a Republican. On his website, http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/fl12_putnam/20090220_everglades_funding.shtml, he praises the large amount of Everglades funding in the bill. Nailed ya Fox News!
Oh, and on another note... Glenn Beck is insane. A fearmonger among fearmongers, Beck has something he calls the 'War Room' in which he envisions the many horrible ways that the country will inevitably fall (All thanks to Barack Obama, of course). Colbert just killed him with this bit, and I think that for levity's sake I'll include it was well.
Here's Colbert describing Beck's 'War Room'
And, here's Colbert's response to Beck - His 'Doom Bunker'
Anyway... this piece was shocking in three ways:
1)It gives credit to 'environmental concerns'
2)It feigns interest in the 'survival of the Everglades'
3)They actually interviewed Native Americans
4)It chides excess development as what hurt the Everglades
*RANT BREAK*
Wait, What?! Under the Bush Administration, just a few months ago, it was commonplace for the members of the Department of the Interior (Many of whom are now in jail for partaking in bribery in the form of drugs and hookers from the industries they were regulating) routinely auctioned off valuable protected land to the highest bidder. Not the least of which was contracts to strip mine for Uranium in the land near the Grand Canyon where possible spills into the Colorado River would endanger the main water supply of Las Vegas and Los Angeles?!? To me, these practices don't seem like the best way to maintain precious 'beautiful landscapes.'
*END RANT BREAK*
Ok, I've ranted enough... here is the clip for you to watch to see if you're as angered as me. And it's not just the reporting itself, it's just how disingenuous and hypocritical it is...
Well, here's a link to the video, http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3778357&referralPlaylistId=949437d0db05ed5f5b9954dc049d70b0c12f2749
Finally, this is shown to be a 'pork' addition to the bill that is CLEARLY one of many in this Spending Bill. I wanted to see who was the horrible congressman whose district this flaunting of money would go in. His name was Adam Putnam and he's a Republican. On his website, http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/fl12_putnam/20090220_everglades_funding.shtml, he praises the large amount of Everglades funding in the bill. Nailed ya Fox News!
Oh, and on another note... Glenn Beck is insane. A fearmonger among fearmongers, Beck has something he calls the 'War Room' in which he envisions the many horrible ways that the country will inevitably fall (All thanks to Barack Obama, of course). Colbert just killed him with this bit, and I think that for levity's sake I'll include it was well.
Here's Colbert describing Beck's 'War Room'
And, here's Colbert's response to Beck - His 'Doom Bunker'
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Looking backwards to move forwards
This is a speech Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island spoke on the Senate floor on January 21st, 2009 - the first full day of the Obama administration. This encapsulates the need that I feel also to look back at the mistakes that have been made in the previous eight years... Without such self-evaluation, the road has been left for others to abuse this great nation's institutions once more.
Whitehouse: As We Look Forward We Must Also Look Back
January 21, 2009
I rise as we celebrate a new President, a new administration, a new mode of governing, and a new future for America.
Even in the gloom of our present predicaments, Americans' hearts are strong and confident because we see a brighter future ahead.
President Obama looks to that future. Given the depth and severity of those predicaments, we need all his energy to look forward to lead us to that brighter day; forward to what Winston Churchill in Britain's dark days called those "broad and sunlit uplands."
But, as we steer toward this broad and sunlit future, what about the past? As the President looks forward and charts a new course, must someone not also look back, to take an accounting of where we are, what was done, and what must now be repaired.
Our new President has said, "America needs to look forward." I agree.
Our new Attorney-General designate has said, we should not criminalize policy differences. I agree.
And I hope we can all agree that summoning young sacrificial lambs to prosecute, as we did after the Abu Ghraib disaster, would be reprehensible.
But consider the pervasive, deliberate, and systematic damage the Bush Administration did to America, to her finest traditions and institutions, to her reputation and integrity.
I evaluate that damage in history's light. Although I'm no historian, here is what I believe:
The story of humankind on this Earth has been a long and halting march from the darkness of barbarism and the principle that to the victor go the spoils, to the light of organized civilization and freedom. During that long and halting march, this light of progress has burned, sometimes brightly and sometimes softly, in different places at different times around the world.
The light shone in Athens, when that first Senate made democracy a living experiment; and again in the softer but broader glow of the Roman Empire and Senate.
That light burned brightly, incandescently, in Jerusalem, when Jesus of Nazareth cast his lot with the weak and the powerless.
The light burned in Damascus, Baghdad, Cairo and Cordoba, when the Arab world kept science, mathematics, art, and logic alive, as Europe descended into Dark Ages of plague and violence.
The light flashed from the fields of Runnymede when English nobles forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, and glowed steadily from that island kingdom as England developed Parliament and the common law, and was the first to stand against slavery.
It rekindled in Europe at the time of the Reformation, with a bright flash in 1517 when Martin Luther nailed his edicts to the Wittenberg cathedral doors, and faced with excommunication, stated "Here I stand. I can do no other."
Over the years across the globe, that light, and the darkness of tyranny and cruelty, have ebbed and flowed.
But for the duration of our Republic, even though our Republic is admittedly imperfect, that light has shone more brightly and more steadily here in this Republic than in any place on earth: as we adopted the Constitution, the greatest achievement yet in human freedom; as boys and men bled out of shattered bodies into sodden fields at Antietam and Chicamagua, Shiloh and Gettysburg to expiate the sin of slavery; as we rebuilt shattered enemies, now friends, overseas and came home after winning world wars; and as we threw off bit by bit ancient shackles of race and gender to make this a more perfect union for all of us.
What made this bright and steady glow possible? What made it possible is not that we are better people, I believe, but that our system of government is government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Why else does our President take his oath to defend a Constitution of the United States of America? Our unique form of self-government is a blessing, and we hold it in trust; not just for us, but for our children and grandchildren down through history; not just for us, but as an example out through the world.
That is why our Statue of Liberty raises a lamp to other nations still engloomed in tyranny.
That is why we stand as a beacon in this world, beckoning to all who seek a kinder, freer, brighter future.
We hold this unique gift in trust for the future and the world. Each generation assumes responsibility for this Republic and its government, and each generation takes on a special obligation when they do. Our new President closed his Inaugural Address by setting forth the challenge against which future generations will test us: whether "with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generation." There are no guarantees that we will - this is a continuing experiment we are embarked upon - and a lot is at stake; indeed, the most precious thing of man's creation on the face of the Earth is at stake. That is what I believe.
So from that perspective, what about the past? No one can deny that in the last eight years America's bright light has dimmed and flickered, darkening our country and darkening the world.
The price of that is incalculable. There are nearly 7 billion human souls on this world. Every morning, the sun rises anew over their villages and hamlets and barrios, and every day they can choose where to invest their hopes, their confidence, and their dreams.
I submit that when America's light shines brightly, when honesty, freedom, justice and compassion glow from our institutions, it attracts those hopes, those dreams; and the force of those 7 billion hopes and dreams, the confidence of those 7 billion souls in our lively experiment, is, I believe, the strongest power in our national arsenal - stronger than atom bombs. We risk it at our peril.
And of course when our own faith is diminished at home, this vital light only dims further, again at incalculable cost.
So when an administration rigs the intelligence process and produces false evidence to send our country to war;
When an administration descends to interrogation techniques of the Inquisition, of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge - descends to techniques that we have prosecuted as crimes in military tribunals and federal courts;
When institutions as noble as the Department of Justice and as vital as the Environmental Protection Agency are systematically and deliberately twisted from their missions by odious means of institutional sabotage;
When the integrity of our markets and the fiscal security of our budget are opened wide to the frenzied greed of corporations, speculators and contractors;
When the integrity of public officials; the warnings of science; the honesty of government procedures; and the careful historic balance of our separated powers of government, are all seen as obstacles to be overcome and not attributes to be celebrated;
When taxpayers are cheated, and the forces of government ride to the rescue of the cheaters and punish the whistleblowers;
When a government turns the guns of official secrecy against its own people to mislead, confuse and propagandize them;
When government ceases to even try to understand the complex topography of the difficult problems it is our very purpose and duty to solve, and instead cares only for these points where it intersects with the party ideology, so that the purpose of government becomes no longer to solve problems, but only to work them for political advantage;
In short, when you have pervasive infiltration into all the halls of government - judicial, legislative, and executive - of the most ignoble forms of influence; when you see systematic dismantling of historic processes and traditions of government that are the safeguards of our democracy; and when you have a bodyguard of lies, jargon, and propaganda emitted to fool and beguile the American people...
Well, something very serious in the history of our republic has gone wrong, something that dims the light of progress for all humanity.
As we look forward, as we begin the task of rebuilding this nation, we have an abiding duty to determine how great the damage is. I say this in no spirit of vindictiveness or revenge. I say it because the thing that was sullied is so, so precious; and I say it because the past bears upon the future. If people have been planted in government in violation of our civil service laws to serve their party and their ideology instead of serving the public, the past will bear upon the future. If procedures and institutions of government have been corrupted and are not put right, that past will assuredly bear on the future. In an ongoing enterprise like government, the door cannot be so conveniently closed on the closets of the past. The past always bears on the future.
Moreover, a democracy is not just a static institution, it is a living education - an ongoing education in freedom of a people. As Harry Truman said addressing a joint session of Congress back in 1947, "One of the chief virtues of a democracy is that its defects are always visible, and under democratic processes can be pointed out and corrected."
Entirely apart from tentacles of the past that may reach into the future, are the lessons we as a people have to learn from this past carnival of folly, greed, lies, and sabotage, so that it can, under democratic processes, be pointed out and corrected.
If we blind ourselves to this history, if we pull an invisibility cloak over it, we will deny ourselves its lessons. Those lessons came at too painful a cost to ignore. Those lessons merit discovery, disclosure and discussion. Indeed, disclosure and discussion is the difference between a valuable lesson for the bright upward forces of our democracy, and a blueprint for darker forces to return and do it all over again.
A little bright, healthy sunshine and fresh air, so that an educated population knows what was done and how, can show where the tunnels were bored, when the truth was subordinated; what institutions were subverted; how our democracy was compromised; so this grim history is not condemned to repeat itself; so a knowing public in the clarity of day can say, "Never, never, never, again;" so we can keep that light - that light that is at once America's greatest gift and greatest strength - brightly shining. To do this, I submit, we must look back.
I yield the floor.
Friday, December 5, 2008
The 'Right to Conscience,' Harvey Milk and the Bailout hypocracy
First off... Rachel Maddow is brilliant, as is Melissa Harris-Lacewell. But, to move on to the matter at hand, this policy change newly implemented by the Lame Duck Bush administration is despicable. The 'right to conscience' is an obvious ploy to narrow the rights of women as protected by Roe v. Wade. Giving anyone the option to opt out of legal medical procedures allows an end-run around individual rights. This seems so similar to me of women's health clinics around the country that have no intention to conduct abortions and lie to women until it's literally too late. Why would means such as this be the way that the Republicans try to eliminate a woman's right to choose? Isn't it a crusade put on by the Right? Why not validate that 'moral' position with a popular decision or highly public Supreme Court decision?
Well... just in this past election, two such measures were defeated. One in Colorado that redefined 'personhood' to begin at the moment of fertilization, which was defeated by a double digit margin. And the other, and this one I think is much more indicative, where severe restrictions towards abortions was defeated in SOUTH DAKOTA. I'm sorry, but when abortion can't be defeated by popular decision in a state like South Dakota... perhaps it's just time for the Right to resign themselves to the fact that these rights are popularly supported and leave it be.
Even when I considered myself to be a Republican, I was always a bit concerned with the intrusive nature of Social Conservatism. To me, I always saw it as the majority trying to push their views of morality on society as a whole. I don't believe that this is a Christian nation, and I think that it's a travesty that any individual running for elected office seemingly has to prove to the American people how much faith he or she has and that literally being a litmus test to their electability. Just for argument's sake, why would the fact that Barack Obama's being a muslim (which is completely untrue and no one of true intellect can say otherwise) be a threat to national security? He did not have dual citizenship with any Middle Eastern country, so clearly his religion solely would be the culprit. I reject the assumption that an individual's faith would necessarily paint their judgment (unless that individual claims to talk to God personally... I'm talking to you W.). JFK did not take his orders from the Pope and a muslim leader would not take orders from the Ayatolla.
Speaking of Social Conservatism and its danger, the movie that I am most excited to see right now is Milk. Going through my public education, I was never made aware of Harvey Milk's story and the crusade against Prop 6 in California in the late 70s. For anyone interested, Harvey Milk was the first openly gay elected official in the U.S. He was a City Supervisor for the city of San Francisco. And the battle against Prop 6, which is what the movie revolves around, was a measure that would fire any teacher who was either gay or supportive of gays. It's really quite amazing the parallels that this time makes with the current circumstances after the passing of Prop 8. Fortunately, I was educated on the matter during my first Women's Studies class at OSU and I was amazed by it. Not surprisingly, Harvey was assasinated early in life. But, I am intrigued to see how Sean Penn plays the role of Milk, as well as the parts played by Emile Hirsch and James Franco - I have only heard amazing things about it and I'm sure it will be up for more than a couple oscars.
NOTE - Prop 8 will be defeated and it overturning will be a step towards true equality... How long must we wait?
Finally, the last topic that is on my mind is the matter of the bailout for the auto manufacturing industry in this country. As I have just heard tonight, there will be a loan given which I can only see as good news. Sure, these companies have mismanaged their industry, but showing them a lesson at the expense of one tenth of the jobs in this nation is a price that is far too high to consider. This bailout has been the topic of much disagreement, but I have taken one piece of information out of it. The Big 3 execs have had to grovel and plead and give plans upon plans on how the money will help, all while being brow-beaten by Congress. Romney and other fiscal conservatives have called for no money to be given and to let the companies fail. Much more insidiously, the dreaded unions have been vilified as the reason that GM and the lot are in this mess...
My question is this - why is all of this stringency being placed on the Auto makers but not on the banking industry that we have already given $700 billion (much more than the $25 billion that we're giving Detroit)? This disconnect between those who take a shower before work and those who have to shower afterwards is clear. The banking bailout is being spent on executive bonuses while union members are being blamed for wanting a decent wage and health benefits? Seriously?!
I actually liked the opinion offered by Michael Moore on Countdown the other day... The Big 3 have an actual value of around $3 billion now... why are we going to give them $25 billion more? For that we could buy the companies and nationalize in a way that we the people can determine the future productions - emphasizing hybrid and electric technologies. It won't happen, but hopefully the money we're giving will allow us influence to change the directions of the companies.
Hmm... In conclusion, I'm happy to see that Bill O'Reilly's radio show will go under at the beginning of the year! One down, one more to go :) It's well on its way if Olbermann continues to outdo Billo in the ratings!
Monday, November 17, 2008
Perception is Reality
As Reagan's chief of staff so roughly put it "Perception is reality." And as the past twenty years have unfolded, that quote has proven to be prophetic in a way that is beyond belief. Reagan, as successful as he was, was always shielded by an image created by his political staff and propagated by a media that was more than willing to eat it up. I mean, an ex-movie star that was congenial and loved jelly beans? His persona was supposed to lead America into a grand Conservative movement that would minimize the size of the government to the point that it could be 'drowned in a bathtub.' And history has shown him to be a larger than life figure, still to this day. Hardly a speech by a prominent Republican figure goes by in which his name is not called out as a testament to how America should be governed. Hell, my father has always told me that 'Reagan made everyone proud to be Americans again.' And I cannot take that away from him, I did not live in that time so I have no point of view. I do know that he built up the largest national debt in history to that point. I know that his 'trickle down' economics are a remnant that has not proved to be an effective stimulus for the majority of the American population. But... the ultimate point that I am making is that he was president in a very fortunate time. He was hawkish in the highest degree towards the Soviets (almost dangerously) and was credited with the bankrupting of the USSR, although their collapse was not far off due to poor leadership. Hell, it's Reagan with his name on the airport at DC, certainly not Jimmy Carter, so his success has clearly been deemed so by 'those who know,' whoever they are. Image was key to Reagan and was key to George W. until the sheer ineptitude of his governance overrided it.
Image is once again vital when taking the incoming Obama Administration in context. Historical hyperbole has been given to Obama from the start. His orations evoke the power of JFK and Bobby Kennedy... Being the first African-American president, America seems to be near the proverbial mountaintop that Martin Luther King once spoke of. Even rumors of his naming Hillary Clinton to the Secretary of State post evoked Lincoln's 'Team of Rivals.' These expectations, along with Barack's rhetoric of massive fundamental change to the federal government as a whole seem to allow no room for failure in his governance. This may be possible, and I certainly voted and campaigned for him knowing that he gave us the best chance of success in the coming years. But, before we all exclaim that all our problems are solved because we have a man from the opposing party in the White House, let us take a look at all of the challenges that have been left on his desk by the departing administration:
1) We are fighting two wars. Iraq and Afghanistan are not like traditional wars in American history. There is no chance of achieving 'total victory' because there is not a standing army to combat, terror cells and insurgents are moving targets without exact numbers. Even General David Petraeus, the general behind the much vaunted 'Surge' has admitted that Iraq is not a situation where the term 'victory' can truly apply. Iraq is especially dire due to the fact that the Status of Forces agreement that was in place expires on January 1st of next year and the Iraqis have been unwilling to agree to another. If and when that expires, any actions that the US military takes would be unlawful and every soldier would be subject to war crimes. The election of Obama has made the Iraqis more open to another agreement, which is a good sign. A new agreement and a shift in mission from one of full military occupation to an international policing effort would help facilitate a gradual shift to the Iraqis and withdrawal of American troops.
But the real war still to be fought is in Afghanistan. The invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 under Bush was a travesty. Too few troops were allotted and corners were cut in the securing of the country. With all of the attention paid to Iraq, Afghanistan has fallen into worse shape than since we first invaded. Al Qaeda has risen again and the Taliban has regained standing. A lot of this has occured in the loose border that Afghanistan shares with Pakistan called Waziristan... This area is quite mountainous which allows almost no border enforcement, and here tribal Islamic leaders are slowly regaining strength and sending troops into Afghanistan. Here, some more troops are needed, but mostly more policing and greater economic aid to reduce the Afghan economy's need to lean on opiate poppy production from being their main export.
2) The ecomony is shit. Plain and simple... credit markets have not improved in the preceding weeks, even following the banking bailout. But why is this so? Didn't we, the taxpayers just give them $700 billion dollars to start doing that? And not just a blank check like Paulson, the Treasury secretary asked for but with OVERSIGHT! Well... that's simply not the case. Even though oversight was written into the legisation, reportedly nearly $300 billion of the alloted money has been spent and the regulatory positions that were meant to oversee the spending haven't been filled yet. This money is being spent on executive salaries and bonuses, company retreats and other avenues to help shareholders, not taxpayers. This is not a nationalized banking system, it is certainly the blank check that the banks did not deserve and could not be trusted with. Bailouts were done much more deftly in other countries. Gordon Brown in the UK, for example, reached an agreement with each bank he leant to that: 1)Taxpayers got 12% back on their investment annually; 2)The government gained members on the board to help in decisionmaking; and 3)A written agreement with each bank that they would start lending to small businesses and individuals. Paulson, on the other hand, was only able to negotiate a 5% return annually and got no agreement that banks would again start lending.
With this failed bailout, another is needed for homeowners who face foreclosure and others who are in dire need. The American auto industry is in desperate need for a cash infusion. One in ten jobs in this country is with one of the Big 3 auto manufacturers, and General Motors for one, has said that they do not have enough cash to last the remainder of the year. A bailout here, contingent on enforced regulation of the kinds of cars produced in the future (Green friendly hybrid production increased), would do a great deal towards righting the ship. That, along with increased government spending on public works infrastructure projects (roads, bridges, solar panels, etc.) would increase the number of jobs in the short term and help slowly bring the economy back.
3) Finally, Barack Obama has to juggle those two behemoths, achieve his promise on passing universal health care, work towards becoming a more green friendly nation and less energy dependent on oil from the Middle East and (most importantly) restore the people's faith and trust in its government. I've been reading a book regarding John McCain recently, and his belief in a 'greater cause' for government is a noble endeavor that I think bears following. His belief that a government should be clean and open and trustworthy is an end that our representative democracy deserves.
These goals, as well as the effectiveness of Obama in general, will be judged in the present by the 'storyline-based' media. This media is one of hardening partisanship on both sides. Almost anyone can see the conservative lean at Fox News and even I admit that MSNBC clearly leans to the left (Yay Olbermann and Maddow!). These are the same forces that helped shape Reagan's image towards sainthood. Say what you will about him, but after the attacks of 9/11, and the subsequent building up of national identity under a strong leader, George W. Bush had the highest approval ratings of any president at ANY time. That is a truly strong statement. But, as the wars drug on and episode after episode (Katrina, Warantless Wiretapping, TORTURE at Guantanamo), that image slipped away from him until he had nothing. This is the fear I have for the Obama administration, not from ineptitude but from outward catastrophe. With the economy slipping fast and no solution in place yet (I'm sorry, but that $700 billion is a lost cause), the ambitious changes that Obama promised will have to take a backseat to trying to prevent another Great Depression.
And if that depression hits and Obama cannot lift us out of it, what will his image and his legacy be? Will he be the man who promised the world only to have the rug pulled out on him by the past? Will he be blamed for the catastrophe? Rush Limbaugh and the other Conservative talking heads have called this the 'Obama Recession'; which is complete bullshit... I'm sorry, but Obama hasn't changed a single policy or changed a single bit of regulation. That 'honor' falls upon Alan Greenspan who recently admitted that 'his assumptions on the way the world works were wrong.' (Really? Who knew that rather than regulate themselves, banks would take risks in the name of outrageous profit?) Anyway, enough ranting... The media and the conventional wisdom of the time will all make their judgements regarding how this ambitious young president will handle these challenges.
I want to say that I am truly, TRULY hopeful that Barack Obama will be able to weather these storms, resolve the conflicts in the Middle East, right our economic ship and restore our national standing with its citizens as well as the world. His oratory skills are superb and he will be able to comfort the nation in a way that no one has before. I am willing to do my part to make this 'the world as it should be' as opposed to settling for 'the world as it is' and I hope that everyone else is as well. Regardless of party and partisanship, the main purpose of government is to make the society that its citizens live in a prosperous (and I would say equitable) one. Four years from now, I hope that we are on our way to becoming that nation for all.
This first blog post was more of a rant, so there weren't any particular sources that I took from. Suffice it to say, any questioned facts or figures probably came from Olbermann, Maddow, or dailykos.com. Maybe I'll do some of that citing stuff next time... but probably not.
Image is once again vital when taking the incoming Obama Administration in context. Historical hyperbole has been given to Obama from the start. His orations evoke the power of JFK and Bobby Kennedy... Being the first African-American president, America seems to be near the proverbial mountaintop that Martin Luther King once spoke of. Even rumors of his naming Hillary Clinton to the Secretary of State post evoked Lincoln's 'Team of Rivals.' These expectations, along with Barack's rhetoric of massive fundamental change to the federal government as a whole seem to allow no room for failure in his governance. This may be possible, and I certainly voted and campaigned for him knowing that he gave us the best chance of success in the coming years. But, before we all exclaim that all our problems are solved because we have a man from the opposing party in the White House, let us take a look at all of the challenges that have been left on his desk by the departing administration:
1) We are fighting two wars. Iraq and Afghanistan are not like traditional wars in American history. There is no chance of achieving 'total victory' because there is not a standing army to combat, terror cells and insurgents are moving targets without exact numbers. Even General David Petraeus, the general behind the much vaunted 'Surge' has admitted that Iraq is not a situation where the term 'victory' can truly apply. Iraq is especially dire due to the fact that the Status of Forces agreement that was in place expires on January 1st of next year and the Iraqis have been unwilling to agree to another. If and when that expires, any actions that the US military takes would be unlawful and every soldier would be subject to war crimes. The election of Obama has made the Iraqis more open to another agreement, which is a good sign. A new agreement and a shift in mission from one of full military occupation to an international policing effort would help facilitate a gradual shift to the Iraqis and withdrawal of American troops.
But the real war still to be fought is in Afghanistan. The invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 under Bush was a travesty. Too few troops were allotted and corners were cut in the securing of the country. With all of the attention paid to Iraq, Afghanistan has fallen into worse shape than since we first invaded. Al Qaeda has risen again and the Taliban has regained standing. A lot of this has occured in the loose border that Afghanistan shares with Pakistan called Waziristan... This area is quite mountainous which allows almost no border enforcement, and here tribal Islamic leaders are slowly regaining strength and sending troops into Afghanistan. Here, some more troops are needed, but mostly more policing and greater economic aid to reduce the Afghan economy's need to lean on opiate poppy production from being their main export.
2) The ecomony is shit. Plain and simple... credit markets have not improved in the preceding weeks, even following the banking bailout. But why is this so? Didn't we, the taxpayers just give them $700 billion dollars to start doing that? And not just a blank check like Paulson, the Treasury secretary asked for but with OVERSIGHT! Well... that's simply not the case. Even though oversight was written into the legisation, reportedly nearly $300 billion of the alloted money has been spent and the regulatory positions that were meant to oversee the spending haven't been filled yet. This money is being spent on executive salaries and bonuses, company retreats and other avenues to help shareholders, not taxpayers. This is not a nationalized banking system, it is certainly the blank check that the banks did not deserve and could not be trusted with. Bailouts were done much more deftly in other countries. Gordon Brown in the UK, for example, reached an agreement with each bank he leant to that: 1)Taxpayers got 12% back on their investment annually; 2)The government gained members on the board to help in decisionmaking; and 3)A written agreement with each bank that they would start lending to small businesses and individuals. Paulson, on the other hand, was only able to negotiate a 5% return annually and got no agreement that banks would again start lending.
With this failed bailout, another is needed for homeowners who face foreclosure and others who are in dire need. The American auto industry is in desperate need for a cash infusion. One in ten jobs in this country is with one of the Big 3 auto manufacturers, and General Motors for one, has said that they do not have enough cash to last the remainder of the year. A bailout here, contingent on enforced regulation of the kinds of cars produced in the future (Green friendly hybrid production increased), would do a great deal towards righting the ship. That, along with increased government spending on public works infrastructure projects (roads, bridges, solar panels, etc.) would increase the number of jobs in the short term and help slowly bring the economy back.
3) Finally, Barack Obama has to juggle those two behemoths, achieve his promise on passing universal health care, work towards becoming a more green friendly nation and less energy dependent on oil from the Middle East and (most importantly) restore the people's faith and trust in its government. I've been reading a book regarding John McCain recently, and his belief in a 'greater cause' for government is a noble endeavor that I think bears following. His belief that a government should be clean and open and trustworthy is an end that our representative democracy deserves.
These goals, as well as the effectiveness of Obama in general, will be judged in the present by the 'storyline-based' media. This media is one of hardening partisanship on both sides. Almost anyone can see the conservative lean at Fox News and even I admit that MSNBC clearly leans to the left (Yay Olbermann and Maddow!). These are the same forces that helped shape Reagan's image towards sainthood. Say what you will about him, but after the attacks of 9/11, and the subsequent building up of national identity under a strong leader, George W. Bush had the highest approval ratings of any president at ANY time. That is a truly strong statement. But, as the wars drug on and episode after episode (Katrina, Warantless Wiretapping, TORTURE at Guantanamo), that image slipped away from him until he had nothing. This is the fear I have for the Obama administration, not from ineptitude but from outward catastrophe. With the economy slipping fast and no solution in place yet (I'm sorry, but that $700 billion is a lost cause), the ambitious changes that Obama promised will have to take a backseat to trying to prevent another Great Depression.
And if that depression hits and Obama cannot lift us out of it, what will his image and his legacy be? Will he be the man who promised the world only to have the rug pulled out on him by the past? Will he be blamed for the catastrophe? Rush Limbaugh and the other Conservative talking heads have called this the 'Obama Recession'; which is complete bullshit... I'm sorry, but Obama hasn't changed a single policy or changed a single bit of regulation. That 'honor' falls upon Alan Greenspan who recently admitted that 'his assumptions on the way the world works were wrong.' (Really? Who knew that rather than regulate themselves, banks would take risks in the name of outrageous profit?) Anyway, enough ranting... The media and the conventional wisdom of the time will all make their judgements regarding how this ambitious young president will handle these challenges.
I want to say that I am truly, TRULY hopeful that Barack Obama will be able to weather these storms, resolve the conflicts in the Middle East, right our economic ship and restore our national standing with its citizens as well as the world. His oratory skills are superb and he will be able to comfort the nation in a way that no one has before. I am willing to do my part to make this 'the world as it should be' as opposed to settling for 'the world as it is' and I hope that everyone else is as well. Regardless of party and partisanship, the main purpose of government is to make the society that its citizens live in a prosperous (and I would say equitable) one. Four years from now, I hope that we are on our way to becoming that nation for all.
This first blog post was more of a rant, so there weren't any particular sources that I took from. Suffice it to say, any questioned facts or figures probably came from Olbermann, Maddow, or dailykos.com. Maybe I'll do some of that citing stuff next time... but probably not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)