The BBC reported today that each of the five members of Sam Walton's family (i.e. the same Sam Walton who founded Wal•Mart) are worth an estimated TWENTY BILLION dollars each. That's one family worth ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS. Meanwhile, government welfare agencies and healthcare providers are complaining because Wal•Mart employees are disproportionally using medicaid to pay their doctor bills. It seems those price-conscious employees figured out that if they wanted to eat and pay rent too, that it was cheaper to go on welfare than to pay for Wal•Mart's health insurance - assuming they qualify for health insurance with all that "working off the clock " shenanigans I've heard reported.
In the '80s, the dimwitted political will was swayed by the idea that welfare is BAAAAAD, and those lazy welfare slobs had better get a damn job if they want government hand-outs like the pharmaceutical corporations get (free taxpayer-funded goveernment research) or the national sports franchises get (free public stadiums to perpetuate their muti-billion dollar pastimes). Well, after twenty years of "welfare reform" (i.e. reductions) the slobs have jobs now. Some have two full-time jobs (or nearly - 39.75 hours a week will keep those pesky benefits away) and no health insurance.
Welfare fraud by the poorest among us is not the problem here, folks. Greed by the wealthiest of those among us is the problem. Who do you know that needs twenty billion dollars? I mean, besides an entire country?
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Boobs, Guns, Jesus and John
Been a while since I've bothered to post anything. I've been deliberately avoiding the news because I've become so agitated and depressed about the state of our union. When I haven't been able to avoid politics on TV, CSPAN's morning call-in show for instance, I've noticed the boobs from right wing have gotten even more cruel and stupid, even more arrogant and self-righteous in their comments.
One elderly woman who called in from Mississippi yesterday had the audacity to blame our present situation in Iraq on eight years of Bill Clinton. I had to turn off the t.v. before I threw it out the fucking window. The Republicans control the entire country, have for four years, will for four more and in the minds of their true believers it's still Bill Clinton's fault? How can people be so extraordinarily stupid? How can you stick your head in the sand and continue to wave the flag with both hands and chant "Hail to the Chief" ? Where do these people come from? What are they on? Unbelievable.
I don't want to play anymore. Really. Count me out.
Anyway, my equally self-righteous co-worker, who also happens to be a born-again Christian, has become similarly deluded since the election. I happen to know through our many conversations that he doesn't agree with a lot of what this administration has pulled since 9/11. I also see doubt in his eyes and hear it in his voice when he talks about the young member of his parish who was recently killed in Iraq. Yet he says to me yesterday that the bible teaches that we're obligated to stand behind our leaders in times of war - without question and without complaint. Knowing that my co-worker is a gun-toting Christian, I asked him if he'd still feel the same way if Bush temporarily suspended the second amendment and fourth amendments (you know, for patriotic reasons), searched his home and seized his property. "Well, uh, uh, that's different," he stammered. He assured me that much of his parrish is armed to the teeth and ready to blast the face off ANYBODY who tried to take their guns.
Sigh.
All I could think about after this exchange was John Lennon's "Imagine" .....
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine ALL the people
Living life in peace....
If only we were all that evolved.
One elderly woman who called in from Mississippi yesterday had the audacity to blame our present situation in Iraq on eight years of Bill Clinton. I had to turn off the t.v. before I threw it out the fucking window. The Republicans control the entire country, have for four years, will for four more and in the minds of their true believers it's still Bill Clinton's fault? How can people be so extraordinarily stupid? How can you stick your head in the sand and continue to wave the flag with both hands and chant "Hail to the Chief" ? Where do these people come from? What are they on? Unbelievable.
I don't want to play anymore. Really. Count me out.
Anyway, my equally self-righteous co-worker, who also happens to be a born-again Christian, has become similarly deluded since the election. I happen to know through our many conversations that he doesn't agree with a lot of what this administration has pulled since 9/11. I also see doubt in his eyes and hear it in his voice when he talks about the young member of his parish who was recently killed in Iraq. Yet he says to me yesterday that the bible teaches that we're obligated to stand behind our leaders in times of war - without question and without complaint. Knowing that my co-worker is a gun-toting Christian, I asked him if he'd still feel the same way if Bush temporarily suspended the second amendment and fourth amendments (you know, for patriotic reasons), searched his home and seized his property. "Well, uh, uh, that's different," he stammered. He assured me that much of his parrish is armed to the teeth and ready to blast the face off ANYBODY who tried to take their guns.
Sigh.
All I could think about after this exchange was John Lennon's "Imagine" .....
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine ALL the people
Living life in peace....
If only we were all that evolved.
Friday, November 19, 2004
Restoring my faith in humanity
If you're still suffering from the post-election blues, this article and this website and this website has done more to restore my faith in humanity that anything else so far.
Be at peace.
Be at peace.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Combat Marines & "The Hollywood Factor"
The mainstream media are all over the story of the Marine who shot the injured and unarmed Iraqi in Fallujah - on camera (not too bright and a bit too impulsive ). You can bet they'll be stringing this story out for weeks. It's a war and you're in the battle zone - what did you think was going to happen? These guys are trained to be killing machines, don't ask for apologies now.
Anyway, I watched the video this morning and something struck me about the encounter. It seemed kinda.....Hollywood. I don't mean that it was staged, I mean that the timing of the shooting (boom) and the one-liner, "He's dead now!" seemed like a scene from an actioin movie, like that Marine saw one too many Arnold Schwarzenegger movies and drew from that experience instead of his Marine training. I think "Platoon" was the first thing that jumped into my head.
Not that I think that it wasn't a justified shooting. According to rumor, some of the bodies have been booby-trapped and we all know how willing our enemy is to die for their cause by blowing themselves up (personnally, I think I'd be shooting anything that moved). But it seems that pop culture and it's movies have soaked into our very being, leaking out of our mouths at the worst possible moments.
Could the presence of a camera have anything to do with how this went down?
Anyway, I watched the video this morning and something struck me about the encounter. It seemed kinda.....Hollywood. I don't mean that it was staged, I mean that the timing of the shooting (boom) and the one-liner, "He's dead now!" seemed like a scene from an actioin movie, like that Marine saw one too many Arnold Schwarzenegger movies and drew from that experience instead of his Marine training. I think "Platoon" was the first thing that jumped into my head.
Not that I think that it wasn't a justified shooting. According to rumor, some of the bodies have been booby-trapped and we all know how willing our enemy is to die for their cause by blowing themselves up (personnally, I think I'd be shooting anything that moved). But it seems that pop culture and it's movies have soaked into our very being, leaking out of our mouths at the worst possible moments.
Could the presence of a camera have anything to do with how this went down?
Monday, November 15, 2004
Tyranny of the minority?
The other night on tv, Bill Frist, the senate majority leader, warned the country of an evil that's lurking in our congress. It's called the filibuster and he actually coined it "The tyranny of the minority" - when it's used by Democrats, of course.
Can you believe that?
The Republicans control the house, the senate, the presidency and most of the state legislatures and they have the audacity to complain about a stalling tactic that's been used, quite LIBERALLY, by the Republicans whenever the democrats are in control of congess. But then he knows that, all the congress knows that, and any adult whose lived through a couple administrations knows that.
So who's Bill Frist trying to scare? The same moral majority who put Bush back in office, I'd guess. Fear worked so well in the presidential campaign, why stop now?
Perhaps they'll declare the filibuster "A Tool Of Satan!"
Can you believe that?
The Republicans control the house, the senate, the presidency and most of the state legislatures and they have the audacity to complain about a stalling tactic that's been used, quite LIBERALLY, by the Republicans whenever the democrats are in control of congess. But then he knows that, all the congress knows that, and any adult whose lived through a couple administrations knows that.
So who's Bill Frist trying to scare? The same moral majority who put Bush back in office, I'd guess. Fear worked so well in the presidential campaign, why stop now?
Perhaps they'll declare the filibuster "A Tool Of Satan!"
Sunday, November 14, 2004
Tax-deductible morality
Took my wife and daughter to my wife's sister's house for my nephew's birthday and to check out their new McMansion in the sticks. They invited my wife's step-siblings and their kids as well. Their new house is enormous and left us feeling pretty irrelevant, at least as far as material comfort and social status goes.
During after-dinner drinks the conversation turned to politics and the recent election. I had a feeling this was going to turn out bad. The majority in the room, who are undeniably middle-middle-class, voted for Kerry. Me, being a working-class schlub on the fringe, voted for Nader. Our hosts, however, the owners of this enormous house in an upper-class neighborhood, and who own a business which they run out of their home, excused themselves from the conversation. They were clearly embarrassed in present company to say they voted for Bush.
The conversation quickly turned to less sensitive subjects but later I asked my brother-in-law if the "morality issue" had anything to do with his vote, since I know them to attend church regularly. He grinned, shook his head, and said, "No. Not really." Basically, he voted to keep his big, fat, tax break. He and his wife are good with money and voted for their economic self-interest. There's nothing wrong with that - unless they suspect their candidate is likely to harm the greater good of the country, in which case I would argue against the "morality" of their motives.
My in-laws were going to open a seperate office for their business. It would cost them more initially, but they'd be able to hire permanent employees instead of "independent contractors" (currently, two employees who work out of their own vehicles) increase their credibility as a firm, and expand their commercial opportunities. Instead, they decided that it just made more sense for them to take that $1200 a month lease payment for office space and put it towards the mortgage payment for a larger home, open another tax-deductible office downstairs with its own entrance and write it all off.
Ba-da-bing.
So for the time being, my well-to-do in-laws will be holding on to their Bush tax winfall. Perhaps someday, when they feel more comfortable, they'll get around to creating some good jobs for the rest of us schlubs.
During after-dinner drinks the conversation turned to politics and the recent election. I had a feeling this was going to turn out bad. The majority in the room, who are undeniably middle-middle-class, voted for Kerry. Me, being a working-class schlub on the fringe, voted for Nader. Our hosts, however, the owners of this enormous house in an upper-class neighborhood, and who own a business which they run out of their home, excused themselves from the conversation. They were clearly embarrassed in present company to say they voted for Bush.
The conversation quickly turned to less sensitive subjects but later I asked my brother-in-law if the "morality issue" had anything to do with his vote, since I know them to attend church regularly. He grinned, shook his head, and said, "No. Not really." Basically, he voted to keep his big, fat, tax break. He and his wife are good with money and voted for their economic self-interest. There's nothing wrong with that - unless they suspect their candidate is likely to harm the greater good of the country, in which case I would argue against the "morality" of their motives.
My in-laws were going to open a seperate office for their business. It would cost them more initially, but they'd be able to hire permanent employees instead of "independent contractors" (currently, two employees who work out of their own vehicles) increase their credibility as a firm, and expand their commercial opportunities. Instead, they decided that it just made more sense for them to take that $1200 a month lease payment for office space and put it towards the mortgage payment for a larger home, open another tax-deductible office downstairs with its own entrance and write it all off.
Ba-da-bing.
So for the time being, my well-to-do in-laws will be holding on to their Bush tax winfall. Perhaps someday, when they feel more comfortable, they'll get around to creating some good jobs for the rest of us schlubs.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Saving Private Matlock????
Bastards! Tease me with a scheduled broadcast of "Saving Private Ryan" then I hear on CNN that it's not going to air in some cities because ABC is afraid of the FCC coming down on them? And sure enough, there's an episode of "Matlock" airing as I type. Are you fucking serious? Is this what the NEW MORALITY promises us for the next four years? Matlock instead of airing the word "fuck" during prime time? Why didn't they just choose to bleep it out? TBS ruins movies like that all the time.
I am seriously pissed.
I sent nastygrams to the following e-mail addresses: fccinfo@fcc.gov and talkback@wxyz.com.
I am seriously pissed.
I sent nastygrams to the following e-mail addresses: fccinfo@fcc.gov and talkback@wxyz.com.
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Selective Morality
Ever since the Republicans blind-sided half the country with their supposed moral mandate in the 2004 presidential election, I've been wondering how they were going to continue to claim the moral high-ground by ostracizing those who support gay lifestyles and abortion while continuing to ignore other important moral issues such as aid to the poor, civil rights and the U.S. health care crisis.
But then I heard an interview with author Rick Warren who wrote "The Purpose Driven Life", which, despite its lack of coverage in the mainstream media, has sold over twenty million copies. It's a big seller at Wal*Mart.
During the interview, Warren conveniently divided morality into two camps: Social Morality, which includes things like aid to the poor, civil rights and health care which Liberals tend to support; and Personal Morality, which includes things like opposition to gay marriage (i.e. those who support traditional marriage) and opposition to abortion that conservatives tend to support.
We all on the same page now? Social Morality for liberals and Personal Morality for conservatives. Divide and Conquer; a purpose-driven strategy for evangelical conservatism in the 21st Century.
Now, who's up for a good 'ole traditional book burning?
But then I heard an interview with author Rick Warren who wrote "The Purpose Driven Life", which, despite its lack of coverage in the mainstream media, has sold over twenty million copies. It's a big seller at Wal*Mart.
During the interview, Warren conveniently divided morality into two camps: Social Morality, which includes things like aid to the poor, civil rights and health care which Liberals tend to support; and Personal Morality, which includes things like opposition to gay marriage (i.e. those who support traditional marriage) and opposition to abortion that conservatives tend to support.
We all on the same page now? Social Morality for liberals and Personal Morality for conservatives. Divide and Conquer; a purpose-driven strategy for evangelical conservatism in the 21st Century.
Now, who's up for a good 'ole traditional book burning?
Monday, November 08, 2004
Morality Prayer
I think the pundits are right. George Bush's victory is a mandate for morality. With that in mind, I'm inspired to say a prayer for us all. I encourage anybody reading this to say a prayer for humanity, or bettter yet, write your own prayer to The Almighty that our fearless leader doesn't encourage a global meltdown and cause more needless suffering. I don't usually take the time to pray, but I fear our current circumstances warrant it.
Dear Lord,
Please help our leader, George W. Bush, make sound and humane decisions in the coming years of his presidency.
Please help him secure the safety and welfare of all peoples, not just those in North America or those who serve North American business interests.
Lord, help George remember that all human life is precious and full of potential, not just the unborn; liberals, homosexuals, the working poor, the homeless and even drug addicted, radio talk-show hypocrites and sexual-harassing t.v. anchormen who bear false witness to line their pockets with gold deserve to live.
Lord, take pity on us all in the coming years.
Teach George to rule with compassion and humility, and have him teach compassion and humility to those who will do his bidding.
God temper his arrogance so we may avoid the wrath of those who wish us harm.
Urge him to use OUR wealth for good, and not use OUR wealth for evil; to promote peace and not pre-emptively wage war.
Please let him heed your words, Lord.
We are forever at Your mercy.
Amen
Dear Lord,
Please help our leader, George W. Bush, make sound and humane decisions in the coming years of his presidency.
Please help him secure the safety and welfare of all peoples, not just those in North America or those who serve North American business interests.
Lord, help George remember that all human life is precious and full of potential, not just the unborn; liberals, homosexuals, the working poor, the homeless and even drug addicted, radio talk-show hypocrites and sexual-harassing t.v. anchormen who bear false witness to line their pockets with gold deserve to live.
Lord, take pity on us all in the coming years.
Teach George to rule with compassion and humility, and have him teach compassion and humility to those who will do his bidding.
God temper his arrogance so we may avoid the wrath of those who wish us harm.
Urge him to use OUR wealth for good, and not use OUR wealth for evil; to promote peace and not pre-emptively wage war.
Please let him heed your words, Lord.
We are forever at Your mercy.
Amen
CSPAN: GOPAC Lunch w/Newt
I just got done watching a speech by Newt Gingrich on CSPAN. I don't agree with his politics, but I have a lot of respect for this history professor and the passion with which he argues his case and his ability to energize conservatives. But one of the last questions he fielded was, "What can the GOP do to change the America's image in Europe, most of whose population vehemently disagrees with the Bush administration, and seemingly, the majority of Americans considering the outcome of the 2004 election?"
Uncharacteristically, Newt didn't actually answer the question, but again emphasized our differences from the Europeans. He said we should remember who we are. We Americans are the people who left Europe in search of something better. He also criticized the European people and their press, saying that the BBC is more anti-American that Al Jazeera. As far as opposition to the war goes, he said something to the effect of, "Let's be honest, The French and The Russians were only opposed to America's interference in Iraq because they were making a lot of money off Saddam."
I thought to myself, "Yes, Newt. Let's be honest, shall we? It's always about the money, isn't it? Let's be honest. Why is the Bush administration stirring up the hornets nest in the Middle East? To spread the benefits of democracy for the benefit of humanity? No, really, let's be honest. It's because certain powerful players in America have INTERE$T$ in Iraq. Let's be honest, shall we? When they say it's not about the oil, it's about the oil, isn't it Newt? C'mon, let's be honest. Shall we? The Carlisle Group is making a fortune on the front end, cashing in on weapons sales to execute the perpetual War On Terrorism, and Haliburton and Kellogg, Brown & Root is making a fortune off the back end, with no-bid contracts for rebuilding all the shit we've blown up and all the shit we're going to blow up. Let's be honest, Newt; it's always, always, always, ALWAYS about the money. Isn't it? Just level with us, will ya?
Uncharacteristically, Newt didn't actually answer the question, but again emphasized our differences from the Europeans. He said we should remember who we are. We Americans are the people who left Europe in search of something better. He also criticized the European people and their press, saying that the BBC is more anti-American that Al Jazeera. As far as opposition to the war goes, he said something to the effect of, "Let's be honest, The French and The Russians were only opposed to America's interference in Iraq because they were making a lot of money off Saddam."
I thought to myself, "Yes, Newt. Let's be honest, shall we? It's always about the money, isn't it? Let's be honest. Why is the Bush administration stirring up the hornets nest in the Middle East? To spread the benefits of democracy for the benefit of humanity? No, really, let's be honest. It's because certain powerful players in America have INTERE$T$ in Iraq. Let's be honest, shall we? When they say it's not about the oil, it's about the oil, isn't it Newt? C'mon, let's be honest. Shall we? The Carlisle Group is making a fortune on the front end, cashing in on weapons sales to execute the perpetual War On Terrorism, and Haliburton and Kellogg, Brown & Root is making a fortune off the back end, with no-bid contracts for rebuilding all the shit we've blown up and all the shit we're going to blow up. Let's be honest, Newt; it's always, always, always, ALWAYS about the money. Isn't it? Just level with us, will ya?
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Economic Relativism
I took my mother on a shopping trip to the Retail Mecca of The Midwest yesterday; Novi, MI. The city's centerpiece, Twelve Oaks Mall, was developed in the early eighties by Taubman and Associates (yes, that Taubman). Over the next twenty years, mini-malls, retails outlets, theatres and department stores have sprawled out to the city limits making Novi one of, if not THE, shopping destinations for the monied uppper crust. Just outside of Novi, in Farmington Hills, MI., luxury car dealerships such as Jaguar, Hummer, BMW and Audi are clustered together within a block, creating a veritable automotive boutique for the wealthy. Within a twenty square-mile radius of the shopping district are countless developments of expensive homes and brownstone condominiums that have overtaken the landscape in the last ten years, seemingly doubling population and traffic.
But within a fifteen minute drive of this capital capitol is my 1994, 16x80, single-wide manufactured home that resides within a park. It's the only place I can afford to live that's near my job and my hometown where my parents still live. They still reside in their post-WWII, GI-loan home that was built during the "white-flight" from Detroit in the early fifties. It's a small, three-bedroom brick home with a basement. It's still a good neighborhood and it was a great place to grow up, surrounded by woods my friends and I were free to roam. The woods are now a suburb of high-priced homes that are well more than ten times my annual pay.
I suppose it's natural that I aspire to have AT LEAST what my parents had, but alas, the expensive real estate that now surrounds their modest home has driven the cost of living in that neighborhood out of my reach. I often complain about my manufactured digs (trailer life) and dream, someday, of having a traditional stick & mortar home on a plot of land I can call my own. My father paid $13,000 for his home in 1952. Today, it's worth around $180,000 - still, it's more than I can currently afford as a working-class man without a degree.
On returning from our shopping trip, we stopped by my trailer to pick up my mother's blood-pressure monitor which I had borrowed. Even though we live withing five miles of eachother, she rarely visits. I showed her some of the improvements I've made to our humble digs, utilizing some of the skills I've acquired since abandoning music for maintenance. She complimented my work and said I seemed to have more room than they have because of the layout and extra large master bathroom with the garden tub (that's now finished with ceramic tile and Pergo floors instead of carpeting). And it was much cheerier than her house, she added.
Then she reminded me that what I have is much more than what many people in the world have. At least it's not a cardboard box, a motel room, or an efficiency apartment in the bowels of the city. At least I don't live in the Middle East, or India or China or Africa - where they'd literally kill to have what I take for granted. And she's right. I want for nothing, really, other than more space and the psychological well-being that comes from proper Feng Sui and organic surroundings. We have five TV's, two DVD players, a washer & dryer, a refrigerator, microwave, computers - most of the trappings of modern life. What we don't have is the high-quality Amerrican life we all imagined for ourselves as teenagers; nice house, nice cars, nice clothing, space for entertaining, private schools, club memberships, nice vacations, college for our children.
There'sis still a price for sucking-up the near-bottom of the socio-economic ladder in susburban America. My family, by living in a manufactured home, is surrounded by construction materials that contain formaldahyde and other nasty chemicals- creating a relatively unhealthy home environment. We're treated with contempt by some in our school district and suffer from political efforts such as creative re-districting and, currently, regressive tax increases that I feel are discriminatory. We've been treated with disdain or dismissal by the local police when we file a complaint because our clustered population causes the perception that trailer folk cause more crime, yet contribute less to the local tax base. My mother-in-law almost NEVER comes to visit my wife, in contrast to the frequent visits she makes to her sister in an upper middle-class neighborhood. All of these things sap our confidence and dampen our aspirations for the future.
The argument that we're still doing better than slave laborers in third-world countries doesn't appease us any more than when our parents told us to eat our brussel sprouts because children were starving in Africa. Back then, we could hardly imagine those dirt-poor peasants on the other side of the world. But today, we have cable television to show us EXACTLY how we're doing relative to those kids. I have to wonder if this is an accident of modern worldwide communication, or a means of social control to appease the insecurity I feel being surrounded by wealth and oppulence.
But within a fifteen minute drive of this capital capitol is my 1994, 16x80, single-wide manufactured home that resides within a park. It's the only place I can afford to live that's near my job and my hometown where my parents still live. They still reside in their post-WWII, GI-loan home that was built during the "white-flight" from Detroit in the early fifties. It's a small, three-bedroom brick home with a basement. It's still a good neighborhood and it was a great place to grow up, surrounded by woods my friends and I were free to roam. The woods are now a suburb of high-priced homes that are well more than ten times my annual pay.
I suppose it's natural that I aspire to have AT LEAST what my parents had, but alas, the expensive real estate that now surrounds their modest home has driven the cost of living in that neighborhood out of my reach. I often complain about my manufactured digs (trailer life) and dream, someday, of having a traditional stick & mortar home on a plot of land I can call my own. My father paid $13,000 for his home in 1952. Today, it's worth around $180,000 - still, it's more than I can currently afford as a working-class man without a degree.
On returning from our shopping trip, we stopped by my trailer to pick up my mother's blood-pressure monitor which I had borrowed. Even though we live withing five miles of eachother, she rarely visits. I showed her some of the improvements I've made to our humble digs, utilizing some of the skills I've acquired since abandoning music for maintenance. She complimented my work and said I seemed to have more room than they have because of the layout and extra large master bathroom with the garden tub (that's now finished with ceramic tile and Pergo floors instead of carpeting). And it was much cheerier than her house, she added.
Then she reminded me that what I have is much more than what many people in the world have. At least it's not a cardboard box, a motel room, or an efficiency apartment in the bowels of the city. At least I don't live in the Middle East, or India or China or Africa - where they'd literally kill to have what I take for granted. And she's right. I want for nothing, really, other than more space and the psychological well-being that comes from proper Feng Sui and organic surroundings. We have five TV's, two DVD players, a washer & dryer, a refrigerator, microwave, computers - most of the trappings of modern life. What we don't have is the high-quality Amerrican life we all imagined for ourselves as teenagers; nice house, nice cars, nice clothing, space for entertaining, private schools, club memberships, nice vacations, college for our children.
There'sis still a price for sucking-up the near-bottom of the socio-economic ladder in susburban America. My family, by living in a manufactured home, is surrounded by construction materials that contain formaldahyde and other nasty chemicals- creating a relatively unhealthy home environment. We're treated with contempt by some in our school district and suffer from political efforts such as creative re-districting and, currently, regressive tax increases that I feel are discriminatory. We've been treated with disdain or dismissal by the local police when we file a complaint because our clustered population causes the perception that trailer folk cause more crime, yet contribute less to the local tax base. My mother-in-law almost NEVER comes to visit my wife, in contrast to the frequent visits she makes to her sister in an upper middle-class neighborhood. All of these things sap our confidence and dampen our aspirations for the future.
The argument that we're still doing better than slave laborers in third-world countries doesn't appease us any more than when our parents told us to eat our brussel sprouts because children were starving in Africa. Back then, we could hardly imagine those dirt-poor peasants on the other side of the world. But today, we have cable television to show us EXACTLY how we're doing relative to those kids. I have to wonder if this is an accident of modern worldwide communication, or a means of social control to appease the insecurity I feel being surrounded by wealth and oppulence.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
...and the culture war rages on.
George W. Bush has won re-electioin with a popular vote advantage of 3% and 55 million Democrats and progressives are shaking their heads in disbelief. Not only did The Republican Party re-elect their president, but held their plurality in the Senate and gained seats in the House of Representatives. Peggy Noonan was gloating about the victory on Fox news and the mainstream press believes the vote was a mandate on morality - which dems believe is republicanspeak for disenfranchising gays and banning abortions. Eleven states paved the way for constitutional amendments to their respective constitutions to define marriage as only that between a man and a woman. We'll see if said morality will extend to the sick, the poor and the tens of thousands of civilians who die as "collatoral damage" during the war in Iraq. I'm sure there's plenty of scripture that can be used against the conduct and policies of this administration.
It became clear after hearing Nancy Pelosi's speech last night that this unexpected loss will force the democrats to re-examine their strategy. But after seeing the conclusion of her speech and several commentators who mourned Kerry's loss, it hasn't weakened the progressives, but further emboldened them and stiffened their spines. Not only is the culture war not over, but will heat up and possibly boil over within the next four years. Despite a traditional call for unity, I didn't see any convincing evidence last night or today of a desire to reach-out or compromise with the dems. The attitude seems to be, 'we welcome the democrats to join us' (i.e. you're either with us, or against us). More of the same.
Politically, one thing is quite clear: whatever we suffer as Americans, at home or abroad, will be the sole responsibility of The Republican Party who still ruthlessly control both houses, the presidency and some might argue, The Supreme Court.
It became clear after hearing Nancy Pelosi's speech last night that this unexpected loss will force the democrats to re-examine their strategy. But after seeing the conclusion of her speech and several commentators who mourned Kerry's loss, it hasn't weakened the progressives, but further emboldened them and stiffened their spines. Not only is the culture war not over, but will heat up and possibly boil over within the next four years. Despite a traditional call for unity, I didn't see any convincing evidence last night or today of a desire to reach-out or compromise with the dems. The attitude seems to be, 'we welcome the democrats to join us' (i.e. you're either with us, or against us). More of the same.
Politically, one thing is quite clear: whatever we suffer as Americans, at home or abroad, will be the sole responsibility of The Republican Party who still ruthlessly control both houses, the presidency and some might argue, The Supreme Court.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
The One Percent Solution
At six a.m. this morning, the presidential race is still too close to call. Y2K flashback. My state of Michigan went to Kerry, but I decided to be brave, stick to my values, and vote with the one percent of sanity: I voted for Nader. Kerry paid a lot of lip service to helping the "middle class" but ignored the plight of the working class who continue to suffer from this country's trade policy and die from it's foreign policy. You can bet the Yalies' (George & John) children won't be working for Wal*Mart without health insurance or be torn to peices by roadside bombs in Iraq (that, by the way, were created by the very people we have "liberated").
Another thing that tipped my vote in favor of Nader was a realization that was brought home by the comedian, Geoge Carlin. He admitted in an interview with Terry Gross that he doesn't vote (Fresh Air: November 1st, 2004) . When asked why , he said, "..because there's an ownership class in this counry and there's no real choice...they do what they want, they get what they want and Americans deserve what they get because they're not engaged. The only thing that I like about the left as opposed to the right is that, generally speaking, the left seems to care more about people and the right seems to care more about property."
After seeing that half the country still voted for Bush after the immense failures of his administration, I can only conclude that our nation has lost its way. The right wing marches on towards oblivion and will drag us all down with it. Brace yourself, my countrymen. We're in for a helluva ride.
Another thing that tipped my vote in favor of Nader was a realization that was brought home by the comedian, Geoge Carlin. He admitted in an interview with Terry Gross that he doesn't vote (Fresh Air: November 1st, 2004) . When asked why , he said, "..because there's an ownership class in this counry and there's no real choice...they do what they want, they get what they want and Americans deserve what they get because they're not engaged. The only thing that I like about the left as opposed to the right is that, generally speaking, the left seems to care more about people and the right seems to care more about property."
After seeing that half the country still voted for Bush after the immense failures of his administration, I can only conclude that our nation has lost its way. The right wing marches on towards oblivion and will drag us all down with it. Brace yourself, my countrymen. We're in for a helluva ride.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Tyranny of the violent
I finally rented Roman Polanski's "The Pianist" last night. It's the story of a Polish concert pianist's struggle for survival in the Warsaw Ghetto during the Nazi occupation in the 40's. I've passed up this movie up time after time, thinking, "Yet another Holocaust movie that swept up all the Oscars - how typical." I've seen Schindler's List. I'm not a Jew, why should I still care, right? But I was riveted by the film and it scared the hell out of me.
Why? I realized for the first time just how easily the tyranny of the strong can lead to the slaughter of an entire class of people. And despite what we think we've learned about The Holocaust and genocide over the past sixty years, there's no shortage of recent examples: it happened in Cambodia in the seventies (the Pol Pot's elimination of "traitors"), Turkey (Turks vs Armenians), it happened in Bosnia (the Serbs vs the Croats & the Serbs vs the Muslims); it happened in Rwanda & Burundi (the Hutus vs the Tutsis), and it's happening in The Sudan (Arabs vs Africans). And some of Israel's behavior in the West Bank and Gaza is an example of just how easy it is for the oppressed to become the oppressor. Maintaining peace among humans requires a perilous balance of sociology, a veritable razor's edge of tolerance.
The danger is thinking that oppression or even genocide can't happen here in the good 'ole U.S.A. When I hear the venom with which "liberals" are described by certain "conservatives", it sends a shiver down my spine. The term "liberal" is becoming synonymous with "weak, undisciplined and immoral" - so much so that liberals have taken shelter behind the term "progressive" to avoid being branded as less-than-American.
Beware of shifting language in a shifting culture. "Zero Tolerance" can very easily lapse into "Intolerance". A "Patriot Act" can very easily become a legal excuse to interrogate suspected traitors to The Republic and whisk them away to locales unknown without charging them with an actual crime. The Constitution can suddenly becomes a "living document" that is conveniently maleable to fit the needs of the times - with all that talk of forefathers and their superior judgement going right out the window.
Referring again to the "progressive" talk-radio show that I mentioned in the post below, a particularly venomous caller used a playground analogy to describe, as he put it, "...the difference between Republicans and liberals" (sic). He said, in essence, when a playground bully confronts a Republican, the Republican punches him in the nose. When a playground bully confronts a liberal, the liberal runs back to class to go tell the teacher. The insinuation here is that the liberal will not stand up for himself, the liberal is a coward, the liberal is a tattle-tale (with the U.N. playing the part of the teacher, I would guess). The Republican, on the other hand, is a courageous hero who took "pre-emptive action" to dispatch with the bully for everyone's benefit. What the analogy doesn't address is the political affinity of the bully.
The show's guest chided the caller for his propensity toward violence and dismissed the argument. But I couldn't help but think of a photograph I saw in a local newspaper several years ago. It showed a black woman coming to the aid of a KKK sympathizer who was having the shit kicked out of him by a group of so-called liberals who showed up to protest the racist's parade. I wonder, was the black woman a liberal or a conservative?
Why? I realized for the first time just how easily the tyranny of the strong can lead to the slaughter of an entire class of people. And despite what we think we've learned about The Holocaust and genocide over the past sixty years, there's no shortage of recent examples: it happened in Cambodia in the seventies (the Pol Pot's elimination of "traitors"), Turkey (Turks vs Armenians), it happened in Bosnia (the Serbs vs the Croats & the Serbs vs the Muslims); it happened in Rwanda & Burundi (the Hutus vs the Tutsis), and it's happening in The Sudan (Arabs vs Africans). And some of Israel's behavior in the West Bank and Gaza is an example of just how easy it is for the oppressed to become the oppressor. Maintaining peace among humans requires a perilous balance of sociology, a veritable razor's edge of tolerance.
The danger is thinking that oppression or even genocide can't happen here in the good 'ole U.S.A. When I hear the venom with which "liberals" are described by certain "conservatives", it sends a shiver down my spine. The term "liberal" is becoming synonymous with "weak, undisciplined and immoral" - so much so that liberals have taken shelter behind the term "progressive" to avoid being branded as less-than-American.
Beware of shifting language in a shifting culture. "Zero Tolerance" can very easily lapse into "Intolerance". A "Patriot Act" can very easily become a legal excuse to interrogate suspected traitors to The Republic and whisk them away to locales unknown without charging them with an actual crime. The Constitution can suddenly becomes a "living document" that is conveniently maleable to fit the needs of the times - with all that talk of forefathers and their superior judgement going right out the window.
Referring again to the "progressive" talk-radio show that I mentioned in the post below, a particularly venomous caller used a playground analogy to describe, as he put it, "...the difference between Republicans and liberals" (sic). He said, in essence, when a playground bully confronts a Republican, the Republican punches him in the nose. When a playground bully confronts a liberal, the liberal runs back to class to go tell the teacher. The insinuation here is that the liberal will not stand up for himself, the liberal is a coward, the liberal is a tattle-tale (with the U.N. playing the part of the teacher, I would guess). The Republican, on the other hand, is a courageous hero who took "pre-emptive action" to dispatch with the bully for everyone's benefit. What the analogy doesn't address is the political affinity of the bully.
The show's guest chided the caller for his propensity toward violence and dismissed the argument. But I couldn't help but think of a photograph I saw in a local newspaper several years ago. It showed a black woman coming to the aid of a KKK sympathizer who was having the shit kicked out of him by a group of so-called liberals who showed up to protest the racist's parade. I wonder, was the black woman a liberal or a conservative?
Friday, October 29, 2004
CSPAN: Radio Talk Show Week
CSPAN 2 has been airing the studio action of radio talk shows all week. The camera is set up in front of the DJ's and pretty much left static for the entire program. As you might expect from a social liberal (yes, and I wear the label proudly), I could barely stand to watch the conservative talk shows with their ruthless character assasination of Kerry and indiscriminate support of the president and his failed policies. But it seems to be a staple of the right to goose-step right over the cliff of history, waving a flag right up until the heat of the apocalypse is cooking their face off. In any case, I tuned out after a few minutes of that. I like to keep up with the other side's arguments, but only when they actually have one.
Yesterday, a progressive talk radio program from Madioson, Wisconsin was featured and, though I didn't find the conversation quite as distasteful, I thought it was pretty dull. The host was dull, the guest was dull, the talk was dull. During the seemingly unlimited number of commercial breaks, the camera stayed on and caught the off-air talk between the DJ and the guest. The conversation turned to whether or not progressive radio had a future and the host concluded that it did, if it could be as entertaining as conservative radio. The example of (gasp) Rush Limbaugh was used who reportedly said that, first and foremost, he was an entertainer.
If Rush Limbaugh is the yardstick by which progressive radio measures itself, it's doomed to failure. Popular mass media relies on shock, prurience and playing to base emotions and instincts that any self-respecting progressive would reject off hand. Progressives, I hope, would never revel in demeaning or demoralizing our opponents with the same fevered zealotry of radio conservatives - which, therefore, is less entertaining to the masses and less attractive to advertisers.
Yesterday, a progressive talk radio program from Madioson, Wisconsin was featured and, though I didn't find the conversation quite as distasteful, I thought it was pretty dull. The host was dull, the guest was dull, the talk was dull. During the seemingly unlimited number of commercial breaks, the camera stayed on and caught the off-air talk between the DJ and the guest. The conversation turned to whether or not progressive radio had a future and the host concluded that it did, if it could be as entertaining as conservative radio. The example of (gasp) Rush Limbaugh was used who reportedly said that, first and foremost, he was an entertainer.
If Rush Limbaugh is the yardstick by which progressive radio measures itself, it's doomed to failure. Popular mass media relies on shock, prurience and playing to base emotions and instincts that any self-respecting progressive would reject off hand. Progressives, I hope, would never revel in demeaning or demoralizing our opponents with the same fevered zealotry of radio conservatives - which, therefore, is less entertaining to the masses and less attractive to advertisers.
Saturday, October 23, 2004
The Conservative Will
I heard an Interview with Jimmy Carter on Fresh Air the other day (President Carter Tries Hand @ Fiction) and learned something I didn't know. According to the former President, his Top Secret briefing book was stolen by the conservative columnist and speechwriter, George Will, who handed it over to Ronald Reagan so he could prepare for their only debate (quote occurs around 28 min in the interview). Of all the conservatives, I would have thought that George Will believed in fair play - but I guess he's just another immoral cheater who will do anything to win.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reasons that U.S. doesn't meet Carter Center criteria for fair elections:
1. All qualified candidates should have equal access to the public through the media and not have to pay for it. In the U.S., candidates have to solicit special interests (some benevolent, of course) for hundreds of millions of dollars to run a presidenttial campaign.
2. U.S. doesn't have centralized, non-partisan or bi-partisan, election commission. In Florida, former Secretary of State Catherine Harris, an avowed and fervent Republican activist, was largely responsible for the voting debacle in 2000 which led to Bush's victory. The new Secretary of State, again, has been appointed by George Bush's brother.
3. Votiing processes are not universal. Type of voting is dependent on county preferences. More affluent precincts are more likely to have their votes handled properly because of political will.
4. Because of modern voting techniques (i.e. touchscreen voting), there's no certain way to recount votes. There's no paper trail.
Of course, I know Jimmy Carter is biased towards the Democrats. I had nothing but respect for him until I heard him say that Nader shouldn't be on the ballot. Just can't find the quote - it happened sometime during the primaries.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reasons that U.S. doesn't meet Carter Center criteria for fair elections:
1. All qualified candidates should have equal access to the public through the media and not have to pay for it. In the U.S., candidates have to solicit special interests (some benevolent, of course) for hundreds of millions of dollars to run a presidenttial campaign.
2. U.S. doesn't have centralized, non-partisan or bi-partisan, election commission. In Florida, former Secretary of State Catherine Harris, an avowed and fervent Republican activist, was largely responsible for the voting debacle in 2000 which led to Bush's victory. The new Secretary of State, again, has been appointed by George Bush's brother.
3. Votiing processes are not universal. Type of voting is dependent on county preferences. More affluent precincts are more likely to have their votes handled properly because of political will.
4. Because of modern voting techniques (i.e. touchscreen voting), there's no certain way to recount votes. There's no paper trail.
Of course, I know Jimmy Carter is biased towards the Democrats. I had nothing but respect for him until I heard him say that Nader shouldn't be on the ballot. Just can't find the quote - it happened sometime during the primaries.
Friday, October 22, 2004
Two Hands, One Vote
I've been vacillating about my intent to vote for Ralph Nader in the coming election. I'm very conflicted.
• On the one hand, I feel it's my right to vote for the candidate I feel best represents my interests. Vote for Ralph.
† On the other hand, I don't want George Bush making ANY Supreme Court nominations. Vote for John.
• On the one hand, I can't support a political system that is so corrupted by cash and bad for true democracy. Vote for Ralph.
† On the other hand, I don't want to allow The Bush Regime and Assoc. to continue looting OUR treasury. Vote for John.
• On the one hand, I feel it may be necessary to force the Democrats to help progressives reform the election process so there can be no spoiler effect in the next election and true representative democracy can be practiced. Vote for Ralph.
† On the other hand, that's probably hoping for too much from the Democrats and I should just take what I can get. Vote for John.
• On the one hand, do I really want to continue enabling the Democrats when they've become such cowards? Vote for Ralph.
† On the other hand, am I supporting the underdog, who doesn't have a chance in hell of being elected, because of some personality flaw on my part or because I'm some kind of political masochist? Vote for John.
• Is "The lesser of two evils" really the best we can do in America? Vote for Ralph.
† Yes, sadly, that may be the best we can do. Vote for John.
Do I vote with the courage of my convictions, no matter what happens, or with cynical resignation to continue the status quo?
• On the one hand, I feel it's my right to vote for the candidate I feel best represents my interests. Vote for Ralph.
† On the other hand, I don't want George Bush making ANY Supreme Court nominations. Vote for John.
• On the one hand, I can't support a political system that is so corrupted by cash and bad for true democracy. Vote for Ralph.
† On the other hand, I don't want to allow The Bush Regime and Assoc. to continue looting OUR treasury. Vote for John.
• On the one hand, I feel it may be necessary to force the Democrats to help progressives reform the election process so there can be no spoiler effect in the next election and true representative democracy can be practiced. Vote for Ralph.
† On the other hand, that's probably hoping for too much from the Democrats and I should just take what I can get. Vote for John.
• On the one hand, do I really want to continue enabling the Democrats when they've become such cowards? Vote for Ralph.
† On the other hand, am I supporting the underdog, who doesn't have a chance in hell of being elected, because of some personality flaw on my part or because I'm some kind of political masochist? Vote for John.
• Is "The lesser of two evils" really the best we can do in America? Vote for Ralph.
† Yes, sadly, that may be the best we can do. Vote for John.
Do I vote with the courage of my convictions, no matter what happens, or with cynical resignation to continue the status quo?
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Adventures in GROUPTHINK
Afert perusing my sample ballot for the upcoming election on Publius.org, I realized there are NO DEMOCRATS running in our local election. The Republicans are running completely unopposed. That must make them feel pretty confident about whatever plans they have in store for their little gentrified piece of heaven. Makes us trailer-folk a little nervous.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Campaign Fatigue
I stayed up last night to watch the last presidential debate in Tempe, Az. and couldn't even bring myself to watch it. Just more regurgitation of formulated positions, distortions of the facts and smearing your adversary. Made-for-t.v. politics. Blech! Can't we find anyone more honest to run OUR government? Yes, but then he/she would never get elected.
Flu Vaccine Gouging
The News: Less than a week after the report that there was 50 % shortage of flu vaccine due to contamination of our supply, several complaints have already surfaced from hospitals and doctors about price gouging by third party distributors who are claimed to be charging as much as a 1000 % mark-up, or $800 a vial. Apparently, the companies got the inside track about the contamination and held onto their uncontaminated stocks to cash in on the sellers-market wind-fall they knew would be coming.
The Views: Personally, I think the government should claim Eminent Domain, give those distributors a fair price and seize their stocks. It'd be refreshing if the government used Eminent Domain at least once for the public good, instead of using it for land giveawys to private interests like big-box stores and auto factories. But oh, that's right, we decided to out-source the productioin of our flu vaccines to another country. Now there's homeland security planning for you. Gee, too bad.
The Views: Personally, I think the government should claim Eminent Domain, give those distributors a fair price and seize their stocks. It'd be refreshing if the government used Eminent Domain at least once for the public good, instead of using it for land giveawys to private interests like big-box stores and auto factories. But oh, that's right, we decided to out-source the productioin of our flu vaccines to another country. Now there's homeland security planning for you. Gee, too bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
