Here's the political question of the year:
When Bill Belicheck retires, should his wife get his job?
She must have heard a whole lot of football stuff. I'll bet she went to some official dinners with him.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, hillary clinton
BLOG POSTS
Monday, December 31, 2007
EXCEPT WHEN I LOSE
Let me put it bluntly: I don't like holidays.
New Years Eve is a meaningless concept to me. At least, its public expression is. If I want to dance, get drunk and chase someone else's wife I don't need a designated date to do it. January 6 will do as well as as December 31. If, on the other hand, I want to get contemplative over what I've done with last year and what I want to do with the next one, the best place for me to be on New Years Eve is alone.
If you don't love someone, Valentine's Day is a painful charade. If you do love somebody, gifts, sentiments and sex would be constantly appropriate.
My birthday is in March. I don't think it's something to celebrate since I had nothing to do with it. If it's supposed to be a celebration of living one year longer, I think you should spend your birthday asking yourself: for what purpose?
Easter is irrelevant to me. Even the Easter bunny part.
On Memorial Day you have to listen to clamor about patriotism by people who have no idea what the country they're patriotic for is all about.
I find July 4th depressing, because the days are getting shorter, and the fireworks are never quite as good as you expect.
Labor Day used to be a scary thing when I lived where it mattered whether you had summer or not. Now that I don't, it's completely irrelevant. There isn't any labor movement left.
As for the Jewish holidays, I don't need another New Year, for reasons I have outlined above - and I haven't bought a new suit in twenty years so I don't need a place to show one off. Also, I atone for my mistakes every goddamn day, and if God isn't paying attention, I don't care.
I might like Halloween better if I knew some witches - I mean, the real ones, not my neighbor ladies.
I don't want to be made to be grateful on one day in November. If I'm grateful, I'm always grateful. If I'm not, don't make me pretend.
I might like Christmas if people really cared about Jesus, or they still had a Latin midnight mass. I really don't like people spending my money to buy me stuff I do not want.
As for all the little holidays in between, the sentiments, unfortunately, are the same. I don't need President's Day because I don't need a new car. I don't need Flag Day, since I don't worship the flag.
I like Election Day. Except when I lose.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
New Years Eve is a meaningless concept to me. At least, its public expression is. If I want to dance, get drunk and chase someone else's wife I don't need a designated date to do it. January 6 will do as well as as December 31. If, on the other hand, I want to get contemplative over what I've done with last year and what I want to do with the next one, the best place for me to be on New Years Eve is alone.
If you don't love someone, Valentine's Day is a painful charade. If you do love somebody, gifts, sentiments and sex would be constantly appropriate.
My birthday is in March. I don't think it's something to celebrate since I had nothing to do with it. If it's supposed to be a celebration of living one year longer, I think you should spend your birthday asking yourself: for what purpose?
Easter is irrelevant to me. Even the Easter bunny part.
On Memorial Day you have to listen to clamor about patriotism by people who have no idea what the country they're patriotic for is all about.
I find July 4th depressing, because the days are getting shorter, and the fireworks are never quite as good as you expect.
Labor Day used to be a scary thing when I lived where it mattered whether you had summer or not. Now that I don't, it's completely irrelevant. There isn't any labor movement left.
As for the Jewish holidays, I don't need another New Year, for reasons I have outlined above - and I haven't bought a new suit in twenty years so I don't need a place to show one off. Also, I atone for my mistakes every goddamn day, and if God isn't paying attention, I don't care.
I might like Halloween better if I knew some witches - I mean, the real ones, not my neighbor ladies.
I don't want to be made to be grateful on one day in November. If I'm grateful, I'm always grateful. If I'm not, don't make me pretend.
I might like Christmas if people really cared about Jesus, or they still had a Latin midnight mass. I really don't like people spending my money to buy me stuff I do not want.
As for all the little holidays in between, the sentiments, unfortunately, are the same. I don't need President's Day because I don't need a new car. I don't need Flag Day, since I don't worship the flag.
I like Election Day. Except when I lose.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
STAY HOME
Lot of talk about Bloomberg running. I wish he wouldn't.
He is not going to draw Republican votes - after all, he just quit the party. Will he draw from Democrats? Only if Hillary gets the nomination would he have a chance at that - drawing in disaffected Democrats who don't trust her. And since these Dems have made it clear that they want to support someone who will win, they have to know that all Bloomberg can do is make the Democrat lose.
Independents? He might draw Ron Paul's, and he might draw more if Hillary is nominated. But enough to win the race? Please. Name me the last third party candidate who won the presidency. His best shot is to become 2008's Ralph Nader. Thanks a lot, Mike. This we need?
Too bad he didn't run in the Democratic primaries. That would have really been interesting. But to believe Americans are so sick of partisan politics that they would support a so-called unity, or unifying ticket, is not a belief worthy of Bloomberg's obvious intelligence.
Stay home, Mike. Don't fuck us up.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, bloomberg
He is not going to draw Republican votes - after all, he just quit the party. Will he draw from Democrats? Only if Hillary gets the nomination would he have a chance at that - drawing in disaffected Democrats who don't trust her. And since these Dems have made it clear that they want to support someone who will win, they have to know that all Bloomberg can do is make the Democrat lose.
Independents? He might draw Ron Paul's, and he might draw more if Hillary is nominated. But enough to win the race? Please. Name me the last third party candidate who won the presidency. His best shot is to become 2008's Ralph Nader. Thanks a lot, Mike. This we need?
Too bad he didn't run in the Democratic primaries. That would have really been interesting. But to believe Americans are so sick of partisan politics that they would support a so-called unity, or unifying ticket, is not a belief worthy of Bloomberg's obvious intelligence.
Stay home, Mike. Don't fuck us up.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, bloomberg
QUINTESSENTIAL
In 2005, Huckabee said the American economy would collapse without illegal immigrant workers.
Now he says they all should go home within 120 days and then start the process of returning legally.
Okay. We send 15 million people back over the border in 120 days? Do we have that many airline seats? Or do they have to walk?
Then we quickly process the legal return of the same 15 million people so they can come right back and do those jobs before the economy collapses.
Here we have the quintessential definition of bullshit.
People who launch bullshit like this to get elected president ... well, sometimes they get elected president.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, huckabee, immigration
EXHAUSTED
The New York Times has hired Bill Kristol, one of the most polarizing of the neocons, probably the most hated on the left, as a columnist, to add to David Brooks. People are cancelling subscriptions (but not a lot.)
What does this suggest about the changing readership of the Times?
And what is this compulsion of the Times to be "balanced"? They used to focus on the truth
It is disheartening to see this motherf****r get paid by what was a respectable sheet.
But I'm so exhausted by news like this ....
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, william kristol, new york times
What does this suggest about the changing readership of the Times?
And what is this compulsion of the Times to be "balanced"? They used to focus on the truth
It is disheartening to see this motherf****r get paid by what was a respectable sheet.
But I'm so exhausted by news like this ....
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, william kristol, new york times
Saturday, December 29, 2007
SECRETLY HAPPY
Benazir Bhutto's death is hardly a surprise. If the US was genuinely interested in seeing her win as an expression of its support for democracy, what was the US plan in the event inevitable came to pass?
Or is the US secretly happy with this outcome - now that there's no one out there who can challenge Musharraf?
Are we finding ourselves allied with al Qseda again?
What do you think?
Or is the US secretly happy with this outcome - now that there's no one out there who can challenge Musharraf?
Are we finding ourselves allied with al Qseda again?
What do you think?
LONE GUNMAN
Why is it when a public figure is killed elsewhere in the world a group is always responsible, but when it happens in the US it's always a lone gunman?
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
A LOT
I thought - out of curiosity, and for my own sake - I'd go back through my posts this year and see how things turned out. So ....
In January, I noted an AP poll reporting that 25% of Americans believed Jesus would return in 2007. Five days left ... I'll be watching.
I also said his support for the surge would knock McCain out of the presidential race. Got that one wrong, apparently.
I said what Bush really wants is to establish unassailable executive power before he leaves office. Got that right.
I said this: "Let the Republicans filibuster and veto every bill the public wants. Let 'em make the record they're going to have to run on in 2008. Let's see how many of them are still around when the next Congress convenes. And let's see who's president then. Obstruction = self-destruction, when America is awake." The jury is still out.
In January, I said ny problem with Obama was that he spoke in the same bullshit politickese that every other insincere candidate was using. He's been waxing and waning on that, but in general he's improved.
I went on to say: "The only candidate I can support - until I have to choose between somebody and a Republican - is someone whom I can look at and listen to and conclude that he or she is actually telling me truthfully what he or she thinks. That means someone whose language suggests that he or she isn't just telling me what he or she thinks I want to hear." Absolutely nothing has changed there.
I said "the wealth imbalance is going to have consequences. There is no sign of them yet, but there will have to be." There are signs now, big ones, but no recognition of what they mean or what brought them on. And I'm not optimistic there will ever be.
In January I noted: "Hillary Clinton has plummeted in the new Rasmussen Poll due out today. She is now down to 22% with Obama at 21% and Edwards up to 15%. Her campaign staff has been flatfooted and her reaction to the Edwards’ offensive over the war has been slow. When she should have been in the US protesting Bush’s speech, she was in Iraq posing for photo ops. Edwards is winning the race to the left, the key place to be in the Democratic Primary." Wrong on that one, it appears.
In January I said: "Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are trying to create a coalition of small Baptist groups to serve as a counterweight to the Southern Baptist Convention, which I consider the source of much of the trouble we've had with the religious right." Not one more word about that this whole year. Bill must have gotten sidetracked.
I noted: "U.S. Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked a Democratic bill to increase the federal minimum wage for the first time in a decade, demanding it first include small-business tax relief. This is what we're going to see for the next two years. Things like this will send a clear message to the public that if there's something good for America that you really want, you're going to have to replace some more Senators - and a President." Still true - but is the message getting through?
I reported a Christian Zionist caucus had been created in the United States Congress, a fundamentalist effort at controlling the course of supposedly secular events to move us toward the Second Coming of Christ. Have not heard another word about this - but that doesn't mean it's not happening.
I said everything Hillary Clinton does or says is calculated to advance her presidential ambitions. I don't remember if I was or was not ahead of the curve on that one. But I still think I was right.
I told you that according to the New York Times, Bush had just signed an executive order which required each federal agency to have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee who would supervise the development of the agency's rules. "In other words, the hell with what civil servants and scientists say. The hell with good public policy. The hell with you. I told you these people would never quit." Dead right on that one.
And that was just in January! Jesus, I talk a lot.
In January, I noted an AP poll reporting that 25% of Americans believed Jesus would return in 2007. Five days left ... I'll be watching.
I also said his support for the surge would knock McCain out of the presidential race. Got that one wrong, apparently.
I said what Bush really wants is to establish unassailable executive power before he leaves office. Got that right.
I said this: "Let the Republicans filibuster and veto every bill the public wants. Let 'em make the record they're going to have to run on in 2008. Let's see how many of them are still around when the next Congress convenes. And let's see who's president then. Obstruction = self-destruction, when America is awake." The jury is still out.
In January, I said ny problem with Obama was that he spoke in the same bullshit politickese that every other insincere candidate was using. He's been waxing and waning on that, but in general he's improved.
I went on to say: "The only candidate I can support - until I have to choose between somebody and a Republican - is someone whom I can look at and listen to and conclude that he or she is actually telling me truthfully what he or she thinks. That means someone whose language suggests that he or she isn't just telling me what he or she thinks I want to hear." Absolutely nothing has changed there.
I said "the wealth imbalance is going to have consequences. There is no sign of them yet, but there will have to be." There are signs now, big ones, but no recognition of what they mean or what brought them on. And I'm not optimistic there will ever be.
In January I noted: "Hillary Clinton has plummeted in the new Rasmussen Poll due out today. She is now down to 22% with Obama at 21% and Edwards up to 15%. Her campaign staff has been flatfooted and her reaction to the Edwards’ offensive over the war has been slow. When she should have been in the US protesting Bush’s speech, she was in Iraq posing for photo ops. Edwards is winning the race to the left, the key place to be in the Democratic Primary." Wrong on that one, it appears.
In January I said: "Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are trying to create a coalition of small Baptist groups to serve as a counterweight to the Southern Baptist Convention, which I consider the source of much of the trouble we've had with the religious right." Not one more word about that this whole year. Bill must have gotten sidetracked.
I noted: "U.S. Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked a Democratic bill to increase the federal minimum wage for the first time in a decade, demanding it first include small-business tax relief. This is what we're going to see for the next two years. Things like this will send a clear message to the public that if there's something good for America that you really want, you're going to have to replace some more Senators - and a President." Still true - but is the message getting through?
I reported a Christian Zionist caucus had been created in the United States Congress, a fundamentalist effort at controlling the course of supposedly secular events to move us toward the Second Coming of Christ. Have not heard another word about this - but that doesn't mean it's not happening.
I said everything Hillary Clinton does or says is calculated to advance her presidential ambitions. I don't remember if I was or was not ahead of the curve on that one. But I still think I was right.
I told you that according to the New York Times, Bush had just signed an executive order which required each federal agency to have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee who would supervise the development of the agency's rules. "In other words, the hell with what civil servants and scientists say. The hell with good public policy. The hell with you. I told you these people would never quit." Dead right on that one.
And that was just in January! Jesus, I talk a lot.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
FUN
Listening to Diana Krall sing "Jingle Bells" ... I don't think she really believes it's fun to ride in a one-horse open sleigh.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, jingle bells, krall, fun
NATION OF INFANTS
Rush Limbaugh wonders whether America can stand to watch its president grow old. Of course, he's talking about Hillary, not Giuliani. So what he means is ugly, not old.
Are we a nation of infants, or is Rush a singular moron?
The onset of wrinkles didn't stop Israel from choosing to be led by Golda Meir, or England by Margaret Thatcher. The face does not govern. The brain does - or, in George Bush's case, whatever it is he's got in his head. I'd vote for Quasimodo if his head was screwed on straight.
On the other hand, in this age of ubiquitous plastic surgery amongst the American hoi polloi, it's a whole lot easier to be beautiful than smart, and apparently a whole lot more desirable - or maybe even necessary. So maybe Rush is right to wonder.
Merry Christmas.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, clinton, hillary, giuliani, limbaugh, plastic surgery, wrinkles, old, face, thatcher, meir, ugly, brain
I AM A CONSERVATIVE
Is the Christian right the counterculture of today?
Liberals tend to think of the Christian right as the establishment. With the current Republican administration, they are. But their success at creating a cultural and political climate is no more than the 60's counterculture had, and for the same reasons.
Certainly the Christian right tends to view itself as a counterculture - with the same feelings of persecution the 60's counterculture had, the same sense of being outsiders (at least until recently), the same sense of struggling against a corrupt establishment, and the same purpose - putting meaning and spirituality back into the national life. What those terms mean to the current counterculture is hardly what they meant to the 60's equivalent - but the position of both was identical, as are the triumphs of both.
The 60's counterculture never attained political power, but its cultural power was overwhelming. The cultural power of the Christian right is, so far, not as substantial - but its political power makes that cultural power seem larger than it is.
In truth, I don't see much difference in longings and intentions between 60's hippies and today's evangelicals. Perhaps that explains why a lot of ex-hippies (or at least a lot of ex-lefties) are so active on the right these days. They're still looking for what they didn't get out of the hippie movement - that is, general public agreement that what they want is correct and the power to impose their views when the public doesn't agree. Hippies were arrogant and intolerant. So are these guys, and their leaders are no more nor less absurd than Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman.
However - I still love what the hippies believed, and believed in. And hippies, though searching for spiritual truth, never tried to impose their spiritual beliefs on anyone else (leaving aside John Lennon). I do not love what the Christian right believes. So I guess I am now in the position the over-30's were in 40 years ago. I am a conservative. Hot damn.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, christian right, counterculture, liberal, conservative, hippies, evangelicals
Monday, December 24, 2007
SEEING THE BIBLE
In the period before our Civil War, Southern evangelicals (and particularly their clergy) - who believed that the Bible was the literal word of God - took the position that the Bible authorized slavery even when they believed that slavery violated moral principles laid out in that book.
The chapters they quoted to support that thesis were from both Testaments. I can concede the possibility of a belief that at least the five books of Moses were written by God, since they are so presented, and there are chapters in which God specifically approves slavery - mostly after conquest. But the New Testament chapters quoted do not declare slavery a positive good; they merely mention that slavery exists and call for accommodation with it, which is consistent with the fact that not Jesus nor Peter nor Paul ever called for the abolition of slavery. It was evangelicals' reading of these New Testament chapters as the literal word of God which brought them to the conclusion that God called for accommodation with slavery.
It seems to me patently obvious that the New Testament was written by men, as it in fact declares. Some of what is said is alleged reporting of what God had said, to the reporters or to others. But these particular chapters are not of that character. They include, for example, sections of Paul's letters, which in no way can be considered written by God.
If these evangelicals had not believed that all of the Bible is the word of God, they might have understood that the New Testament chapters they cited were the recording of history during a particular period in a particular place. The writers of these chapters were reporting political facts of life on the ground and essentially advising Christians not to tangle with the authorities on this issue. In other words, they reported tactical political advice.
But once he begins to view portions of the Bible as history, not revelation, where does an evangelical stop? It seems to me they could quite easily distinguish between those chapters which it can be argued are the words of God and those that are not. But to do that requires an intelligence which can't be expected in all, or maybe even most, believers - and it opens the door to all sorts of damaging controversies. So they stuck with their belief that every word is God's, and so they are still able, to this day, to find words which they believe are justification to ignore the clear implications - and even the direct imprecations - of the moral code which Jesus laid out.
Proving that evangelicals of this sort do not look in the Bible to find out what one must do, but look for support for what they want to do. If every word of the Bible is weighted equally, that is very easily accomplished. And that's what's really wrong with seeing the Bible that way.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, culture, bullshit, news, opinion, evangelical, jesus, bible, old testament, new testament
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Friday, December 21, 2007
GREENSPAN FAN
I truly hope that when and if a Democrat is president he or she will not forget to get rid of Ben Bernanke and put someone in charge of the Fed who is not an ideological thief. Proof of his malfeasance should shorten his term.
Since the likelihood of Hillary Clinton doing that is nil - her husband was a big Greenspan fan, if I remember - I have to hope, once again, that it isn't she.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, culture, bullshit, news, opinion, federal reserve, bernanke, greenspan, clinton, hillary
CIVILIZED
This week the UN voted 104-54 for a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty. Senegal, Burundi, Gabon, even Rwanda for God's sake, voted for the moratorium. Who voted against it? Iraq, China, Pakistan, Sudan, Iran and Texas. (Since in many respects Texas determines US policy, I have decided to call a spade a spade.)
Please God can our next president be from someplace civilized?
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, culture, bullshit, news, opinion, death penalty, moratorium, texas
Thursday, December 20, 2007
THE TREND
In a recent New York Times/CBS nationwide poll, when Democrats were asked who they supported, 44% named Hillary, 27% for Obama and 11% for Edwards. This is probably a knee-jerk response to a general question, probably because the press has been calling Hillary inevitable for quite a while and people think she can win; and also probably because a lot of her supporters have their own private reasons for being behind her.
But when asked to measure candidate vs. candidate in a CNN poll - a task which requires more honesty and more serious examination - Hillary beats Giuliani by 6, Obama beats him by 7 and Edwards by 9. And this was before Giuliani started collapsing.
Hillary beats Romney by 11, Obama wins by 13, Edwards by 22.
Huckabee loses to Hillary by 10, to Obama by 15, to Edwards by 25.
McCain beats Hillary by 2, ties Obama, and loses to Edwards by 8.
What does this mean? It means that Edwards has a lot of latent support, probably because 1) he has been forceful against Republicans, indicating he can face them down and 2) he is talking about income inequality, which is going to be the great unspoken - or maybe spoken - issue in 2008. People know Edwards can win. They're not so sure about Hillary, when they actually stop to think about it.
So - If Edwards wins Iowa, or comes in second - maybe even if he comes in a strong third - people are going to be readjusting their thinking.
I like the trend. I hope it continues.
But when asked to measure candidate vs. candidate in a CNN poll - a task which requires more honesty and more serious examination - Hillary beats Giuliani by 6, Obama beats him by 7 and Edwards by 9. And this was before Giuliani started collapsing.
Hillary beats Romney by 11, Obama wins by 13, Edwards by 22.
Huckabee loses to Hillary by 10, to Obama by 15, to Edwards by 25.
McCain beats Hillary by 2, ties Obama, and loses to Edwards by 8.
What does this mean? It means that Edwards has a lot of latent support, probably because 1) he has been forceful against Republicans, indicating he can face them down and 2) he is talking about income inequality, which is going to be the great unspoken - or maybe spoken - issue in 2008. People know Edwards can win. They're not so sure about Hillary, when they actually stop to think about it.
So - If Edwards wins Iowa, or comes in second - maybe even if he comes in a strong third - people are going to be readjusting their thinking.
I like the trend. I hope it continues.
REVOLUTIONARY
When asked at the YouTube debate whether he thought the Bible was the literal word of God, Mike Huckabee said: "Sure I believe the Bible is ... exactly what it is." Huh? "It's the word of revelation to us from God himself." Oh. I thought people wrote the Bible - like the composers of the Gospels? God has obviously plagiarized. "And the fact is, when people ask do we believe all of it, you either believe it or you don't believe it." Oh. "But in the greater sense, I think what the question tried to make us feel like was, well, if you believe the part that says 'Go and pluck out your eye," well none of us believe we oughta go pluck out our eye." Um. If the Bible is the literal word of God, and God says you must pluck out your eye, if you don't believe that, then either you don't believe the Bible is the literal word of God, or you believe that you are superior to God in that you can choose which words you will or will not believe. This is practical approach which tends to avoid self-mutilation, but not a very honest view of your religion.
Huckabee goes on: "That obviously is allegorical." well, now! God uses allegory. This is where Huckabee begins to diverge from conventional evangelical theology as I understand it. Of course, it's hard to understand why the eye-pluck is "obviously allegorical." How does Huckabee know that? Did God tell him? Or is any direction toward punishment or self-destruction considered to be allegorical? As the church lady used to say: "How conveeeeeenient!"
More: "But the Bible has some messages that nobody really can confuse and are really not left up to interpretation." Oh. So some parts of the Bible are left up to interpretation? I.e., God said such-and-such, but he didn't mean what the words literally spell out? Yep, that's allegory. Not sure the evangelicals would buy this either.
"Love your neighbor as yourself. Inasmuch as you've done it unto the least of these brethren, you've done it unto me. Until we get those simple, real easy things right, I'm not sure we ought to spend a lot of time fighting over the other parts that are a little bit complicated."
This Huckabee statement is revolutionary. I do not believe I have ever heard another major evangelical figures state that "love your neighbor" is the most important part of what their religion is, or should be. Other major evangelical figures certainly do not behave as if this principle is the essence of evangelical Christianity.
Huckabee went on to say: "I'd rather have a person serving in Congress who's an avowed atheist who's honest about it than a person who tries to pretend he's a Christian when he doesn't live like it, and he's filled with hate, and venom and anger toward people. That's hardly consistent with the Christian Gospel."
Wow! Are we seeing a little tolerance here? Is he calling out Jerry Falwell and the rest of them? Does he really believe these things, or is he just saying them?
How about this one? "There may be things in a law that I don't agree with, but if it is the law, I have to execute it, because I've taken an oath to do so." A direct slap at George Bush.
Asked whether he would consider himself as President to be carrying out the will of God, Huckabee said: "I think that would be very dangerous. You are never, ever elected to be God. In fact, I think the most dangerous thing that a person has is this messianic complex of not being a servant of the people, but being god of people. When we see people who are running, not to be president but to be lord of America, that's a very dangerous thing."
That doesn't quite answer the question. It is an entirely different self-rationalization to say "I am God's servant" than to say "I am God." But I will take the sense of the comment to mean he would not claim to be taking direction from God. Another direct slap at George Bush.
There are other things Huckabee has said - for example, in a current ad, "I don't have to wake up every morning wondering what I believe." This is, of course, the definition of faith. But it would be nice to have a president who woke up, say, every fourth morning and took another look at what he believed.
He also pointed out that he had carried out the death penalty more often than any other Arkansas governor. That suggests he has not quite shed the Old Testament in favor of the New. However, he did go on to explain the care with which he examines these cases to make sure what he does is right - another direct slap at George Bush who spent fifteen minutes, if that, reviewing any death penalty case with Gonzalez.
For his citation of the Golden Rule alone, Huckabee deserves serious consideration. If he wins the Republican nomination, I will give it to him.
Huckabee goes on: "That obviously is allegorical." well, now! God uses allegory. This is where Huckabee begins to diverge from conventional evangelical theology as I understand it. Of course, it's hard to understand why the eye-pluck is "obviously allegorical." How does Huckabee know that? Did God tell him? Or is any direction toward punishment or self-destruction considered to be allegorical? As the church lady used to say: "How conveeeeeenient!"
More: "But the Bible has some messages that nobody really can confuse and are really not left up to interpretation." Oh. So some parts of the Bible are left up to interpretation? I.e., God said such-and-such, but he didn't mean what the words literally spell out? Yep, that's allegory. Not sure the evangelicals would buy this either.
"Love your neighbor as yourself. Inasmuch as you've done it unto the least of these brethren, you've done it unto me. Until we get those simple, real easy things right, I'm not sure we ought to spend a lot of time fighting over the other parts that are a little bit complicated."
This Huckabee statement is revolutionary. I do not believe I have ever heard another major evangelical figures state that "love your neighbor" is the most important part of what their religion is, or should be. Other major evangelical figures certainly do not behave as if this principle is the essence of evangelical Christianity.
Huckabee went on to say: "I'd rather have a person serving in Congress who's an avowed atheist who's honest about it than a person who tries to pretend he's a Christian when he doesn't live like it, and he's filled with hate, and venom and anger toward people. That's hardly consistent with the Christian Gospel."
Wow! Are we seeing a little tolerance here? Is he calling out Jerry Falwell and the rest of them? Does he really believe these things, or is he just saying them?
How about this one? "There may be things in a law that I don't agree with, but if it is the law, I have to execute it, because I've taken an oath to do so." A direct slap at George Bush.
Asked whether he would consider himself as President to be carrying out the will of God, Huckabee said: "I think that would be very dangerous. You are never, ever elected to be God. In fact, I think the most dangerous thing that a person has is this messianic complex of not being a servant of the people, but being god of people. When we see people who are running, not to be president but to be lord of America, that's a very dangerous thing."
That doesn't quite answer the question. It is an entirely different self-rationalization to say "I am God's servant" than to say "I am God." But I will take the sense of the comment to mean he would not claim to be taking direction from God. Another direct slap at George Bush.
There are other things Huckabee has said - for example, in a current ad, "I don't have to wake up every morning wondering what I believe." This is, of course, the definition of faith. But it would be nice to have a president who woke up, say, every fourth morning and took another look at what he believed.
He also pointed out that he had carried out the death penalty more often than any other Arkansas governor. That suggests he has not quite shed the Old Testament in favor of the New. However, he did go on to explain the care with which he examines these cases to make sure what he does is right - another direct slap at George Bush who spent fifteen minutes, if that, reviewing any death penalty case with Gonzalez.
For his citation of the Golden Rule alone, Huckabee deserves serious consideration. If he wins the Republican nomination, I will give it to him.
NEXT NOVEMBER
An American Cancer Society study reports that uninsured cancer patients are nearly twice as likely to die within five years as those with private coverage.
It seems that every major story which is coming out these days is a direct refutation of some part of the Republican ethos. The CIA tape destruction, the use of waterboarding, the misrepresentation of Iran's nuclear intentions - any one of these stories should have destroyed the Republicans.
But they're still out there peddling their trash. I guess we won't know until next November whether the public has figured it out.
It seems that every major story which is coming out these days is a direct refutation of some part of the Republican ethos. The CIA tape destruction, the use of waterboarding, the misrepresentation of Iran's nuclear intentions - any one of these stories should have destroyed the Republicans.
But they're still out there peddling their trash. I guess we won't know until next November whether the public has figured it out.
THE PART THAT SUCKS
California has adopted rules requiring car makers to cut greenhouse emissions by 30% by 2016. Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington have adopted the same standards.
The bill just passed by Congress puts no limits on these emissions, and merely requires vehicles to reach an efficiency of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. That may cut gasoline use, but the cars will still be emitting the same amount of gases as long as they are run for the same periods of time that they are now.
Yet the EPA has refused to grant a waiver of federal preemption to allow these state laws to take effect. Their justification? A national solution is better than one that is state by state.
Well, that's certainly true. But some solution is better than none, and the federal solution is no solution. It doesn't even significantly address the problem.
Carmakers don't like having to build cars with different efficiencies for different states. I can certainly understand that, but I can't understand why it doesn't occur to them that the answer is to build all their cars to the California standard. What does occur to them is that it will cost them more to do that.
That reminds me of the memos coming out of the car companies which said it would be cheaper to pay off the estates of people who die because of car defects than to fix the defects. And then they didn't fix the defects.
This is the part of capitalism which sucks.
The bill just passed by Congress puts no limits on these emissions, and merely requires vehicles to reach an efficiency of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. That may cut gasoline use, but the cars will still be emitting the same amount of gases as long as they are run for the same periods of time that they are now.
Yet the EPA has refused to grant a waiver of federal preemption to allow these state laws to take effect. Their justification? A national solution is better than one that is state by state.
Well, that's certainly true. But some solution is better than none, and the federal solution is no solution. It doesn't even significantly address the problem.
Carmakers don't like having to build cars with different efficiencies for different states. I can certainly understand that, but I can't understand why it doesn't occur to them that the answer is to build all their cars to the California standard. What does occur to them is that it will cost them more to do that.
That reminds me of the memos coming out of the car companies which said it would be cheaper to pay off the estates of people who die because of car defects than to fix the defects. And then they didn't fix the defects.
This is the part of capitalism which sucks.
NOT ONE
The FCC decided before it held hearings - at which the public expressed solid opposition - to allow media conglomerates to further consolidate the sources of our information by owning both newspapers and radio or TV stations in the same market. This is perhaps the clearest evidence that Republicans care nothing about democracy.
Congress can stop this. Why are none of the major Democratic candidates going to Washington to do something about it?
Congress can stop this. Why are none of the major Democratic candidates going to Washington to do something about it?
TEXAS
Why is it we're told that Americans heavily favor the death penalty?
This year, 40 states had no executions at all, and New Jersey abolished the death penalty. Of the 42 executions conducted this year, 86% occurred in the south. 26 were in Texas.
What does this tell you? Maybe America is not as bloodthirsty as Republicans and public evangelicals would have you believe. Maybe all the bloodthirstiness is located in the South, or maybe also Western states which think like the South - not a surprise to anyone who knows anything of history. Maybe most of it is in Texas. This would suggest that it would be national insanity ever to let a Texan near any Federal government position again.
This year, 40 states had no executions at all, and New Jersey abolished the death penalty. Of the 42 executions conducted this year, 86% occurred in the south. 26 were in Texas.
What does this tell you? Maybe America is not as bloodthirsty as Republicans and public evangelicals would have you believe. Maybe all the bloodthirstiness is located in the South, or maybe also Western states which think like the South - not a surprise to anyone who knows anything of history. Maybe most of it is in Texas. This would suggest that it would be national insanity ever to let a Texan near any Federal government position again.
AMAZING
If Barack Obama gets the Democratic nomination - or, even more clearly, if he is elected - he will have George Bush to thank.
We have been moving for years toward the point when at least some black males are perceived as unthreatening - i.e., you don't have to cross the street when you see them on the sidewalk. Louis Armstrong may have been the first. Black sports figures are revered by whites, but not as unthreatening - in fact, it's the fact they are threatening which makes them revered in that milieu. In Hollywood, Sidney Poitier almost got there. Denzel Washington, Jamie Foxx and Will Smith have completed the job.
But in politics, it was Bush who completed the job - first, by naming Colin Powell Secretary of State, and then by following him with Condoleeza Rice (I know she's not a man - at least, I think she isn't - but she might as well be, considering the position she holds.) Without those two, it would have been impossible for Obama to have gotten as far as he has.
It's like DeGaulle in Algeria, or Nixon in China. Only someone with an impeccable track record of dissing blacks as a race, or as a political factor, could have pulled this off without the country going off the track.
Absolutely amazing.
We have been moving for years toward the point when at least some black males are perceived as unthreatening - i.e., you don't have to cross the street when you see them on the sidewalk. Louis Armstrong may have been the first. Black sports figures are revered by whites, but not as unthreatening - in fact, it's the fact they are threatening which makes them revered in that milieu. In Hollywood, Sidney Poitier almost got there. Denzel Washington, Jamie Foxx and Will Smith have completed the job.
But in politics, it was Bush who completed the job - first, by naming Colin Powell Secretary of State, and then by following him with Condoleeza Rice (I know she's not a man - at least, I think she isn't - but she might as well be, considering the position she holds.) Without those two, it would have been impossible for Obama to have gotten as far as he has.
It's like DeGaulle in Algeria, or Nixon in China. Only someone with an impeccable track record of dissing blacks as a race, or as a political factor, could have pulled this off without the country going off the track.
Absolutely amazing.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
A LIST
Something Obama ought to say:
No president knows everything about everything. That's why we have advisors. What a president needs is the willingness to listen to wise voices - even those who he doesn't initially agree with, even those from the opposite side of the political spectrum - the intelligence and interest to study a problem from all angles, using the best sources of opinion and fact, and the intellectual and moral ability to make the best choice possible.
Here's who I'd listen to ....
And then a list.
He'd be telling the public a truth no candidate seems to want to risk. But who of us expects any of them to be omniscient? In fact, who of us expects them to be more than slightly niscient? Scient? Whatever.
No president knows everything about everything. That's why we have advisors. What a president needs is the willingness to listen to wise voices - even those who he doesn't initially agree with, even those from the opposite side of the political spectrum - the intelligence and interest to study a problem from all angles, using the best sources of opinion and fact, and the intellectual and moral ability to make the best choice possible.
Here's who I'd listen to ....
And then a list.
He'd be telling the public a truth no candidate seems to want to risk. But who of us expects any of them to be omniscient? In fact, who of us expects them to be more than slightly niscient? Scient? Whatever.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
IT WILL COME
I'm reading Bill of Wrongs, Molly Ivins' posthumous book about the Bush administration's war on civil rights. She talks about a case where two protesters were arrested at a Bush rally, despite being there legally and doing nothing but wearing T-shirts with anti-Bush messages. These two filed suit against the Feds, with the primary intent of finding out what written Fed policy had to say about this sort of thing. It turns out the policy talks about "rally squads." These are groups of young Republicans, or football teams, who are to surround potential protestors with pro-Bush messages so as to keep them out of the view of the press, and to shout them down if necessary. It prescribes a roaming squad out looking for potential problems.
The first time I heard about this sort of thing was back in 2000, before the bastard was even sworn in, at the Florida recount wars, when a bunch of young men in white shirts and ties disrupted - as a group - the recount proceedings.
These people are Brownshirts. The only difference between them is that so far the Americans have not gotten to the point of physically beating the protesters. But it will come, it will come.
No, right, I'm overstating it. They're nice boys.
The first time I heard about this sort of thing was back in 2000, before the bastard was even sworn in, at the Florida recount wars, when a bunch of young men in white shirts and ties disrupted - as a group - the recount proceedings.
These people are Brownshirts. The only difference between them is that so far the Americans have not gotten to the point of physically beating the protesters. But it will come, it will come.
No, right, I'm overstating it. They're nice boys.
IOWA
The only thing that matters in the Iowa caucuses is whether Hillary wins.
If she does, her inevitability begins to look ... inevitable. If she doesn't, it will take longer before Republicans can begin in earnest to bash the crap out of her, something she is particularly vulnerable to.
Similarly, I hope no Republican comes out of Iowa with a commanding lead. They need to be kept focused on each other for as long as possible.
If she does, her inevitability begins to look ... inevitable. If she doesn't, it will take longer before Republicans can begin in earnest to bash the crap out of her, something she is particularly vulnerable to.
Similarly, I hope no Republican comes out of Iowa with a commanding lead. They need to be kept focused on each other for as long as possible.
#&@% ACTIVIST!
Federal judge Henry Kennedy, who in June, 2005, ordered the Bush administration to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay", has ordered the administration to court to explain its decision to destroy videotapes of CIA interrogations of two al-Qaida suspects, done five months after his order was issued.
Fucking activist.
Fucking activist.
ANYBODY REMEMBER?
New Jersey has gotten rid of the death penalty.
I would sure like to know how that developed - how and why New Jersey reached that point. I hope that gets spelled out in coverage somewhere. But here's what interests me now:
In the AP article reporting this, a woman whose husband was murdered in Jersey (and whose murderer's sentence was commuted to life without parole) is quoted as saying: "I will never forget how I've been abused by a state and a governor that was supposed to protect the innocent and enforce the laws."
What is she really saying here?
She wants the guy dead.
She wants vengeance. Eye for an eye. Blood for blood.
She must be a Muslim. That's their attitude. She doesn't belong in a Christian state like America, where Jesus's ideas are what we want to see working. You know, like the one about forgiveness?
This just in: she's Jewish. Her name is Flax. Her dead husband's name was Irving. Can't send her to Saudi Arabia. Maybe to Israel. There's a lot of vengeance there.
Another gentleman is quoted as saying it's a slap in the face to the victims. Same motivation. He's a Christian.
What is Judeo-Christian morality, anyway? Anybody remember?
I would sure like to know how that developed - how and why New Jersey reached that point. I hope that gets spelled out in coverage somewhere. But here's what interests me now:
In the AP article reporting this, a woman whose husband was murdered in Jersey (and whose murderer's sentence was commuted to life without parole) is quoted as saying: "I will never forget how I've been abused by a state and a governor that was supposed to protect the innocent and enforce the laws."
What is she really saying here?
She wants the guy dead.
She wants vengeance. Eye for an eye. Blood for blood.
She must be a Muslim. That's their attitude. She doesn't belong in a Christian state like America, where Jesus's ideas are what we want to see working. You know, like the one about forgiveness?
This just in: she's Jewish. Her name is Flax. Her dead husband's name was Irving. Can't send her to Saudi Arabia. Maybe to Israel. There's a lot of vengeance there.
Another gentleman is quoted as saying it's a slap in the face to the victims. Same motivation. He's a Christian.
What is Judeo-Christian morality, anyway? Anybody remember?
OUR ENEMY?
The U.S. helps Turkey bomb Iraqi Kurds.
Well, we used to have some friends over there.
This is what our State Department said about it: "We face a common enemy ... from the PKK. It's a terrorist organization and we want to see actions taken to put it out of business."
A common enemy?
The PKK's goal is to unite Kurds in Iraq and Turkey in one nation. Sort of like the goal of uniting Virginia and Masschusetts back in 1776. Sort of like uniting Germany in the 1870's. This makes them our enemy?
Does the State Department really not understand this? Or do they expect that we won't listen to what they say?
Sick of bullshit yet?
Well, we used to have some friends over there.
This is what our State Department said about it: "We face a common enemy ... from the PKK. It's a terrorist organization and we want to see actions taken to put it out of business."
A common enemy?
The PKK's goal is to unite Kurds in Iraq and Turkey in one nation. Sort of like the goal of uniting Virginia and Masschusetts back in 1776. Sort of like uniting Germany in the 1870's. This makes them our enemy?
Does the State Department really not understand this? Or do they expect that we won't listen to what they say?
Sick of bullshit yet?
WHATEVER YOU CALL IT
A Saudi woman who had recently married got into the car of a high school friend to retrieve a picture of herself that he had. She wound up being raped by seven men. She was convicted of being alone with a man not related to her and sentenced to prison and 90 lashes. When her lawyer appealed, his license was suspended and the penalty was increased to 200 lashes.
Now the Saudis have pardoned her. This is Hallmark justice. The Saudis eat a couple of bucks worth of crow to send the Americans a message that makes them feel better.
How about changing the law - or whatever you call it over there?
Now the Saudis have pardoned her. This is Hallmark justice. The Saudis eat a couple of bucks worth of crow to send the Americans a message that makes them feel better.
How about changing the law - or whatever you call it over there?
LUCKY ONCE
Naomi Klein says that an economic crisis can set the conditions for a corporate takeover of a state. (If you haven't read "The Shock Doctrine", you must - it's the most important book of the last twenty years.)
Suppose Alan Greenspan helped engineer the housing bubble to create that crisis? Suppose the "sub-prime meltdown" is a Friedmanite plan?
Klein says the first step toward a corporatist takeover is creating fear and confusion in the population. That is certainly happening here now - and the media, wittingly or unwittingly, is increasing it daily. It would be unfair to accuse pundits who are predicting a depression of cooperating in the corporatist takeover - they could be just giving us their opinions, valid or not. But what if this "depression to come" is a planned event? Or what if there is no "depression to come," just a greatly magnified fear of one?
I have not been able to understand why the public should be concerned if Citibank takes a multibillion dollar hit on the securitized subprime mortgages it holds. They certainly have the assets to survive that hit. There doesn't seem to me to be a reason for general trepidation (the trade deficit and the Bush deficits are quite another matter.) Except that the stock market could be affected - which is one good reason why people who are on the short end of the economic stick should not be in it.
But suppose little people have been sucked into the stock market specifically to create the conditions where a serious market drop creates the fear the corporatists need? Suppose all the extension of credit is intended to create a crisis? Suppose the same of the Bush tax cuts? It may sound crazy - but maybe it's not. Our economy - when it is primarily financial services - runs on fear and exultation ("irrational exuberance," as Greenspan called the upside. We might call the downside "irrational fear"). It's all mood - and there are people out there who are in a position to create that mood and then benefit hugely from it.
I asked a Wall Street friend why banks like Citibank were holding such high-risk securities. His answer: bankers are dumber than you think; they jump on bandwagons and they panic on rumor. I'm sure there are plenty of dumb bankers out there. But is it possible that these dumb bankers have been made to be terrified by people who want that terror out there for their own purposes?
If there is an economic downturn, it may be serious, or it may be presented as serious by the media. In either case, we'll see who takes advantage of it - and what kind of country we are left with after that. In the Great Depression, America became a country which shared the risk, which was concerned for all Americans and focused on being of help. In the next depression, I don't see things setting up that way. The next depression may see a corporatist triumph. That's what happened in Italy and Germany in 1933. They had Hitler and Mussolini, not Roosevelt; and they were backed by the big corporations. These days we've got a lot of Mussolinis out there - Clinton, Romney, Paul - and maybe one Hitler - Giuliani. There's only one Roosevelt out there (John Edwards) and we don't seem to want him running things.
We were lucky once. I don't see that luck in our future this time.
Suppose Alan Greenspan helped engineer the housing bubble to create that crisis? Suppose the "sub-prime meltdown" is a Friedmanite plan?
Klein says the first step toward a corporatist takeover is creating fear and confusion in the population. That is certainly happening here now - and the media, wittingly or unwittingly, is increasing it daily. It would be unfair to accuse pundits who are predicting a depression of cooperating in the corporatist takeover - they could be just giving us their opinions, valid or not. But what if this "depression to come" is a planned event? Or what if there is no "depression to come," just a greatly magnified fear of one?
I have not been able to understand why the public should be concerned if Citibank takes a multibillion dollar hit on the securitized subprime mortgages it holds. They certainly have the assets to survive that hit. There doesn't seem to me to be a reason for general trepidation (the trade deficit and the Bush deficits are quite another matter.) Except that the stock market could be affected - which is one good reason why people who are on the short end of the economic stick should not be in it.
But suppose little people have been sucked into the stock market specifically to create the conditions where a serious market drop creates the fear the corporatists need? Suppose all the extension of credit is intended to create a crisis? Suppose the same of the Bush tax cuts? It may sound crazy - but maybe it's not. Our economy - when it is primarily financial services - runs on fear and exultation ("irrational exuberance," as Greenspan called the upside. We might call the downside "irrational fear"). It's all mood - and there are people out there who are in a position to create that mood and then benefit hugely from it.
I asked a Wall Street friend why banks like Citibank were holding such high-risk securities. His answer: bankers are dumber than you think; they jump on bandwagons and they panic on rumor. I'm sure there are plenty of dumb bankers out there. But is it possible that these dumb bankers have been made to be terrified by people who want that terror out there for their own purposes?
If there is an economic downturn, it may be serious, or it may be presented as serious by the media. In either case, we'll see who takes advantage of it - and what kind of country we are left with after that. In the Great Depression, America became a country which shared the risk, which was concerned for all Americans and focused on being of help. In the next depression, I don't see things setting up that way. The next depression may see a corporatist triumph. That's what happened in Italy and Germany in 1933. They had Hitler and Mussolini, not Roosevelt; and they were backed by the big corporations. These days we've got a lot of Mussolinis out there - Clinton, Romney, Paul - and maybe one Hitler - Giuliani. There's only one Roosevelt out there (John Edwards) and we don't seem to want him running things.
We were lucky once. I don't see that luck in our future this time.
THEY GET IT
Olbermann gets it. Moyers gets it. John Edwards gets it.
Where's Clinton? Where's Obama?
Answer: yeah, sure, they get it. But they don't want us to.
GOD BLESS CHRIS DODD*
Where was Clinton? Where was Obama?
*The above caption should not be taken as an endorsement of the proposition that there is a God.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Saturday, December 15, 2007
GROUND RULES
The president leads us into a war on false pretenses - and even if the pretenses were true, they were not sufficient to justify a war. Now the president wants to lead us into another one on false pretenses.
The Democrats are timid because they're afraid of losing their congressional seats. As a result, they run a large risk of losing their seats - and the 2006 election is nullified.
The administration is clearly primarily concerned with an immense shift of wealth from the poor and middle class, and from taxpayer funds, to private corporations and individuals at the top. Nobody - particularly those people getting fleeced - seems particularly concerned.
The Democrats are seriously considering nominating someone who gives people more reasons - justified or not - to vote against her than any modern candidate. The reason they want her nominated? She's "more electable."
The Republicans can choose between a Hermann Goering type - a fascist who likes his depravities; a guy who "changes his mind" depending on whom he is talking to; a guy who wants God in the Oval Office, and an assortment of other worthless and unqualified hacks.
The people who should be most concerned about global warming - the ones who won't be able to afford the economic costs of shifting their behavior to accommodate climate change - couldn't care less. In fact, they see it the corporate way. They're afraid they'll lose their jobs if carbon emissions are constrained. Nobody cared about the people who worked at the buggywhip factory, if I remember correctly. They still changed over to cars.
A substantial minority - or maybe more - of this country thinks that what matters most is gay marraige, or abortion, or gay rights, or being pro-choice, or prayers in schools, or where you hold your hand during the pledge of allegiance.
A substantial number of pundits and experts makes their living out of feeding this frenzy.
Bottom line - America is now certifiable. And I mean that literally. The whole country ought to be Baker Acted and sent someplace for a bit of hard work in the sun.
Every once in a while I realize that there are some people who manage to ignore all this and do quite well for themselves. I think the only way to keep yourself from being driven insane is to focus entirely on your own financial well-being. Unfortunately, that tends to make things worse for the public as a whole. You know, lack of concern for others, etc. But it does tend to keep your mind from wandering. I hope I'm able to do that before I go nuts.
The Democrats are timid because they're afraid of losing their congressional seats. As a result, they run a large risk of losing their seats - and the 2006 election is nullified.
The administration is clearly primarily concerned with an immense shift of wealth from the poor and middle class, and from taxpayer funds, to private corporations and individuals at the top. Nobody - particularly those people getting fleeced - seems particularly concerned.
The Democrats are seriously considering nominating someone who gives people more reasons - justified or not - to vote against her than any modern candidate. The reason they want her nominated? She's "more electable."
The Republicans can choose between a Hermann Goering type - a fascist who likes his depravities; a guy who "changes his mind" depending on whom he is talking to; a guy who wants God in the Oval Office, and an assortment of other worthless and unqualified hacks.
The people who should be most concerned about global warming - the ones who won't be able to afford the economic costs of shifting their behavior to accommodate climate change - couldn't care less. In fact, they see it the corporate way. They're afraid they'll lose their jobs if carbon emissions are constrained. Nobody cared about the people who worked at the buggywhip factory, if I remember correctly. They still changed over to cars.
A substantial minority - or maybe more - of this country thinks that what matters most is gay marraige, or abortion, or gay rights, or being pro-choice, or prayers in schools, or where you hold your hand during the pledge of allegiance.
A substantial number of pundits and experts makes their living out of feeding this frenzy.
Bottom line - America is now certifiable. And I mean that literally. The whole country ought to be Baker Acted and sent someplace for a bit of hard work in the sun.
Every once in a while I realize that there are some people who manage to ignore all this and do quite well for themselves. I think the only way to keep yourself from being driven insane is to focus entirely on your own financial well-being. Unfortunately, that tends to make things worse for the public as a whole. You know, lack of concern for others, etc. But it does tend to keep your mind from wandering. I hope I'm able to do that before I go nuts.
STUNNING
You know what stuns me?
When Bush appoints people just out of college or law school to run the Justice Department, or the provisional authority in Iraq, or whatever else they appoint them to - these people don't scratch their heads and say: aren't I supposed to have some experience before I get this job? Aren't I supposed to know something - beside whose ass to kiss and what to say to turn Republican heads? Aren't I a little too young?
When I got out of law school, I didn't know one damn thing. You don't learn to practice law in law school - you learn by practicing. That's why kids are associates until they become partners. They need to be taught how things work.
These kids - a lot of them from law schools from which they exit actually knowing less than nothing - are in the positions they hold because they don't need to know anything - particularly about ethics or history or little things like the human condition. They don't need to know because other people are telling them what to do. They don't even need to learn. They are simply willingly manipulated cogs who have convinced themselves they actually have some worth.
Maybe they think they're like the Google kids - inventing something earth shattering in their dormitory rooms. Maybe they think the world has been completely turned upside down, and actual experience is irrelevant (Hillary to the questionable contrary).
Maybe they're right.
When Bush appoints people just out of college or law school to run the Justice Department, or the provisional authority in Iraq, or whatever else they appoint them to - these people don't scratch their heads and say: aren't I supposed to have some experience before I get this job? Aren't I supposed to know something - beside whose ass to kiss and what to say to turn Republican heads? Aren't I a little too young?
When I got out of law school, I didn't know one damn thing. You don't learn to practice law in law school - you learn by practicing. That's why kids are associates until they become partners. They need to be taught how things work.
These kids - a lot of them from law schools from which they exit actually knowing less than nothing - are in the positions they hold because they don't need to know anything - particularly about ethics or history or little things like the human condition. They don't need to know because other people are telling them what to do. They don't even need to learn. They are simply willingly manipulated cogs who have convinced themselves they actually have some worth.
Maybe they think they're like the Google kids - inventing something earth shattering in their dormitory rooms. Maybe they think the world has been completely turned upside down, and actual experience is irrelevant (Hillary to the questionable contrary).
Maybe they're right.
NEW RULE
Choosing which FISA bill to present to the floor - one which extends immunity to the telecoms and one which does not - Harry Reid chooses the former.
That's bad enough.
What's worse is that, other than Chris Dodd, not one Democratic presidential candidate has even commented on this.
If we are going to save democracy, we need a new rule: no one who wants to be president should be allowed to run.
That's bad enough.
What's worse is that, other than Chris Dodd, not one Democratic presidential candidate has even commented on this.
If we are going to save democracy, we need a new rule: no one who wants to be president should be allowed to run.
IMPLACABLE
The ABA Journal names Gonzalez Lawyer of the Year!
Only two possibilities here:
Lawyers have a lot better sense of humor than anyone thinks.
Or
They are part of a general Republican mental process which is: they believe their own shit. Because nobody could possibly think at this point that by saying Gonzalez is a great lawyer they can get people to believe it.
It's a faith-based designation. It does not admit of logical analysis, pragmatic analysis or any kind of analysis. It is so because it is so. (Maybe God said Gonzalez should be lawyer of the year. I'd resign from the ABA right now except I never belonged to it - for precisely this sort of reason.)
The lesson? Republicans cannot be reasoned with, cannot reach compromise, cannot be treated as anything but an implacable enemy. Democrats do not get this yet. Probably never will.
Only two possibilities here:
Lawyers have a lot better sense of humor than anyone thinks.
Or
They are part of a general Republican mental process which is: they believe their own shit. Because nobody could possibly think at this point that by saying Gonzalez is a great lawyer they can get people to believe it.
It's a faith-based designation. It does not admit of logical analysis, pragmatic analysis or any kind of analysis. It is so because it is so. (Maybe God said Gonzalez should be lawyer of the year. I'd resign from the ABA right now except I never belonged to it - for precisely this sort of reason.)
The lesson? Republicans cannot be reasoned with, cannot reach compromise, cannot be treated as anything but an implacable enemy. Democrats do not get this yet. Probably never will.
SCUMBAG MAGNET
Attorney General Mukasey refuses to provide Congress with details about the CIA destruction of interrogation tapes. "At my confirmation hearing, I testified that I would act independently, resist political pressure and ensure that politics plays no role in cases brought by the Department of Justice," he said. And then took the position that providing the information to Congress would make it appear that the department is "subject to political influence."
I see. When the opposition party controls Congress, its investigatory powers are "political" - as in partisan.
Absolutely brazen. No end to it. The Bush administration is a scumbag magnet. They all end up working there.
Tags: truth, news, politics, opinion, blog, culture, tweet petite,BUSH, mukasey
I see. When the opposition party controls Congress, its investigatory powers are "political" - as in partisan.
Absolutely brazen. No end to it. The Bush administration is a scumbag magnet. They all end up working there.
Tags: truth, news, politics, opinion, blog, culture, tweet petite,BUSH, mukasey
Friday, December 14, 2007
THE GREATEST LESSON
The value of an opinion or a prediction depends on how correct it turns out to be.
You would think there's nothing more obvious. But apparently you'd be wrong.
Any number of pundits continue to be paid to give us opinions after many of their opinions turned out to be completely wrong. So I conclude it is not the opinion that matters, but the mouth it comes out of. If you are a certified oracle, we need to pay attention to what you say. Never mind that we have no idea who certified you (other than your peers, that is to say, yourself.)
Alan Greenspan was deified for wrong predictions and opinions. In Greenspan's case, there's a more nefarious side to it - because I think the opinions and predictions he gave were motivated by the desire to reach particular ends which were not to the benefit of Americans. I.e., Greenspan's mouth was a capitalist tool - more specifically, the tool of a very limited number of a certain type of capitalist.
Anyway, my point is that we shouldn't be listening to any of these opinions - including mine - except for their entertainment value. Given the same facts that pundits are given - and trying to be more careful than they are both to understand these facts and not to include in our opinions things that are not facts - any of us can come up with an opinion at least as good as a pundit's. And we regularly do, as a matter of fact.
Life is too short to listen to opinions. Let's read the facts, draw our own conclusions and act on them. If w're right, we done good. If we're wrong, we've learned a lesson.
And the greatest lesson of all is that people will keep on talking long after they've run out of anything valid to say.
Damn it - I just did that, didn't I.
You would think there's nothing more obvious. But apparently you'd be wrong.
Any number of pundits continue to be paid to give us opinions after many of their opinions turned out to be completely wrong. So I conclude it is not the opinion that matters, but the mouth it comes out of. If you are a certified oracle, we need to pay attention to what you say. Never mind that we have no idea who certified you (other than your peers, that is to say, yourself.)
Alan Greenspan was deified for wrong predictions and opinions. In Greenspan's case, there's a more nefarious side to it - because I think the opinions and predictions he gave were motivated by the desire to reach particular ends which were not to the benefit of Americans. I.e., Greenspan's mouth was a capitalist tool - more specifically, the tool of a very limited number of a certain type of capitalist.
Anyway, my point is that we shouldn't be listening to any of these opinions - including mine - except for their entertainment value. Given the same facts that pundits are given - and trying to be more careful than they are both to understand these facts and not to include in our opinions things that are not facts - any of us can come up with an opinion at least as good as a pundit's. And we regularly do, as a matter of fact.
Life is too short to listen to opinions. Let's read the facts, draw our own conclusions and act on them. If w're right, we done good. If we're wrong, we've learned a lesson.
And the greatest lesson of all is that people will keep on talking long after they've run out of anything valid to say.
Damn it - I just did that, didn't I.
JACKPOT
Reading an article which says either that U.S. home sales are going to go up in 2008 or are going to go down is like a reading a scholarly article which predicts the numbers for the next LottaBucks jackpot.
Why don't we tell the guys who write this crap - half of them flacks for one vested interest or another - that they might as well get a real job, because we don't care what they say.
Why don't we tell the guys who write this crap - half of them flacks for one vested interest or another - that they might as well get a real job, because we don't care what they say.
AMERICAN BULLSHIT
Since the US has refused to accept specific targets toward a worldwide climate agreement by 2009, many European leaders are threatening to boycott the parallel process Bush launched a month and a half ago.
Maybe the difference between us and Europeans is that Europeans can still recognize bullshit when they hear it.
We need a parallel process? For what? No, Bush wants a parallel process because he refuses to engage the rest of the world on any terms but his own. That's the hallmark of Bushism, and it's everywhere.
The real talks have been going on in Bali. Bush is saying no to everything proposed. Al Gore was there and blamed Bush for "jeopardizing the negotiations" (quoting the Washington Post). He says this to Americans and they go: "Sour grapes." He says this to the rest of the world and he gets cheers.
How did we get so stupid? Did it happen recently, or have we been working on it for a couple of generations?
By the way - I've been listening to a lot of Harvard professors on podcasts lately, and am now ready to state categorically that Harvard has joined the University of Chicago as a major educational bastion of American bullshit.
Do I think all this is an accident? No, I don't. It's part of everything else I've been talking about lately.
Tags: truth, news, politics, opinion, blog, culture, tweet petite,BUSH, GORE, climate change, global warming, bali, harvard, chicago
Maybe the difference between us and Europeans is that Europeans can still recognize bullshit when they hear it.
We need a parallel process? For what? No, Bush wants a parallel process because he refuses to engage the rest of the world on any terms but his own. That's the hallmark of Bushism, and it's everywhere.
The real talks have been going on in Bali. Bush is saying no to everything proposed. Al Gore was there and blamed Bush for "jeopardizing the negotiations" (quoting the Washington Post). He says this to Americans and they go: "Sour grapes." He says this to the rest of the world and he gets cheers.
How did we get so stupid? Did it happen recently, or have we been working on it for a couple of generations?
By the way - I've been listening to a lot of Harvard professors on podcasts lately, and am now ready to state categorically that Harvard has joined the University of Chicago as a major educational bastion of American bullshit.
Do I think all this is an accident? No, I don't. It's part of everything else I've been talking about lately.
Tags: truth, news, politics, opinion, blog, culture, tweet petite,BUSH, GORE, climate change, global warming, bali, harvard, chicago
AIN'T WE GOT FUN
It's important not to be seduced by sophisticated explanations of the so-called sub-prime mortgage crisis. It is the result of the prevailing economic trend in this country, expressed in two ways:
Once mortgages were securitized, issuing mortgages to as many people as possible, qualified or not, was intended to suck as much money as possible away from the lower and middle classes and into the hands of the wealthy who owned those securities. Any bank which held onto those securities was run by fools, and it still amazes me how many fools there are out there. It is not necessary to sympathize with the holders of these securities; they have more than enough money to withstand the loss. They planned this outcome, essentially, unless they believed that the bubble could not burst - and I refused to believe that the people who devised mortgage securitization were that deluded. Alan Greenspan was a big help with this, and deserves a large share of the blame. I bet he's still making big bucks on the lecture circuit - paid by people who want to know the next scam ahead of time.
The second element is the elimination of regulation. If you don't watch the nicest guy, he will take what he can take. In other countries, the outrage would be revolutionary. It still amazes me how much Americans don't know. Although it shouldn't - I didn't get it either.
The whole thing's been said very well: "There's nothing surer - the rich get rich and the poor get poorer. In the meantime, in between time, ain't we got fun!"
Until it isn't fun anymore. I smell that on the horizon.
Once mortgages were securitized, issuing mortgages to as many people as possible, qualified or not, was intended to suck as much money as possible away from the lower and middle classes and into the hands of the wealthy who owned those securities. Any bank which held onto those securities was run by fools, and it still amazes me how many fools there are out there. It is not necessary to sympathize with the holders of these securities; they have more than enough money to withstand the loss. They planned this outcome, essentially, unless they believed that the bubble could not burst - and I refused to believe that the people who devised mortgage securitization were that deluded. Alan Greenspan was a big help with this, and deserves a large share of the blame. I bet he's still making big bucks on the lecture circuit - paid by people who want to know the next scam ahead of time.
The second element is the elimination of regulation. If you don't watch the nicest guy, he will take what he can take. In other countries, the outrage would be revolutionary. It still amazes me how much Americans don't know. Although it shouldn't - I didn't get it either.
The whole thing's been said very well: "There's nothing surer - the rich get rich and the poor get poorer. In the meantime, in between time, ain't we got fun!"
Until it isn't fun anymore. I smell that on the horizon.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
NEVER MIND
Bill Shaheen from Clinton's campaign warns that Obama's youthful drug use may make him unelectable.
Never mind that it was a smarmy thing to say. Never mind that it was said on behalf of the wife of the man who said he didn't inhale - one of the most magnificent (though amusing) political lies ever told. Never mind that we don't know anything about bad things Hillary did - and you know she did them, because nobody with her balls is going to meekly obey the rules.
But never mind all that - because, in this insane political climate, Shaheen could be right.
Tags: truth, news, politics, opinion, blog, culture, tweet petite,BUSH, obama, clinton, hillary, bill shaheen, drugs
Never mind that it was a smarmy thing to say. Never mind that it was said on behalf of the wife of the man who said he didn't inhale - one of the most magnificent (though amusing) political lies ever told. Never mind that we don't know anything about bad things Hillary did - and you know she did them, because nobody with her balls is going to meekly obey the rules.
But never mind all that - because, in this insane political climate, Shaheen could be right.
Tags: truth, news, politics, opinion, blog, culture, tweet petite,BUSH, obama, clinton, hillary, bill shaheen, drugs
TAKE IN AIR
The AP reports that the White House pressured the EPA to reduce the requirements on industry to report their usage and emission of toxic chemicals.
Now, I don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat. If you breathe - and unless you're in one of the affected industries - how can you possibly defend a move like that? It makes it absolutely clear that Bush is determined to get rid of government - meaning you - protections for the public - you, again - in the interest of saving industry a few bucks. Even if you agree with Bush's perspective, you need to remember that your kids take in air.
I don't know why there's no clamor to impeach this guy.
Tags: truth, news, politics, opinion, blog, culture, tweet petite,BUSH, EPA, toxic chemicals
Now, I don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat. If you breathe - and unless you're in one of the affected industries - how can you possibly defend a move like that? It makes it absolutely clear that Bush is determined to get rid of government - meaning you - protections for the public - you, again - in the interest of saving industry a few bucks. Even if you agree with Bush's perspective, you need to remember that your kids take in air.
I don't know why there's no clamor to impeach this guy.
Tags: truth, news, politics, opinion, blog, culture, tweet petite,BUSH, EPA, toxic chemicals
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
WHY JOE BIDEN SHOULD BE PRESIDENT
On This Week, Stephanopoulos told Biden that Newt Gingrich had said that the NIE report on Iran was arranged by a couple of disgruntled State Department employees who wanted to sabotage Bush.
Biden, paraphrased: Come on. Who ya gonna believe, Newt Gingrich or sixteen intelligence agencies? He says a couple of State Department employees fixed sixteen intelligence agencies?
And the capper, a direct quote: "This is the Nixon administration without the competence."
Hillary says she knows how to fight Republicans. Would she have said that?
I admit it: at this point, I'll take anyone except Hillary.
According to a new New York Times/CBS Poll, Democrats view her as far more electable than Obama or Edwards. For the life of me, I cannot understand that. Maybe it's because 44% of Democratic voters think Bill's involvement will make them more likely to support her. I.e., they're hoping to get Bill in through the back door. Which is completely lunatic - but the poll said as many voters are suppporting her because of him as because of her own experience.
Democrats are designing another shoot-yourself-in-the-foot moment. Another Kerry moment. Another moment in which they squander my democracy. They'd better be right, or next time I'm voting for Elvis Presley.
Tags: truth, news, politics, opinion, blog, culture, tweet petite,BUSH, gingrich, stephanopoulos, biden, nixon, hillary, clinton, New York Times/CBS poll, elvis
Sunday, December 09, 2007
FAT SANTY
According to the TV news I watch, some people are concerned that Santa Claus sends a bad message to kids that it's okay to be fat.
Let's give these people subprime mortgages. They need something real to worry about.
Tags: truth, news, politics, opinion, blog, culture, tweet petite,BUSH,santa claus
Let's give these people subprime mortgages. They need something real to worry about.
Tags: truth, news, politics, opinion, blog, culture, tweet petite,BUSH,santa claus
STORY
David Axelrod, who strategizes for Obama, says: "The public is looking for someone who will level with them, even when it means telling them things they don't necessarily agree with or want to hear. They value honesty, they value candor, they value straightforwardness. They don't want calculation and parsing. They don't want someone who confers with their pollster on every move."
This "public" he refers to, by his definition, does not include Republicans and does not include the people who give the big Democratic money, who want a candidate who will do what they want him/her to do. This "public," by his definition, is apparently that portion of the Great Unwashed for whom reason still plays some part.
Well, if he's right about what that public wants, then it wants John Edwards. Or, if it wants to limit discussion to foreign affairs, Joe Biden. So why doesn't it know that?
I suspect because Axelrod has got it wrong. You look at Edwards' and Biden's polls and you know exactly how much of the "public" wants what Axelrod says it wants. The rest of the public wants a show. Reality TV. They want a story they can get into, that makes them happy, or sad. (Not about something really real, though, like Edwards' wife's cancer - that story died about as fast as it was born.)
Hillary's got a great story: woman, Bill, Monica. Obama's got a story, too: little black Indonesian kid, smart on the war, sort of a Tiger Woods of politics (if he wins). Just in case that story isn't enough, we have Oprah - the greatest storyteller of our time - weighing in.
Edwards has a story - but who wants to hear it? Millworker parents (if that's what they were) nobody wants to hear about, or, God forbid, be. Underprivileged boy through hard work and talent makes it big? We'd rather hear about somebody with no talent who started out with all the advantages and makes it big (Paris Hilton, anybody?) There's nothing exotic about Edwards' tale - we've heard it all a hundred times, and it's dated, it's like thirties, it's like "It's A Wonderful Life." It's fucking boring. Let's face it.
Biden? Nobody knows what story he's got, because the press isn't interested in telling us. He's had some tragedies in his life, but he doesn't want us to feel sorry for him, he won't go on Dr. Phil. Jesus Christ, he just puts you to sleep.
That's my story, and I'm stickin' with it.
Tags: truth, news, politics, opinion, blog, culture, tweet petite,BUSH, edwards, hillary,clinton, Obama,biden,david axelrod,paris hilton,reality tv
This "public" he refers to, by his definition, does not include Republicans and does not include the people who give the big Democratic money, who want a candidate who will do what they want him/her to do. This "public," by his definition, is apparently that portion of the Great Unwashed for whom reason still plays some part.
Well, if he's right about what that public wants, then it wants John Edwards. Or, if it wants to limit discussion to foreign affairs, Joe Biden. So why doesn't it know that?
I suspect because Axelrod has got it wrong. You look at Edwards' and Biden's polls and you know exactly how much of the "public" wants what Axelrod says it wants. The rest of the public wants a show. Reality TV. They want a story they can get into, that makes them happy, or sad. (Not about something really real, though, like Edwards' wife's cancer - that story died about as fast as it was born.)
Hillary's got a great story: woman, Bill, Monica. Obama's got a story, too: little black Indonesian kid, smart on the war, sort of a Tiger Woods of politics (if he wins). Just in case that story isn't enough, we have Oprah - the greatest storyteller of our time - weighing in.
Edwards has a story - but who wants to hear it? Millworker parents (if that's what they were) nobody wants to hear about, or, God forbid, be. Underprivileged boy through hard work and talent makes it big? We'd rather hear about somebody with no talent who started out with all the advantages and makes it big (Paris Hilton, anybody?) There's nothing exotic about Edwards' tale - we've heard it all a hundred times, and it's dated, it's like thirties, it's like "It's A Wonderful Life." It's fucking boring. Let's face it.
Biden? Nobody knows what story he's got, because the press isn't interested in telling us. He's had some tragedies in his life, but he doesn't want us to feel sorry for him, he won't go on Dr. Phil. Jesus Christ, he just puts you to sleep.
That's my story, and I'm stickin' with it.
Tags: truth, news, politics, opinion, blog, culture, tweet petite,BUSH, edwards, hillary,clinton, Obama,biden,david axelrod,paris hilton,reality tv
ON THE MOUNT
Mitt Romney says we need to be careful of the religion of secularism, which is creeping into American life.
Excuse me? It's Jesus who's been creeping into American life. At least, American public life.
In 1960, in order to get elected, JFK had to promise that his religion would not dictate his policies. Are we to assume that, in 1960, only Catholicism was required to stay out of politics? If Kennedy had said he wouldn't follow the Pope but would follow Jesus, what would the reaction have been?
I may be deluding myself, but I believe that in 1960 American public life was considered to be secular. You could believe whatever you wanted to, but you were not to be making policy based on religious beliefs. Short of a few periods - like the time of the Salem witch trials - that has been America historically.
Now, I know that in parts of the US, that has not been the case. Politics in the Southern states have always been tainted with religion, although I expect most of what was said was hypocritical. That's what I mean when I say that the South has now won the civil war. We are all expected to adhere to Mississippi morality - and, unfortunately, we are.
There was also a time when religion played a role on the left - specifically the SCLC during the civil rights battles. The difference between the public role Christianity played then, as opposed to now, is this: what Martin Luther King was preaching was essentially the Golden Rule, more or less the Sermon on the Mount. His message was one that could be shared by Jews, Christians, seculars, because that message is the expression of the moral code of all.
That message is no part of what right-wing Christians insist on now. I'll bet they can't even quote you the Sermon on the Mount. Since most of what the left believes and wants is based on the ancient moral base which Jesus revived in that sermon, I think it's fair to say that the US religious war is not between Christianity and everybody else but between right-wing Christianity and Jesus himself. Maybe if some of the so-called moderate clergy got a little more noisy in pointing that out, we wouldn't be hearing crap like we're hearing from Mitt Romney. As for him and those who vote for him, if a country chooses to slip to this level of delusion, its final end can't be very far ahead.
Tags: truth, news, politics, opinion, blog, culture, tweet petite,BUSH, right-wing,Christian, sermon on the mount, golden rule, romney, secularism, religion,martin luther king, american history
Excuse me? It's Jesus who's been creeping into American life. At least, American public life.
In 1960, in order to get elected, JFK had to promise that his religion would not dictate his policies. Are we to assume that, in 1960, only Catholicism was required to stay out of politics? If Kennedy had said he wouldn't follow the Pope but would follow Jesus, what would the reaction have been?
I may be deluding myself, but I believe that in 1960 American public life was considered to be secular. You could believe whatever you wanted to, but you were not to be making policy based on religious beliefs. Short of a few periods - like the time of the Salem witch trials - that has been America historically.
Now, I know that in parts of the US, that has not been the case. Politics in the Southern states have always been tainted with religion, although I expect most of what was said was hypocritical. That's what I mean when I say that the South has now won the civil war. We are all expected to adhere to Mississippi morality - and, unfortunately, we are.
There was also a time when religion played a role on the left - specifically the SCLC during the civil rights battles. The difference between the public role Christianity played then, as opposed to now, is this: what Martin Luther King was preaching was essentially the Golden Rule, more or less the Sermon on the Mount. His message was one that could be shared by Jews, Christians, seculars, because that message is the expression of the moral code of all.
That message is no part of what right-wing Christians insist on now. I'll bet they can't even quote you the Sermon on the Mount. Since most of what the left believes and wants is based on the ancient moral base which Jesus revived in that sermon, I think it's fair to say that the US religious war is not between Christianity and everybody else but between right-wing Christianity and Jesus himself. Maybe if some of the so-called moderate clergy got a little more noisy in pointing that out, we wouldn't be hearing crap like we're hearing from Mitt Romney. As for him and those who vote for him, if a country chooses to slip to this level of delusion, its final end can't be very far ahead.
Tags: truth, news, politics, opinion, blog, culture, tweet petite,BUSH, right-wing,Christian, sermon on the mount, golden rule, romney, secularism, religion,martin luther king, american history
Saturday, December 08, 2007
GIVE IT BACK!
An article in Le Monde in which it is stated that "l'inquietude (of students) a l'egard de la "privatisation" est absurd" reminds me that we need an immediate terminology shift. It's us old hippies, who are attached to the idea of having a functioning government and enamoured of the democracy we used to have, who are "the conservatives."
If you want Jesus apostles to run the U.S. government, you're not a conservative, you're a revolutionary. You want a flat tax? Same thing. You want to privatize the military, or the roads, or the prisons, or the schools? You are no conservative. There is absolutely nothing conservative about you.
If you stop to think about it, the term "liberal" is now useless. Liberal = conservative. Hey, you radical sons of bitches, give us back our name!
Tags: truth, news, politics, opinion, blog, culture, tweet petite, hype, BUSH, cia tapes, interrogation, torture
If you want Jesus apostles to run the U.S. government, you're not a conservative, you're a revolutionary. You want a flat tax? Same thing. You want to privatize the military, or the roads, or the prisons, or the schools? You are no conservative. There is absolutely nothing conservative about you.
If you stop to think about it, the term "liberal" is now useless. Liberal = conservative. Hey, you radical sons of bitches, give us back our name!
Tags: truth, news, politics, opinion, blog, culture, tweet petite, hype, BUSH, cia tapes, interrogation, torture
YOUR CHOICE
Bush says he didn't know about the destruction of the CIA tapes.
Maybe. So which do you prefer: a president who knew about it, let it happen and lied about it, or a president whose own crew doesn't think it's something he needs to know?
Tags: truth, news, politics, opinion, blog, culture, tweet petite, hype, BUSH, cia tapes, interrogation, torture
Maybe. So which do you prefer: a president who knew about it, let it happen and lied about it, or a president whose own crew doesn't think it's something he needs to know?
Tags: truth, news, politics, opinion, blog, culture, tweet petite, hype, BUSH, cia tapes, interrogation, torture
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
WAKE UP, PEOPLE
Okay, the results are in, as far as I'm concerned. John Edwards is the only candidate in either party speaking to critical issues and limiting himself to the truth. Obviously, since he's running behind, America doesn't agree. But that's ignorance doing the thinking.
Edwards understand the corporatist threats to American democracy and the welfare of the less-than-billionaires. His foreign policy positions are correct and strong - and he's demonstrated consistently that he's willing to attack bullshit from others. He makes no concession that degrades the truth. He doesn't give up. He could destroy Giuliani.
Wake up, people. Since Obama keeps falling asleep, Edwards is your only real chance.
Tags: John Edwards, obama, giuliani, democrats,truth, corporatist, news, politics, opinion, blog, culture, tweet petite, hype
Edwards understand the corporatist threats to American democracy and the welfare of the less-than-billionaires. His foreign policy positions are correct and strong - and he's demonstrated consistently that he's willing to attack bullshit from others. He makes no concession that degrades the truth. He doesn't give up. He could destroy Giuliani.
Wake up, people. Since Obama keeps falling asleep, Edwards is your only real chance.
Tags: John Edwards, obama, giuliani, democrats,truth, corporatist, news, politics, opinion, blog, culture, tweet petite, hype
TIT FOR TAT
Scott McClellan did not, and will not, state that Bush lied to him about the Plame affair.
What we have is an ambiguous comment released by his publisher, who then refuses any clarification, saying we will have to wait to read the book.
Could there possibly be a sales gambit in this? And the press swallows it?
No the press hasn't swallowed it. They're just doing the usual, making headlines out of whatever crap happens to come along. It's more reality TV stuff. A world of schlock.
Here's my hope: when the book comes out, the first guy who reads it tells the entire world that McClellan does not implicate Bush, or anyone else. Then nobody buys the book.
Which is what they deserve.
If that doesn't work, could we spread the word that the book was printed in China and if you touch it you die of lead poisoning? We could always retract the statement after the book failed. Tit for tat, right?
Tags: Scott McClellan, bush, press, book, reality tv, aram,schefrin, politics, news, culture, blog
What we have is an ambiguous comment released by his publisher, who then refuses any clarification, saying we will have to wait to read the book.
Could there possibly be a sales gambit in this? And the press swallows it?
No the press hasn't swallowed it. They're just doing the usual, making headlines out of whatever crap happens to come along. It's more reality TV stuff. A world of schlock.
Here's my hope: when the book comes out, the first guy who reads it tells the entire world that McClellan does not implicate Bush, or anyone else. Then nobody buys the book.
Which is what they deserve.
If that doesn't work, could we spread the word that the book was printed in China and if you touch it you die of lead poisoning? We could always retract the statement after the book failed. Tit for tat, right?
Tags: Scott McClellan, bush, press, book, reality tv, aram,schefrin, politics, news, culture, blog
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
DOESN'T GET IT
Tom Friedman writes with considerable excitement about a team at Google which is developing alternative energy sources, and a team at MIT which has created a world-wide competition for the development of electric vehicles within three years. He thinks this is the way we are going to get around Bush's determined obfuscation on global warming.
Once again, Friedman doesn't quite get it.
Yes, it's very nice that there are people out there who believe what science tells them and are determined to put their brains to work rationally to solve problems. It's nice that people are stepping up to take the place of government. Maybe. Some of them, anyway.
Gates' foundation's donations and work is a great example of private persons stepping in to do good when government is controlled by persons determined to do nothing. It's also nice that Schwarzenegger and other Western governors are taking up the global warming challenge in their own states. That's all certainly preferable to private persons taking over the US military, as in Blackwater - but it's all part of the same very dangerous problem.
Bush set out to wither away the American state. What all these nice people are doing is acknowledging his success.
Okay, there are some - maybe a lot - of "public-spirited," "results-oriented" people and corporations determined to do what's "good for humanity." Unfortunately, they get to decide what's good for humanity. All the rest of us, who don't play in their league and who used to count on our votes to do good for humanity, are quickly losing any voice in the way the country is run. And what we'll get is handouts from the private folks - maybe.
It's a very nice way of looking at the demise of popular democracy. Friedman doesn't get that, and he never will.
Once again, Friedman doesn't quite get it.
Yes, it's very nice that there are people out there who believe what science tells them and are determined to put their brains to work rationally to solve problems. It's nice that people are stepping up to take the place of government. Maybe. Some of them, anyway.
Gates' foundation's donations and work is a great example of private persons stepping in to do good when government is controlled by persons determined to do nothing. It's also nice that Schwarzenegger and other Western governors are taking up the global warming challenge in their own states. That's all certainly preferable to private persons taking over the US military, as in Blackwater - but it's all part of the same very dangerous problem.
Bush set out to wither away the American state. What all these nice people are doing is acknowledging his success.
Okay, there are some - maybe a lot - of "public-spirited," "results-oriented" people and corporations determined to do what's "good for humanity." Unfortunately, they get to decide what's good for humanity. All the rest of us, who don't play in their league and who used to count on our votes to do good for humanity, are quickly losing any voice in the way the country is run. And what we'll get is handouts from the private folks - maybe.
It's a very nice way of looking at the demise of popular democracy. Friedman doesn't get that, and he never will.
Monday, December 03, 2007
THE OTHER
People are hanging nooses on the doors of blacks. Again. What in the hell is going on in this country?
Well - I believe I know.
I have said before that we are seeing a huge resurgence in the power of the Southern attitude. As if, since Roosevelt, we have re-fought the Civil War, the North has lost and the South controls all.
Now, I am talking about an attitude - and it can be held, or not held, by Northerners and Southerners alike. The attitude is primarily expressed in disregard, contempt, resentment or hatred of "the other"; extreme self-interest; a sense of being persecuted; and a refusal to curtail any personal behavior for the sake of society at large (including "the other") to the extent of a strong willingnes to curtail the behavior of "the other" in order to remove any interference in economic or other self-expression. For people who don't believe in Darwin, it's an oddly Darwinian concept - an essentially operational endorsement of survival of the fittest (as defined by them, of course.)
As with many other movements governed by this sort of thought process - the Nazis most graphically come to mind - they feel both superior to and threatened by "the other." The threat is posed not by the actions of thoughts of "the other," but is inherent in the very nature and existence of "the other." So there is no compromise with "the other," and these folks will take "the other" as far down the road to extinction as the current political and social climate allows. Including the use of physical force, which has been an honored part of the Southern tradition.
I just didn't think the climate would allow lynch threats to resurface - but, if you stop to think about it, it's only the next step in what has been going on since Nixon invented the Southern strategy.
I live in the South, and I find most Southerners personally very endearing. But something is going on in some of their heads that they can't control and which is extremely disturbing to a cosmo Jew like me. I regret to have to say it, but when I hear a Southern accent these days (at least in a political context) I tend to think of the speaker as a potential enemy.
I can get past it with John Edwards. The others, I don't know.
Well - I believe I know.
I have said before that we are seeing a huge resurgence in the power of the Southern attitude. As if, since Roosevelt, we have re-fought the Civil War, the North has lost and the South controls all.
Now, I am talking about an attitude - and it can be held, or not held, by Northerners and Southerners alike. The attitude is primarily expressed in disregard, contempt, resentment or hatred of "the other"; extreme self-interest; a sense of being persecuted; and a refusal to curtail any personal behavior for the sake of society at large (including "the other") to the extent of a strong willingnes to curtail the behavior of "the other" in order to remove any interference in economic or other self-expression. For people who don't believe in Darwin, it's an oddly Darwinian concept - an essentially operational endorsement of survival of the fittest (as defined by them, of course.)
As with many other movements governed by this sort of thought process - the Nazis most graphically come to mind - they feel both superior to and threatened by "the other." The threat is posed not by the actions of thoughts of "the other," but is inherent in the very nature and existence of "the other." So there is no compromise with "the other," and these folks will take "the other" as far down the road to extinction as the current political and social climate allows. Including the use of physical force, which has been an honored part of the Southern tradition.
I just didn't think the climate would allow lynch threats to resurface - but, if you stop to think about it, it's only the next step in what has been going on since Nixon invented the Southern strategy.
I live in the South, and I find most Southerners personally very endearing. But something is going on in some of their heads that they can't control and which is extremely disturbing to a cosmo Jew like me. I regret to have to say it, but when I hear a Southern accent these days (at least in a political context) I tend to think of the speaker as a potential enemy.
I can get past it with John Edwards. The others, I don't know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
+(2)+(Custom).jpg)
