Do we need a president with experience or a president with vision? If we can't have one with both.
What concerns me about a candidate who runs hard on experience is this:
No president can do everything he or she is called on to do. No president can know everything he or she is going to have to know. Any president has to depend heavily on the ideas and the knowledge of the people he or she brings into his or her inner circle (God, I can't wait until this thing is over and I don't have to keep including both genders). So it seems to me that what's important is:
1) what is the general direction of the candidate's thinking, what is his or her evident intelligence, what are the dogmas if any which affect that thinking, and what conclusions can we draw about where he or she is likely to go on any particular issue?
2) who is he or she going to consult with or rely on? That is a question every candidate should be compelled to answer.
3) if he or she is confronted with different but equally perceptive opinions, does he or she have the personal strength to decide between them?
4) Once having decided, does he or she have the moral strength, or leadership capacity, or negotiating skills to make what's decided on happen, and to bring the public along?
I don't know what else you can expect from a president.
If these had been the questions people had asked about George Bush, and voters had acted on the answers to those questions instead of irrelevant biases or personal gain, we never would have had to live with the guy.
BLOG POSTS
Thursday, January 31, 2008
MESSAGE TO AMERICA
The Times reports on an artificial spinal disc which was approved by the FDA on the basis of supposedly independent research done by doctors and researchers with an unrevealed financial stake in the product.
Blame Bush? No. Blame what gave us Bush.
All this campaign talk about "change" doesn't mean a thing. Everyone seems to be begging for someone at the top to turn us into better people - or, actually, to turn all the others guys into better people. You can't change the nature of a society from the top if the goal is to make it a better place. You can only change society from the top if you want to replace it with something controlled by a minority - i.e, totalitarianism - as Bush has been doing for all these years. A saint can't make us saintly unless we want to be.
What needs to "change" is us. All of us who don't benefit by this corrupt society need to become less indifferent to what's being done to us. And all of those who have seized on public indifference to defraud, rape, pillage etc. need to be removed, then tried, then destroyed.
The danger of Obama's campaign is that we will vote for him because he inspires us to do good. Then we'll figure we've done what we had to do, and leave it to him to make the changes. Oh, we'll feel pretty good about ourselves. But we won't change a goddamn thing.
Sorry, people, that don't work. In the end, he'll turn out like Carter - a political failure.
Message to America: CHANGE YOURSELF. Message to preachers, rabbis, priests, etc.: DO WHAT YOU'RE PAID FOR. THEORETICALLY.
(I don't include therapists (secular priests) in this category, because as far as I'm concerned their job is to adjust us to what is. They're as likely to numb any real hope for progress as to encourage it. What the world needs now is the right kind of fucking crazy people. God help us if the therapists get to them first. If they'd gotten to Jesus, he'd have been working on the local Wall Street equivalent and feeling really good and really healthy about it.)
Blame Bush? No. Blame what gave us Bush.
All this campaign talk about "change" doesn't mean a thing. Everyone seems to be begging for someone at the top to turn us into better people - or, actually, to turn all the others guys into better people. You can't change the nature of a society from the top if the goal is to make it a better place. You can only change society from the top if you want to replace it with something controlled by a minority - i.e, totalitarianism - as Bush has been doing for all these years. A saint can't make us saintly unless we want to be.
What needs to "change" is us. All of us who don't benefit by this corrupt society need to become less indifferent to what's being done to us. And all of those who have seized on public indifference to defraud, rape, pillage etc. need to be removed, then tried, then destroyed.
The danger of Obama's campaign is that we will vote for him because he inspires us to do good. Then we'll figure we've done what we had to do, and leave it to him to make the changes. Oh, we'll feel pretty good about ourselves. But we won't change a goddamn thing.
Sorry, people, that don't work. In the end, he'll turn out like Carter - a political failure.
Message to America: CHANGE YOURSELF. Message to preachers, rabbis, priests, etc.: DO WHAT YOU'RE PAID FOR. THEORETICALLY.
(I don't include therapists (secular priests) in this category, because as far as I'm concerned their job is to adjust us to what is. They're as likely to numb any real hope for progress as to encourage it. What the world needs now is the right kind of fucking crazy people. God help us if the therapists get to them first. If they'd gotten to Jesus, he'd have been working on the local Wall Street equivalent and feeling really good and really healthy about it.)
SOUTHERN FEARS
The New York Times did a story on Southern fears as they impact southerners choices in the presidential race. The fear they most often cited was of Islamic terrorists. And it struck me that the two attacks by Muslims in the US were perpetrated on cities which had essentially liberal leanings - New York City and Washington, D.C. (which is liberal when you look at the permanent population, not the political visitors). No Muslim has attacked a Southern state, nor are they likely to - what, after all, would they think of as a worthwhile target there? The 9/11 hijackers spent a year in Florida, but they didn't go after Miami or Tallahassee. So is the Southern fear of terrorists disingenuous?
I think what it really says is that Southerners are still resentful of the economic successes of the North. They resent the fact that even stupid Muslims don't think they're a target worth hitting. They don't like the fact that Mexicans are working hard here - though they would be hardpressed to name a job they might have wanted that they couldn't get because an illegal Mexican had it. But they aren't doing much about any of this - except for the Texans, who just took over everything.
This is plain old KnowNothingism resentment. And anti-black resentment as usual. They claim to believe Obama is a Muslim. But they don't need that factor to hate Obama. It's historical fact in the Deep South that the success of any black man is resented and resisted. It really isn't good for your ego to find yourself less worthy than a goddamn nigger.
The interesting thing about this attitude is that they share it with the jihadists, whose motivations for hating the US are founded on just as ridiculous prejudices. Why should southerners fear Muslims when they're both up the same Shit Creek? Because the ones you hate most are the ones who are most like you, but aren't you. That's low risk hatred. No effort involved.
I think what it really says is that Southerners are still resentful of the economic successes of the North. They resent the fact that even stupid Muslims don't think they're a target worth hitting. They don't like the fact that Mexicans are working hard here - though they would be hardpressed to name a job they might have wanted that they couldn't get because an illegal Mexican had it. But they aren't doing much about any of this - except for the Texans, who just took over everything.
This is plain old KnowNothingism resentment. And anti-black resentment as usual. They claim to believe Obama is a Muslim. But they don't need that factor to hate Obama. It's historical fact in the Deep South that the success of any black man is resented and resisted. It really isn't good for your ego to find yourself less worthy than a goddamn nigger.
The interesting thing about this attitude is that they share it with the jihadists, whose motivations for hating the US are founded on just as ridiculous prejudices. Why should southerners fear Muslims when they're both up the same Shit Creek? Because the ones you hate most are the ones who are most like you, but aren't you. That's low risk hatred. No effort involved.
VERY SMART
Kudos to the Republicans. They are on their way to picking their strongest candidate.
What is truly remarkable to me is that the Republican mainstream and their rabid radicals and their evangelicals and their talk show hosts are either stepping back or being rendered (by the voting public) irrelevant to this race. It's like the breaking of an eight-year fever - all the germs are isolated and will probably stay that way at least until McCain's nomination is cinched. At that point, they're either going to stay quiet or they're going to lend their infection to McCain. Either way we get to benefit. We either get some peace and quiet, or they turn the McCain campaign into something the public can't stomach another four years of.
If that doesn't happen, McCain could beat either Democrat - but much more likely Hillary. As Frank Luntz says - and there's a guy I hate to agree with - Hillary can't top McCain on experience, on the war or on personal character. McCain is somewhat of a mythic figure, and Hillary has massive negatives. She might be a better president than Obama, but I don't think she can defeat McCain.
What is truly remarkable to me is that the Republican mainstream and their rabid radicals and their evangelicals and their talk show hosts are either stepping back or being rendered (by the voting public) irrelevant to this race. It's like the breaking of an eight-year fever - all the germs are isolated and will probably stay that way at least until McCain's nomination is cinched. At that point, they're either going to stay quiet or they're going to lend their infection to McCain. Either way we get to benefit. We either get some peace and quiet, or they turn the McCain campaign into something the public can't stomach another four years of.
If that doesn't happen, McCain could beat either Democrat - but much more likely Hillary. As Frank Luntz says - and there's a guy I hate to agree with - Hillary can't top McCain on experience, on the war or on personal character. McCain is somewhat of a mythic figure, and Hillary has massive negatives. She might be a better president than Obama, but I don't think she can defeat McCain.
THE RIGHT THING
I guess I'm not so stupid, dear Daily Kos commenters.
Edwards is out. It's sad, but he had no choice.
So far he is not endorsing either Clinton or Obama. From his perspective at this point, I expect that's wise while negotiations with both camps go on behind the scene which could - depending on what's important to Edwards - position either him or his policy positions for the rest of the campaign and beyond.
I have been advocating his alliance with Obama. If he chooses not to do that, I can live with it. But I think it's critically important that Edwards remain visible in this campaign, because his anti-corporatism message is not well presented by the others and it needs to be front and center in November. Unfortunately, out of the race, Edwards will get no press attention unless he allies himself in a big way with one or the other of the candidates. And Hillary is no anti-corporatist.
I can understand why Obama would not want to limit himself at this point by picking Edwards as his vice president now. But I do think Edwards needs to go on the road with Obama, making his anti-corporatist points and, as I have suggested many times, being the point man on Clinton attacks, leaving Obama free to stay on the high road.
Where Edwards voters go could determine the nomination. So I hope Edwards does the right thing.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
Edwards is out. It's sad, but he had no choice.
So far he is not endorsing either Clinton or Obama. From his perspective at this point, I expect that's wise while negotiations with both camps go on behind the scene which could - depending on what's important to Edwards - position either him or his policy positions for the rest of the campaign and beyond.
I have been advocating his alliance with Obama. If he chooses not to do that, I can live with it. But I think it's critically important that Edwards remain visible in this campaign, because his anti-corporatism message is not well presented by the others and it needs to be front and center in November. Unfortunately, out of the race, Edwards will get no press attention unless he allies himself in a big way with one or the other of the candidates. And Hillary is no anti-corporatist.
I can understand why Obama would not want to limit himself at this point by picking Edwards as his vice president now. But I do think Edwards needs to go on the road with Obama, making his anti-corporatist points and, as I have suggested many times, being the point man on Clinton attacks, leaving Obama free to stay on the high road.
Where Edwards voters go could determine the nomination. So I hope Edwards does the right thing.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
THE SCLEROTIC VOTE
Hillary wins Florida. Not a surprise.
There has been a lot of talk about Florida being a state with a lot of disparate constituencies. As a transplanted Floridian, I don't think that's true.
Democrats in Florida are probably older as a party than anywhere else. Most old people don't like change - it frightens them. Most of them haven't had a new thought in at least a decade. They need dependability. They like what they know. That rules out Obama. They know Hillary. She gets the sclerotic vote.
They need to live, for the most part, on just enough money. They don't like a rocky economy. That helps Hillary - everyone remembers how good things were with Bill.
That makes Florida as unimportant an indicator on the Democratic side as South Carolina. The energy (and the youth) are on the Republican side in Florida. That's why their race is so interesting here.
So we move to Super Tuesday, where the real Democratic game will be played. The big Super Tuesday states really do have a variety of Democratic constituencies.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
There has been a lot of talk about Florida being a state with a lot of disparate constituencies. As a transplanted Floridian, I don't think that's true.
Democrats in Florida are probably older as a party than anywhere else. Most old people don't like change - it frightens them. Most of them haven't had a new thought in at least a decade. They need dependability. They like what they know. That rules out Obama. They know Hillary. She gets the sclerotic vote.
They need to live, for the most part, on just enough money. They don't like a rocky economy. That helps Hillary - everyone remembers how good things were with Bill.
That makes Florida as unimportant an indicator on the Democratic side as South Carolina. The energy (and the youth) are on the Republican side in Florida. That's why their race is so interesting here.
So we move to Super Tuesday, where the real Democratic game will be played. The big Super Tuesday states really do have a variety of Democratic constituencies.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
HOW ABOUT RELIGIOUS PARTIES?
The Washington Post printed an article by two Catholics who bemoaned the fact they couldn't find anyone to vote for. The Democrats were too aggressively pro-abortion; the Republicans were too aggressively pro-war and pro-death penalty. They considered holding their noses and voting their pocketbooks, but they just couldn't vote against their moral (i.e. religious) convictions.
I understand. I share their pain. I can't vote for a candidate who has made a contribution to the destruction of the American middle class. I guess you could call that a religious conviction.
Why don't we just create religious parties and have done with it? Of course, we'd wind up with several thousand of them, as sect split from sect, but in the end we'd each have a candidate with whom we completely agreed. Not only that, if we elected a president by party plurality, 2% of the voters could pick the president.
Nobody likes to compromise.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
I understand. I share their pain. I can't vote for a candidate who has made a contribution to the destruction of the American middle class. I guess you could call that a religious conviction.
Why don't we just create religious parties and have done with it? Of course, we'd wind up with several thousand of them, as sect split from sect, but in the end we'd each have a candidate with whom we completely agreed. Not only that, if we elected a president by party plurality, 2% of the voters could pick the president.
Nobody likes to compromise.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
A BIG THANKS
I just realized how lucky we in Florida are that over all these months of the presidential campaign the only political ads we've seen are Rudy Giuliani's. Hey, I'm not saying I liked Giuliani's - I'm saying we were blessedly saved from the onslaughts of all the others.
Don't know why the other Republicans kept it quiet in Florida. The Democrats had to, once the party punished Florida for moving up its primary without party permission. At this point, the Florida Democratic primary selects no delegates who will be seated at the party's convention.
But I will bet you that the absence of ads made absolutely no difference. Apparently the Democratic turnout is high. There is more than enough national coverage for Florida voters to make up their minds fairly intelligently without being battered by repetitive ads.
So maybe we owe a big thanks to the Democratic party. We got the same results without being annoyed. And I will also bet you that, down the road, the Florida delegates get seated at the convention - the argument being you can't deprive people of their votes.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
Don't know why the other Republicans kept it quiet in Florida. The Democrats had to, once the party punished Florida for moving up its primary without party permission. At this point, the Florida Democratic primary selects no delegates who will be seated at the party's convention.
But I will bet you that the absence of ads made absolutely no difference. Apparently the Democratic turnout is high. There is more than enough national coverage for Florida voters to make up their minds fairly intelligently without being battered by repetitive ads.
So maybe we owe a big thanks to the Democratic party. We got the same results without being annoyed. And I will also bet you that, down the road, the Florida delegates get seated at the convention - the argument being you can't deprive people of their votes.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
Saturday, January 26, 2008
TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE
Good result for Obama - but I don't like the way the white vote broke. He only got 25% of it. Of course, this was the Deep South, and the fact that a black man got any white votes is pretty remarkable. Probably all came from Charleston gays and women who don't like Hillary.
Half of the voters were black (they broke 80% for Obama.) This is not going to be the case in the Super Tuesday states, so this result is essentially meaningless.
Friday I wrote that Edwards was going to come in third. I got raked over the coals for that on Daily Kos. The fact that I was right was not due to dumb luck. It's called prognostication, and it's based on logic and facts. So let me put it bluntly: as a liberal, I don't like discovering liberal blockheads, any more than, as a Jew, I like discovering Jewish blockheads. Theoretically, there are not supposed to be any of either. We're supposed to be too smart and educated for that.
I feel bad for Edwards. I still think he's the most electable Democrat, and the one who's making the most sense. But, unfortunately, he's running in a year when the last thing Democrats want to do is put up a Southern white man. We have had just a few too many of those in the White House lately. Everyone's excited about "transformational change." Whether a transformational change can beat the Republicans I am not prepared to prognosticate now.
I'm not going to repeat my plea to Edwards again. But I will add that the likelihood of a brokered convention is extremely low. My instincts, ten days before the vote, tell me that without unification of the Obama and Edwards camps, Hillary is going to take the Super Tuesday states. They are bastions of old politics, all of them - just the kind of thing she loves to work.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
Half of the voters were black (they broke 80% for Obama.) This is not going to be the case in the Super Tuesday states, so this result is essentially meaningless.
Friday I wrote that Edwards was going to come in third. I got raked over the coals for that on Daily Kos. The fact that I was right was not due to dumb luck. It's called prognostication, and it's based on logic and facts. So let me put it bluntly: as a liberal, I don't like discovering liberal blockheads, any more than, as a Jew, I like discovering Jewish blockheads. Theoretically, there are not supposed to be any of either. We're supposed to be too smart and educated for that.
I feel bad for Edwards. I still think he's the most electable Democrat, and the one who's making the most sense. But, unfortunately, he's running in a year when the last thing Democrats want to do is put up a Southern white man. We have had just a few too many of those in the White House lately. Everyone's excited about "transformational change." Whether a transformational change can beat the Republicans I am not prepared to prognosticate now.
I'm not going to repeat my plea to Edwards again. But I will add that the likelihood of a brokered convention is extremely low. My instincts, ten days before the vote, tell me that without unification of the Obama and Edwards camps, Hillary is going to take the Super Tuesday states. They are bastions of old politics, all of them - just the kind of thing she loves to work.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
Friday, January 25, 2008
FOOLS
Every once in a while I put one of these posts up on Daily Kos because I think it's an idea that needs to go farther than this blog goes.
And every time I do, I relearn the lesson that there are plenty of foolish Democrats.
And every time I do, I relearn the lesson that there are plenty of foolish Democrats.
THE UNITY TICKET
Presuming that Edwards comes in third in South Carolina tomorrow, the time has come for the anti-Clinton forces to unify.
It's tragic that Edwards did not do better, and I still believe he would have the best chance against McCain (as polls seem to show), but he's got no chance - if he ever had one. On the other hand, if he joins with Obama as the vice presidential candidate, he can take over the role of anti-Bill attack dog - a role I'm sure he could play extremely well. If he keeps dividing the anti-Clinton vote, only Hillary will benefit, and Edwards begins to look like an intra-party Ralph Nader.
I don't see a downside for Edwards. If Hlllary had any inclination to pick him as vice president - which I can't imagine - I don't believe Edwards would have a moment of comfort in that position. If he opts with Obama and Obama loses, Edwards is no worse off than he is now in terms of making another run down the road. If he goes with Obama and Obama wins, there's a good possibility Edwards may have the same problem with Obama as he'd have with Hillary - but it's less of a possibility, and anyway it's time for the vice presidency to return to its historical role after Cheney played Rasputin to Bush the Tzar. Regrettably, Edwards just hasn't earned more.
It's tragic that Edwards did not do better, and I still believe he would have the best chance against McCain (as polls seem to show), but he's got no chance - if he ever had one. On the other hand, if he joins with Obama as the vice presidential candidate, he can take over the role of anti-Bill attack dog - a role I'm sure he could play extremely well. If he keeps dividing the anti-Clinton vote, only Hillary will benefit, and Edwards begins to look like an intra-party Ralph Nader.
I don't see a downside for Edwards. If Hlllary had any inclination to pick him as vice president - which I can't imagine - I don't believe Edwards would have a moment of comfort in that position. If he opts with Obama and Obama loses, Edwards is no worse off than he is now in terms of making another run down the road. If he goes with Obama and Obama wins, there's a good possibility Edwards may have the same problem with Obama as he'd have with Hillary - but it's less of a possibility, and anyway it's time for the vice presidency to return to its historical role after Cheney played Rasputin to Bush the Tzar. Regrettably, Edwards just hasn't earned more.
I AGREE WITH GERSON?
I hate agreeing with Michael Gerson. Or, in fact, anyone who looks like Michael Gerson (just too damn clean.) Nevertheless, he said this, and I think he's right.
Given the Clintons' cultivation of ruthlessness as a political art, none of this is surprising. Obama is the soaring candidate -- the candidate of idealism and aspiration. Clinton's only hope is to bring him down to earth, then bury him in flying dirt. Clinton prefers a war of attrition -- blow for bloody blow -- because her team is better at the tactics of politics. Unable to inspire, Clinton chooses to destroy.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
THANK YOU RONALD REAGAN
The housing market in South Florida is the worst in the country. What a surprise. This is the place where developers crammed houses on every square inch of field and orange grove, and where flippers bought up all these unusable homes in the hopes of getting rich. This is the place where government placed no restraints on development - in fact, in West Palm Beach, they got paid off for encouraging it.
No one would care if the effects of unrestrained capitalism were only felt by those who were playing the game. But of course, that's not how it is - and the bailout impetus is towards helping the players, not the innocent victims, again perpetrating the Republican view that government should stay out of everything except when the rich need help.
Thank you, Ronald Reagan - and all who voted for him. I hope everyone of you has a house you can't sell.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
No one would care if the effects of unrestrained capitalism were only felt by those who were playing the game. But of course, that's not how it is - and the bailout impetus is towards helping the players, not the innocent victims, again perpetrating the Republican view that government should stay out of everything except when the rich need help.
Thank you, Ronald Reagan - and all who voted for him. I hope everyone of you has a house you can't sell.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
FRACTURE
Recent polling data suggests sharply that in South Carolina white women are going for Hillary, blacks are going for Obama and white men are going for Edwards. And this is a good thing?
It remains to be seen whether this is a South Carolina or a national phenomenon. The remarkable thing is that Hillary's unified dominance has - at least in S.C. - disappeared. One wonders whether one or all of the candidates is responsible for this fracturing along ethnic and gender lines, or whether the split was inevitable. I don't know if we'll ever know. Meanwhile, all sides take leave of reality and we re-enter the awful political game we've been playing these last eight years.
The good thing about a homogeneous candidate pool - like the Republicans - is that when voting you focus on who the candidate is, not what group he belongs to. Democrats are getting bitter, and the reason is pretty obvious - I don't even have to mention it. The glorious early days of this campaign - the real campaign, not the one in the minds of the press which had Hillary sweeping everything a year ago - in which Democrats felt they couldn't lose in 2008, and in which they were hoping for some uplifting from the current dungheap, are over now.
That's good for Hillary, I suppose. But not so good for the country. Add these enmities to the ones which already exist, and I'm not so sure the lady is going to get to be president.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
It remains to be seen whether this is a South Carolina or a national phenomenon. The remarkable thing is that Hillary's unified dominance has - at least in S.C. - disappeared. One wonders whether one or all of the candidates is responsible for this fracturing along ethnic and gender lines, or whether the split was inevitable. I don't know if we'll ever know. Meanwhile, all sides take leave of reality and we re-enter the awful political game we've been playing these last eight years.
The good thing about a homogeneous candidate pool - like the Republicans - is that when voting you focus on who the candidate is, not what group he belongs to. Democrats are getting bitter, and the reason is pretty obvious - I don't even have to mention it. The glorious early days of this campaign - the real campaign, not the one in the minds of the press which had Hillary sweeping everything a year ago - in which Democrats felt they couldn't lose in 2008, and in which they were hoping for some uplifting from the current dungheap, are over now.
That's good for Hillary, I suppose. But not so good for the country. Add these enmities to the ones which already exist, and I'm not so sure the lady is going to get to be president.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
Thursday, January 24, 2008
BITCH-SLAPPIN'
Kathleen Parker inadvertently raises an interesting question in her recent column:
What if the Republican nominee picks Condi Rice for vice president?
Would some women desert Hillary? Will the Republican male stand above the fray as the two women bitch-slap each other? (Think that's a pig's question? Not in a race where Bill Clinton is already bitch-slapping Obama.)
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, condoleeza rice
What if the Republican nominee picks Condi Rice for vice president?
Would some women desert Hillary? Will the Republican male stand above the fray as the two women bitch-slap each other? (Think that's a pig's question? Not in a race where Bill Clinton is already bitch-slapping Obama.)
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, condoleeza rice
YEAH, WELL ...
Judging from the market's performance over the last few days (and previously), you'd have to conclude that the folks who really run the market have two guiding principles:
1) Scare investors into panic selling, and then
2) Buy up the bargains
This is a perfectly legitimate way to manipulate a market, and it's easy to do with the help of the media and this government.
But shouldn't the importance of the market to our economy be de-emphasized in view of the above? If all it is is a very large poker table, does the level of the Dow mean anything real? Shouldn't we base economic policy - particularly when bailouts are under discussion - on the actual performance of the companies that make up the economy, and not how that performance is or is not reflected in the stock market?
Yeah, well ...
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
1) Scare investors into panic selling, and then
2) Buy up the bargains
This is a perfectly legitimate way to manipulate a market, and it's easy to do with the help of the media and this government.
But shouldn't the importance of the market to our economy be de-emphasized in view of the above? If all it is is a very large poker table, does the level of the Dow mean anything real? Shouldn't we base economic policy - particularly when bailouts are under discussion - on the actual performance of the companies that make up the economy, and not how that performance is or is not reflected in the stock market?
Yeah, well ...
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
THE TRUTH
Polling in Florida shows that Democratic women are going heavily for Hillary to "advance the cause of women." Here's my question:
If Condoleeza Rice were running, and not Hillary, what would they do? Are they voting for Hillary because she is a woman or because she is the woman she is?
I know what their answer would be. But I'd love to know the truth.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
If Condoleeza Rice were running, and not Hillary, what would they do? Are they voting for Hillary because she is a woman or because she is the woman she is?
I know what their answer would be. But I'd love to know the truth.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
A KIND OF JOY
I can imagine the joy in the media boardrooms when word got out about Heath Ledger's death. Another Anna Nicole that they can milk for six months.
And I'm sure there are plenty of stars who are taking the chance to express their sadness over his death when they never knew him or, perhaps, didn't even like him.
All that is understandable. What I don't understand is the part of the public that feeds these self-promoting sobfests.
Heath Ledger was not exactly at the top of the A list. So I want to talk about the reaction of "fans" who had only the vaguest idea who he was.
Are they genuinely sad that a young man has died? Does this mean that they are sad whenever a young man dies? Forgive me, but I don't think so.
Are they sad because a star was cut off too young? If so, why? Do they feel they have been deprived of something? I don't think so.
Or are they sad because they like being sad about things don't affect them - as opposed to being sad about things that do, like losing your job, or hating your spouse, or hating yourself?
There is a kind of joy in expressing this kind of sadness - or sadness about a young girl killed in a car accident who you never knew, or maybe had a little contact with. It is self-validating to mourn - it makes you feel good that you are capable of this sort of feeling whether or not there is a logic to your mourning that person. There's a pleasure in knowing that even the rich and famous have problems. Maybe it isn't so good to be rich - as if you ever could be.
This is all deeper than I can go, and I would appreciate others' thoughts on this. I don't know if it's a new phenomenon or as old as the human race. I don't know if there's a class factor, or an educational factor. But someone must have studied this - and it fascinates me.
ags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
And I'm sure there are plenty of stars who are taking the chance to express their sadness over his death when they never knew him or, perhaps, didn't even like him.
All that is understandable. What I don't understand is the part of the public that feeds these self-promoting sobfests.
Heath Ledger was not exactly at the top of the A list. So I want to talk about the reaction of "fans" who had only the vaguest idea who he was.
Are they genuinely sad that a young man has died? Does this mean that they are sad whenever a young man dies? Forgive me, but I don't think so.
Are they sad because a star was cut off too young? If so, why? Do they feel they have been deprived of something? I don't think so.
Or are they sad because they like being sad about things don't affect them - as opposed to being sad about things that do, like losing your job, or hating your spouse, or hating yourself?
There is a kind of joy in expressing this kind of sadness - or sadness about a young girl killed in a car accident who you never knew, or maybe had a little contact with. It is self-validating to mourn - it makes you feel good that you are capable of this sort of feeling whether or not there is a logic to your mourning that person. There's a pleasure in knowing that even the rich and famous have problems. Maybe it isn't so good to be rich - as if you ever could be.
This is all deeper than I can go, and I would appreciate others' thoughts on this. I don't know if it's a new phenomenon or as old as the human race. I don't know if there's a class factor, or an educational factor. But someone must have studied this - and it fascinates me.
ags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
UNBELIEVABLE
This one from Robert Borosage on the Huffington Post needs to be reprinted in full:
"As long as the music is playing, you've got to get up and dance. We're still dancing."
These now immortal words of former Citibank President Charles "Chuck" Prince were made in July, as Citibank was about to lose billions in everything from mortgages to credit cards. Prince departed with a reported $68 million goodbye package. Stanley O'Neal, who led Merrill Lynch to write off a record $9.9 billion in last quarter, departed with a $161 severance package.
Now the top five Wall Street banks -- three of which racked up record losses -- have announced that they are paying their employees a record $39 billion in year end bonuses. Hemorrhaging losses, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and Bear Sterns had to increase the percentage of revenue they devote to employee pay to ladle out these bonuses. So much for pay for performance.
Bank spokesman were not exactly lining up to justify this but Jeanne Branthover, managing director of a global search firm, helpfully explained: "It's essential that pay is still there or you're going to lose really good people."
Well. Is she talking about the really good people whose feckless speculation is now pushing the global economy into recession and will cost hundreds of thousands of Americans their homes? The really good people whose "dancing" got so risqué that the somnambulant Federal Reserve just issued new regulations requiring bankers to assess whether the borrowers they are lending money to actually have a blue moon chance at repaying the loan? The wizards who, as Alan Sloan points out in the Washington Post, spent the last couple years buying back their stock at the top of the market, only to be forced to sell it off to foreign investors at the bottom in the desperate effort to keep from going belly-up. Merrill, Sloan reports, bought back stock at $84 per share earlier in the year, only to sell over $12 billion in common and preferred stock at roughly $49 a share in the last weeks. Citibank, Sloan notes, purchased $20 billion of its own stock over the last two years paying around $53 bucks a share last year, and just was forced to raise $20 billion from the sovereign funds of Abu Dhabi and Singapore in complicated options that price around $30 a share.
Stock buyback plans do help elevate the stock price. And that, of course, makes executive stock options more valuable. And that likely is the next thing we'll learn about these really good people. They've pushed the economy over the cliff, led their banks to the verge of bankruptcy, fed the folly that will cost families their homes -- but they pocketed the stock options at the top, and walked away with bonuses at the bottom. No wonder Martin Wolf, economics editor and columnist at the establishment Financial Times, is now calling on the US government to regulate banker pay. But don't worry, Congress and the Fed are too busy dealing with the mess to even consider such heresy. Keep dancing Chuck.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
"As long as the music is playing, you've got to get up and dance. We're still dancing."
These now immortal words of former Citibank President Charles "Chuck" Prince were made in July, as Citibank was about to lose billions in everything from mortgages to credit cards. Prince departed with a reported $68 million goodbye package. Stanley O'Neal, who led Merrill Lynch to write off a record $9.9 billion in last quarter, departed with a $161 severance package.
Now the top five Wall Street banks -- three of which racked up record losses -- have announced that they are paying their employees a record $39 billion in year end bonuses. Hemorrhaging losses, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and Bear Sterns had to increase the percentage of revenue they devote to employee pay to ladle out these bonuses. So much for pay for performance.
Bank spokesman were not exactly lining up to justify this but Jeanne Branthover, managing director of a global search firm, helpfully explained: "It's essential that pay is still there or you're going to lose really good people."
Well. Is she talking about the really good people whose feckless speculation is now pushing the global economy into recession and will cost hundreds of thousands of Americans their homes? The really good people whose "dancing" got so risqué that the somnambulant Federal Reserve just issued new regulations requiring bankers to assess whether the borrowers they are lending money to actually have a blue moon chance at repaying the loan? The wizards who, as Alan Sloan points out in the Washington Post, spent the last couple years buying back their stock at the top of the market, only to be forced to sell it off to foreign investors at the bottom in the desperate effort to keep from going belly-up. Merrill, Sloan reports, bought back stock at $84 per share earlier in the year, only to sell over $12 billion in common and preferred stock at roughly $49 a share in the last weeks. Citibank, Sloan notes, purchased $20 billion of its own stock over the last two years paying around $53 bucks a share last year, and just was forced to raise $20 billion from the sovereign funds of Abu Dhabi and Singapore in complicated options that price around $30 a share.
Stock buyback plans do help elevate the stock price. And that, of course, makes executive stock options more valuable. And that likely is the next thing we'll learn about these really good people. They've pushed the economy over the cliff, led their banks to the verge of bankruptcy, fed the folly that will cost families their homes -- but they pocketed the stock options at the top, and walked away with bonuses at the bottom. No wonder Martin Wolf, economics editor and columnist at the establishment Financial Times, is now calling on the US government to regulate banker pay. But don't worry, Congress and the Fed are too busy dealing with the mess to even consider such heresy. Keep dancing Chuck.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
IRAQ BULLSHIT
Read this one about all the bullshit the Bush Administration put out to get us into a war with Iraq.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, bush, iraq
Monday, January 21, 2008
WELL?
Let's suppose the Depression starts tomorrow. How long will it be before you can't fly from Palm Beach to Chicago because all the runway slots are taken by Gulfstreams heading for the Caymans, loaded with furniture and Picassos?
2008 BUMPER STICKERS
Thanks to Persephone for forwarding these:
1. Bush: End of an Error
2. That's OK, I Wasn't Using My Civil Liberties Anyway
3. Let's Fix Democracy in this Country First
4. If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran
5. Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber.
6. If You Can Read This, You're Not Our President
7. Of Course It Hurts: You're Getting Screwed by an Elephant!
8. Hey, Bush Supporters: Embarrassed Yet?
9. George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight
10. Impeachment: It's Not Just for Blow Jobs Anymore
11. America: One Nation, Under Surveillance
12. They Call Him "W" So He Can Spell It
13. Whose God Do You Kill For?
14. Jail to the Chief
15. No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade Iraq ?
16. We Need a President Who's Fluent In At Least One Language
17. We're Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them
18. Is It Vietnam Yet?
19. Bush Doesn't Care About White People, Either
20. Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Hand basket?
21. You Elected Him. You Deserve Him.
22. When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46
23. Pray For Impeachment
24. The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century
25. What Part of "Bush Lied" Don't You Understand?
26. One Nation Under Clod
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
1. Bush: End of an Error
2. That's OK, I Wasn't Using My Civil Liberties Anyway
3. Let's Fix Democracy in this Country First
4. If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran
5. Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber.
6. If You Can Read This, You're Not Our President
7. Of Course It Hurts: You're Getting Screwed by an Elephant!
8. Hey, Bush Supporters: Embarrassed Yet?
9. George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight
10. Impeachment: It's Not Just for Blow Jobs Anymore
11. America: One Nation, Under Surveillance
12. They Call Him "W" So He Can Spell It
13. Whose God Do You Kill For?
14. Jail to the Chief
15. No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade Iraq ?
16. We Need a President Who's Fluent In At Least One Language
17. We're Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them
18. Is It Vietnam Yet?
19. Bush Doesn't Care About White People, Either
20. Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Hand basket?
21. You Elected Him. You Deserve Him.
22. When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46
23. Pray For Impeachment
24. The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century
25. What Part of "Bush Lied" Don't You Understand?
26. One Nation Under Clod
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
QUESTION FOR HUCKABEE
Certainly the law should require that American wages at least slightly exceed inflation. That could be done easily enough - simply by diverting some profit into wages. Or, if there is no profit, cutting some other expense. But that does not address the inequality of pay between the rich and poor. Nor should it.
If someone has high skills and does great work, or invents something useful, they are entitled to expect pay far in excess of the average. It isn't even the huge size of the gap between CEO income and worker income that bothers me. It's where the money is coming from.
There are four ways in which the rich enrich themselves these days: they produce and/or sell something; they own something which increases in value; they get subsidies, and they pay low taxes. (OK, so I'm simplifying. Indulge me.)
It's the last two which offend me, because I pay for these subsidies in the taxes the US collects from me; and because they pay lower taxes, I pay more, and for more government services, than I should have to. That is the part of the inequality which is unjust.
American voters used to take it for granted that the wealthy paid taxes at a higher rate than the middle class. Reagan changed all that. Now, as Warren Buffet points out, his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. It is no longer believed that wealth bears certain general social responsibilities.
In many cases, the rich could not make the money they make without the money I involuntarily give them in subsidies. To then see them disclaim any responsibility for my welfare outrages me, considering how much responsibility I seem to have for theirs.
So - drop the subsidies, raise the taxes on the rich. You should get rich as a reward for something you do - which does not include being able to talk congresspeople into giving you tons of money.
Finally - stop nefarious financial practices. If people make great investments, more power to them. But if the money they invests comes from charging me 26% interest on a loan, well ... where's Jesus when we need him, Mr. Huckabee?
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
If someone has high skills and does great work, or invents something useful, they are entitled to expect pay far in excess of the average. It isn't even the huge size of the gap between CEO income and worker income that bothers me. It's where the money is coming from.
There are four ways in which the rich enrich themselves these days: they produce and/or sell something; they own something which increases in value; they get subsidies, and they pay low taxes. (OK, so I'm simplifying. Indulge me.)
It's the last two which offend me, because I pay for these subsidies in the taxes the US collects from me; and because they pay lower taxes, I pay more, and for more government services, than I should have to. That is the part of the inequality which is unjust.
American voters used to take it for granted that the wealthy paid taxes at a higher rate than the middle class. Reagan changed all that. Now, as Warren Buffet points out, his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. It is no longer believed that wealth bears certain general social responsibilities.
In many cases, the rich could not make the money they make without the money I involuntarily give them in subsidies. To then see them disclaim any responsibility for my welfare outrages me, considering how much responsibility I seem to have for theirs.
So - drop the subsidies, raise the taxes on the rich. You should get rich as a reward for something you do - which does not include being able to talk congresspeople into giving you tons of money.
Finally - stop nefarious financial practices. If people make great investments, more power to them. But if the money they invests comes from charging me 26% interest on a loan, well ... where's Jesus when we need him, Mr. Huckabee?
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
JUST WONDERING
Do you ever wonder why, in twenty years, Islamic militants have pulled off so few terror attacks in Western countries? It seems every incipient attack group is arrested before it succeeds. Either jihadists are generally incompetent - which would suggest our fear of them is quite a bit overblown - or worldwide surveillance is so intense that nobody - that means you - can make a move without it being watched and analyzed.
No wonder al Qaeda went to Iraq - at least they had a chance to get things done in the central front for incompetence of the American establishment.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, al qaeda
No wonder al Qaeda went to Iraq - at least they had a chance to get things done in the central front for incompetence of the American establishment.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, al qaeda
NOT THE NANNIES' SENATOR
Here is a New York Times article pointing out that Hillary is now claiming Edwards' populist mantle - more or less. She is said to differ from her husband's policies which had not a little to do with creating today's economic inequalities.
My question: why should I believe what she says, when she has substantial support from the people who helped to create this mess and would be hurt by what she claims she intends to do? As a matter of fact, what has she ever done on this?
Considering the current makeup of New York City, you don't get elected Senator from New York if people think you're going to do what she says she's going to do. Hillary Clinton is not the nannies' senator, nor the senator of the people who bus the tables at Le Cirque.
Oh - and I don't think it's part of her daily routine to carry coffee to complete strangers who make less than a million a year.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion,inequality, hillary clinton
PEACE AND QUIET
America, since Reagan, has been sold on the concept of "personal responsibility." Which means 1) if you make mistakes, you have to take the consequences; 2) if you aren't doing well, you have only yourself to blame, and 3)if you're going to make it, you're going to have to do it yourself.
It's a concept designed to fracture the social contract, which otherwise would tend to restrain rapacious behavior. And it doesnt really exist. CEO's screw up their companies (and America besides) and still walk away with millions of bucks.* Companies get huge subsides from the Federal government. Only the little guy is supposed to do it all himself.
So how do you judge a political candidate in terms of personal responsibility? It can't be done constitutionally, but here's what I would so:
I would ban all coverage of anything a candidate says. What I'd love to do is pass a law that says candidates can't speak, can't run TV ads, can't have surrogates speak for them. What they say is meaningless. What matters is what they've done. So you look at their record, you look at who's kicking in to their campaigns, you look at who their friends are, and their staffs. In other words, you get to know them before you vote - and you get some welcome peace and quiet, too.
*The explanation of why CEO's get paid so well when they screw up is that their exit provisions are negotiated when they are hired, and the contract has to be complied with. Nobody seems to remember that it's perfectly OK to put into those contracts a clause which says if you're negligent, malfeasant or incompetent, you don't get the parachute. The objection would be that with that kind of proviso, the corporation won't get the man it wants or needs. The response is: if a CEO candidate won't agree to a penalty if he fucks up, maybe he isn't the guy you should be hiring. But that isn't the way it goes, and here's why: up in that stratum, personal responsibiliry doesn't apply. You're protected by the other members of your class, or profession. These guys, who hate unions, are in fact in a de facto union - the union of past, present and future CEO's - and are protected by certain unwritten rules. (This explains why a sports manager who loses every game winds up, when he's fired, getting hired by another team. Once you reach a certain level in certain circles, competence is not a factor in whether you belong. As a matter of fact, it's like tenure. You can't get kicked out.) You don't want to see your confrere get hurt - it gives you nightmares of what might happen to you.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, personal responsibility
It's a concept designed to fracture the social contract, which otherwise would tend to restrain rapacious behavior. And it doesnt really exist. CEO's screw up their companies (and America besides) and still walk away with millions of bucks.* Companies get huge subsides from the Federal government. Only the little guy is supposed to do it all himself.
So how do you judge a political candidate in terms of personal responsibility? It can't be done constitutionally, but here's what I would so:
I would ban all coverage of anything a candidate says. What I'd love to do is pass a law that says candidates can't speak, can't run TV ads, can't have surrogates speak for them. What they say is meaningless. What matters is what they've done. So you look at their record, you look at who's kicking in to their campaigns, you look at who their friends are, and their staffs. In other words, you get to know them before you vote - and you get some welcome peace and quiet, too.
*The explanation of why CEO's get paid so well when they screw up is that their exit provisions are negotiated when they are hired, and the contract has to be complied with. Nobody seems to remember that it's perfectly OK to put into those contracts a clause which says if you're negligent, malfeasant or incompetent, you don't get the parachute. The objection would be that with that kind of proviso, the corporation won't get the man it wants or needs. The response is: if a CEO candidate won't agree to a penalty if he fucks up, maybe he isn't the guy you should be hiring. But that isn't the way it goes, and here's why: up in that stratum, personal responsibiliry doesn't apply. You're protected by the other members of your class, or profession. These guys, who hate unions, are in fact in a de facto union - the union of past, present and future CEO's - and are protected by certain unwritten rules. (This explains why a sports manager who loses every game winds up, when he's fired, getting hired by another team. Once you reach a certain level in certain circles, competence is not a factor in whether you belong. As a matter of fact, it's like tenure. You can't get kicked out.) You don't want to see your confrere get hurt - it gives you nightmares of what might happen to you.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, personal responsibility
THE OUTBACK
The talk about economy stimulation packages is revolving around various plans to give a couple hundred bucks each to the less well off. Why? Because, as the planners freely state, those people are going to spend it.
Well, yeah, they're going to spend it. They need every buck they can get when inflation is outstripping their raises and they've been cajoled by the real estate and credit card industries to go into big debt. (I wonder when they're going to start to ask why they've got less money with husband and wife working than when only the husband worked. Feminists wanted to see more women in the workforce. That was great for women who worked because they wanted to. That is, women who worked at the high end of our economy. But at the low end of the economy, it hasn't worked out so well. It's an open question so far as to whether the problem is that when you double the work force, you halve the individual income, in an economy where at the low to middle end the benefits of increased productivity get paid out in dividends and not in wages; or that other policies have halved income and forced two-income families. I suspect it's a little of both.)
So here's the really funny part:
Everything I've read suggests that America is in trouble because while the savings rate in China is 42%, the savings rate in the US is 0% (or probably less than zero, considering consumer debt.) That, it's said, is a prescription for economic decline. So now we're giving this money out, not to be saved, but to be spent! What does this ridiculosity mean?
It means that an economy dependent on consumer spending is fundamentally destructive. It means that to keep money flowing into corporations we have to keep our savings rate minimal. In fact, it means that we have to go into debt. It means that no concern is being shown for the economic health of this country. And it means, as I have said before, that when we spend ourselves into decline, the corporate executives are going to walk away from America and make their own rich country in the Australian outback (maybe they'll have to slaughter the aborigines again) with so much money that their savings rate will be huge because nobody could spend all that in a 100+ year lifetime. If they stayed in the US, the American savings rate would be huge - the top 5% balancing the debtor state of the rest of us. But why in the hell would they do that? Bailouts go up, not down.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
Well, yeah, they're going to spend it. They need every buck they can get when inflation is outstripping their raises and they've been cajoled by the real estate and credit card industries to go into big debt. (I wonder when they're going to start to ask why they've got less money with husband and wife working than when only the husband worked. Feminists wanted to see more women in the workforce. That was great for women who worked because they wanted to. That is, women who worked at the high end of our economy. But at the low end of the economy, it hasn't worked out so well. It's an open question so far as to whether the problem is that when you double the work force, you halve the individual income, in an economy where at the low to middle end the benefits of increased productivity get paid out in dividends and not in wages; or that other policies have halved income and forced two-income families. I suspect it's a little of both.)
So here's the really funny part:
Everything I've read suggests that America is in trouble because while the savings rate in China is 42%, the savings rate in the US is 0% (or probably less than zero, considering consumer debt.) That, it's said, is a prescription for economic decline. So now we're giving this money out, not to be saved, but to be spent! What does this ridiculosity mean?
It means that an economy dependent on consumer spending is fundamentally destructive. It means that to keep money flowing into corporations we have to keep our savings rate minimal. In fact, it means that we have to go into debt. It means that no concern is being shown for the economic health of this country. And it means, as I have said before, that when we spend ourselves into decline, the corporate executives are going to walk away from America and make their own rich country in the Australian outback (maybe they'll have to slaughter the aborigines again) with so much money that their savings rate will be huge because nobody could spend all that in a 100+ year lifetime. If they stayed in the US, the American savings rate would be huge - the top 5% balancing the debtor state of the rest of us. But why in the hell would they do that? Bailouts go up, not down.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
Sunday, January 20, 2008
WHATEVER YOU CALL US NOW
Well - now I understand why John Edwards is not doing so well.
The following is from Naomi Klein's No Logo:
When the free trade debate was lost, the left retreated even further into itself, choosing ever more minute disputes over which to go to the wall. This retreat reflected a broader political paralysis in the face of the daunting abstractions of global capitalism - ironically, the very issues that should have been most pressing for anyone concerned with the future of social justice ... As we look back, it seems like willful blindness. The abandonment of the radical economic foundations of the women's and civil-rights movements by the conflation of causes that came to be called political correctness successfully trained a generation of activists in the politics of image, not action.
What she is saying, I take it, is that the left immersed itself in peripheral issues and failed to understand that class war had returned and that the battle they should have been fighting was an economic one. So they ignored it when the NLRB was turned into a mechanism for destroying unions, not protecting them. They ignored it when media were consolidated. They ignored it when tax policy shifted the middle class's money up to the rich. The right called them Marxists, but they were anything but that.
And there was therefore no one out there to call attention to what was happening, and to stir up the "masses" (or whatever one calls us now) who expected to join the rich, not fight them, in a beautiful fog of self-delusion. Just as, for the last forty years, there has been no black voice to call the brothers to self-defense. The great effort of talented blacks is to get away from the brothers - even while, in some cases, they use the brothers to get where they get.
I.e., the only truth out there is corporate truth. The corporate classes have no illusions; they know what's what, and they make damn sure they get what they want.
Klein was speaking of the 1990's. She feels things have changed, and at least the young are more economically aware. I could not disagree more.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
The following is from Naomi Klein's No Logo:
When the free trade debate was lost, the left retreated even further into itself, choosing ever more minute disputes over which to go to the wall. This retreat reflected a broader political paralysis in the face of the daunting abstractions of global capitalism - ironically, the very issues that should have been most pressing for anyone concerned with the future of social justice ... As we look back, it seems like willful blindness. The abandonment of the radical economic foundations of the women's and civil-rights movements by the conflation of causes that came to be called political correctness successfully trained a generation of activists in the politics of image, not action.
What she is saying, I take it, is that the left immersed itself in peripheral issues and failed to understand that class war had returned and that the battle they should have been fighting was an economic one. So they ignored it when the NLRB was turned into a mechanism for destroying unions, not protecting them. They ignored it when media were consolidated. They ignored it when tax policy shifted the middle class's money up to the rich. The right called them Marxists, but they were anything but that.
And there was therefore no one out there to call attention to what was happening, and to stir up the "masses" (or whatever one calls us now) who expected to join the rich, not fight them, in a beautiful fog of self-delusion. Just as, for the last forty years, there has been no black voice to call the brothers to self-defense. The great effort of talented blacks is to get away from the brothers - even while, in some cases, they use the brothers to get where they get.
I.e., the only truth out there is corporate truth. The corporate classes have no illusions; they know what's what, and they make damn sure they get what they want.
Klein was speaking of the 1990's. She feels things have changed, and at least the young are more economically aware. I could not disagree more.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
Saturday, January 19, 2008
CHANGE
With every primary John McCain wins, the Republicans show a political intelligence hardly to be expected of the party which put up George Bush and the gathering of mini-men they are - mostly - presenting this year.
It was the Democrats who were supposed to be purging the past and marking out another path. While that may still happen, it begins to look as though the Democrats will be presenting "business as usual" - if it can fairly be said that a woman represents business as usual, and I think that can fairly be said - and hanging onto the past. In the meantime, it may be that the Republican party is feeling guilty for denying the nomination to McCain in 2000 and for giving us a president and a Congress, when it had one, which nearly destroyed the American political system; and beginning to purge itself of those horrors and that guilt, and looking ahead with hope to a new way of doing things. Even the evangelicals appear to be feeling it, if McCain's South Carolina defeat of Huckabee means anything. I.e., the Republicans may be the party of "change."
Of course I could be full of shit - but if McCain wins the nomination, I will not feel sure of the outcome of the presidential race until the last votes are counted in November, 2008.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, john mccain, democrats, republicans, mike huckabee, south carolina
36 PERCENT
This is all I need to know.
From Obama's Plan for America: "Obama supports extending
a 36 percent interest cap to all Americans."
36 PERCENT?
A lot of his "plan" is short of any significant details. So is his "experience," as he describes it. And he does not speak out against privatization of government.
He's got to do better. Or bye bye.
From Obama's Plan for America: "Obama supports extending
a 36 percent interest cap to all Americans."
36 PERCENT?
A lot of his "plan" is short of any significant details. So is his "experience," as he describes it. And he does not speak out against privatization of government.
He's got to do better. Or bye bye.
HERE GOES
I've analyzed why I'm supporting Obama.
I believe Hillary is in the pocket of big New York money. I'm sure Edwards isn't, but he isn't going to win. I'm not sure about Obama. That's it. The whole thing.
I've read that Obama is to the right of both Edwards and Clinton. I have absolutely no idea what he would do as president, or whether he could handle it, or who he is. I think his express belief that he can unify the country is patently absurd - unless he arranges for us to get attacked again. Moreover, if he wins, I think he's likely to get shot.
I don't know if he can beat a Republican, nor does anyone else.
"Change" means nothing. It's not a goal in itself. "Experience", as Hillary defines it - well, how does she define it? What has she done?
So far the Democratic race is based on one thing only - the fear of the horrifying prospect of another Bush. I don't know what any of these people really stand for - Edwards excepted, again. I guess it's time I looked at their websites. Here goes.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
Friday, January 18, 2008
UTTER STRANGERS
Mitt Romney says he has no lobbyists running his campaign. When a reporter pointed out that one of Romney's closest advisers is a significant lobbyist, Romney's response was: Yeah, but he's not running my campaign.
This slippery bullshit is absolutely amoral. And it proves to me that Romney has absorbed the critical lesson of MBA Nation - that what matters is winning, not the truth.
I heard another reporter praising Romney for his promise to restore Michigan's economy - when Romney's business history, as I understand it, is that of a corporate raider. Romney is so loaded with hypocrisy, it's so much a part of who he is that I can understand why he believes he is a truly decent guy. Romney isn't lying - you can't be accused of lying if you don't know the truth. And the truth and Romney are utter strangers.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
VICTORY OF THE HUNS
A group in Arizona is sending out flyers in South Carolina calling John McCain a traitor and a Communist. The flyers also attack Mitt Romney - but they praise Mike Huckabee. That ought to tell you who's sending them out.
I have yet to hear Muslims condemning the actions of their extremists, and I have yet to hear evangelicals condemning the outrages of theirs. So a plague on both their houses equally. As a matter of fact, I have yet to hear the voices of mainstream Jews condemn the excesses of the Israeli right, although they seem to be quite able to condemn statements coming from the Jewish left. So a plague on them, too.
This is a time of religious revival, and yet the world has not been this amoral since the Nazis' times. Forgive me if I see a connection between the two. And it seems to me the 2008 American election is going to be a moral watershed - because if we turn toward humanity and morality it's possible the world may follow us. If we don't, the world will certainly follow us down the path which leads to the victory of the Huns.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
BLOODY KANSAS?
Kansas religious conservatives are using an 1887 law, which allows citizens to instigate grand jury investigations, to indict abortionists. The law cuts prosecutors out of the loop. Oklahoma, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska and Nevada have similar laws - which suggests the law is a throwback to the era of frontier justice - which in fact it is.
This after the evolution battle in Kansas.
The last time Kansas went in this sort of direction - when the question was whether the state would be slave or free - it became known as "Bloody Kansas," for very good reasons.
If I were you, I would stay out of Kansas these days.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, kansas, abortion
THE THING THAT IS
The collapse of the housing market is in part directly due to bad lending. If the lenders did not know the loans were bad, that's their fault. You make a bad investment, you pay the price. Under no circumstances should they be bailed out. We need to see people who either didn't see the downside - or, seeing it, went ahead and screw the nethermost - out of the financial services market for our own well-being. I hear McDonald's is hiring. Nobody else seems to be - but why shouldn't they experience first-hand what their greed has driven everyone else to?
Anyone who bought a place to live without really understanding the dangers of ARMs and no interest loans should be helped. Anyone who bought a house to flip knew exactly what he or she was doing, and knew that it was only because of these loans that they were able to play the housing market. I have no sympathy for them.
The next directly responsible element is the builders. If they didn't know they were overbuilding capacity, they should not be in any business, unless there's a boss who checks everything they do. One might suppose they did know, and were simply trying to get as much of that loan money as they could. What they didn't recognize was that they would still be holding onto houses when the whole thing collapsed. I.e., the Ponzi schemers got caught by their own scheme.
Then we have the government, which never warned anyone of the risk of the housing bubble. For that dereliction of duty, every cent Alan Greenspan has should be taken from him and used to bail out the honest and unscheming folks who got caught in this mess.
Now - I understand that if you don't sell houses, you also don't sell kitchens, you don't sell plywood, you don't sell concrete blocks. Naturally any industry which profits in a housing boom gets trashed in a housing bust. Good businesses put away money for rainy days, don't they? I don't feel bad for these guys either.
Okay, people were taking out second mortgages (assuming continuing increases in the value of their houses) and spending it all over the place. It's going to hurt when they stop doing that. But it hurts more because our economy is entirely consumer-driven. We don't make things to sell to people outside the US. We buy things outside the US, brand them and sell them here - or try to. Many American businesses are nothing but middlemen. They're always the ones who get squeezed when things turn down. Why didn't anyone warn us that it was dangerous to abandon actual production of value and rely instead on convincing people to buy stuff they don't need - to the extent that the whole economy now depends on stupid purchases?
The next huge part of our economy is financial services. They don't make things, they spin money around. They don't think long-term - they want to make a killing and get the hell out - and they have no scruples about what the games they play do to the rest of us. Now, in protecting themselves from their own bad practices, they are driving the economy into recession by cutting back on what otherwise would be perfectly good loans. Is it that they can't tell good loans from bad - which wouldn't be surprising? Or is it that they don't have any more money left - which I don't believe? Or are they psyched into a state of mind of defensive terror? If they are, they don't belong in that business either.
This is what happens when there's nobody left to stop you from being the predatory capitalist you were born to be. For that I blame every president from Reagan on - and everyone who voted for any of them, including me. And Hillary Clinton, since she is taking credit for what the Clinton presidency accomplished - which included a lot of effort to cut back regulation of business.
We made this mess. We can get out of it, if somebody begins to think of something beyond himself.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion
Thursday, January 17, 2008
PEOPLE LIKE THAT
According to the AP, Texas is the biggest carbon polluter in the nation - putting out almost double the metric tons of carbon dioxide California produces, and almost triple Pennsylvania's. They would rank 7th in the world if they were still an independent nation - a state of things we should have given more serious consideration to back in the early 1800's. They have 19 coal-burning power plants, a lot of refineries and chemical plants, no mass transit and they like big trucks. Their Republican rulers think environmental protection is government activism. Like the rest of Texas historically, they think that stinks. Governor Perry refuses to consider the prospect that global warming is man made; he said Al Gore's mouth was the leading source of carbon dioxide.
And we turned over the federal government to people like that?
Obviously, there are some sensible people in Texas - but they don't seem to run anything. Those who do run things in Texas seem to have absolute contempt for everyone who doesn't, and complete lack of concern for the ways in which what they do to make themselves rich impact anybody else. Theirs is a raw, rough sense of the proper order of things - sort of like Genghis Khan's. Sort of like the Saudis, who do whatever they want - except that the Saudis are subtle about it, and Texans stick it in your face. They are a breed left behind by civilizing evolution - which I guess explains why they don't like evolution. At least I used to think that, until very recently - when I realized that much of the world is following their model.
Take a look at everything going on in that state and you understand that they - who have never evolved - are leading others of the world who have never evolved, and in fact are dragging the rest of us toward rapid devolution. Cave-dweller morals. Or maybe worse.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, oil, texas, global warming
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
RELATIONSHIPS
You woulda thunk, with the great relationship the Bushes have with the Saudis, that Georgie could have talked them into anything.
So how come this?
Georgie wanted the Saudis to join in the alliance against Iran. Saudi response: Uh, no.
Georgie wanted the Saudis to joint in the Israeli/Palestinian peace process. Saudi response: Nah.
Georgie wanted the Saudis to increase their oil production. Saudi response: Not right now, okay?
That's what happens when you're the "little buddy" in the personal relationship. The big guy doesn't have to do what you say.
Georgie told the Saudis that if they didn't drop their oil prices, they might get hurt by falling oil sales if the American economy went into the tank. Georgie understands that oil is high because demand has outstripped supply. What he doesn't understand is that any oil we don't buy will get snapped up by China and India. Some threat he made. Some leverage we've got. Funny - Georgie didn't say: if you don't do what I ask, we're going to invade you.
Who knows? That might have worked.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, oil, saudi arabia
LOCAL BOY
Did Republican voters favor Romney because he was a local boy - even though he left the state 40 years ago?
How about this one? The economy was by far the largest issue in Michigan voters' minds. Did they buy his statement that he was going to revitalize the US auto industry, and that because of his father's leadership in that industry he was best equipped to deal with the industry's problems?
Um. He doesn't know one thing about the auto industry. His father presided over American Motors, makers of the infamous Pacer (I had one and it blew up on me), a company which failed, if I remember right, so long ago that it didn't have to deal with Japanese competition. What the current Romney thinks, I would guess, is that to fix the auto industry more jobs will have to go overseas. That's really great for auto workers.
Are Michigan Republicans just dumber than most? No. They want a traditional conservative, and he was it on that ballot. Of course, being willing to vote for a liar, poseur and phoney like Romney results from a certain fundamental Republican stupidity - at the lower levels, where all you do is show up and vote. It sue isn't dumb to vote Republican if you've got money, and Republican strategists can still lay claim to the title of "brilliant" until the results are in in November, 2008.
Or did they vote for him because he looks like Billy Graham?
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, huckabee, mccain, romney, giuliani
WHO REALLY WON
Who really won Michigan?
Rudy Giuliani. Who begins to look smarter with every passing day. In the nefarious political sense, of course - not as a human being.
If someone else had dominated the pre-Florida primaries, the hype machine would have declared that the nomination was sewn up before Giuliani had taken his shot. With three different winners so far, and it being unlikely that anyone will dominate before Florida, Rudy's chances are as good as anyone's.
So is McCain now the former comeback kid?
We can expect the press to continue to hype global consequences of local events, therefore getting things miserably wrong. That's what keeps them in business - keeping us excited. (And their hype keeps me in business!) But for your own mental health, I suggest you ignore the press and get your hype from full-strength non-decaf something or others from Starbucks. Or Dunkin Donuts - whose coffee Fiona swears is just as good and a whole lot cheaper.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, huckabee, mccain, romney, giuliani
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
SMART
Hey, here's somebody as smart as I am! We said it January 7th. Put it up on Daily Kos that day, too. Got the usual hostile reaction.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, hillary clinton
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
GENDER WAR?
So is this what happened? Hillary cries and all the women in New Hampshire gasp: "Holy shit! She really is a woman, not a robot," and they have their Oprah moment of maudlin gender sympatico and rush to the polls and vote for their own sex?
Yeah, probably. If they weren't in the room. But here's what Marianne Pernold Young, the woman who asked the question that made Hillary cry, had to say about it:
"I went to see Hillary. I was undecided and I was moved by her response to me. We saw ten seconds of Hillary, the caring woman. But then when she turned away from me, I noticed that she stiffened up and took on that political posture again. And the woman that I noticed for ten seconds was gone."
Ms. Young voted for Obama - but only because Hillary simply cannot open up. Even Ms. Young, until that realization, must have been tempted by the incipient Oprah moment.
According to her comments, Hillary has figured out that crying helped her win. If we see it happen again, however, it won't look sincere. Too bad she didn't do some public crying in 1998, when she was really getting the shit kicked out of her. If she didn't do it then, she'd better not do it now.
How does Obama fight this? By declaring a gender war?
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, hillary clinton
Yeah, probably. If they weren't in the room. But here's what Marianne Pernold Young, the woman who asked the question that made Hillary cry, had to say about it:
"I went to see Hillary. I was undecided and I was moved by her response to me. We saw ten seconds of Hillary, the caring woman. But then when she turned away from me, I noticed that she stiffened up and took on that political posture again. And the woman that I noticed for ten seconds was gone."
Ms. Young voted for Obama - but only because Hillary simply cannot open up. Even Ms. Young, until that realization, must have been tempted by the incipient Oprah moment.
According to her comments, Hillary has figured out that crying helped her win. If we see it happen again, however, it won't look sincere. Too bad she didn't do some public crying in 1998, when she was really getting the shit kicked out of her. If she didn't do it then, she'd better not do it now.
How does Obama fight this? By declaring a gender war?
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, hillary clinton
ENOUGH UNREALITY
Hillary says she has "found her voice." The voice she has found is Obama's.
If it were not for the polls showing Obama with a 12 point lead, the actual results would have been well within reasonable expectations. Obama would not have suffered a "crushing" defeat, and Hillary would not be the "comeback kid."
Zogby now says the results on Monday showed Hillary within 2 points of Obama, one way or the other - but in order to use proper polling procedure he had to factor in the huge surge Obama showed on Friday and Saturday. I have two things to say about this:
1) If there was a huge surge on Saturday that had disappeared by Monday, why are we allowing people with such casual, celebrity-motivated opinions to vote at all?
2) If Hillary had closed the gap by Monday, Zogby should have said so. The fact that he didn't suggests that he was helping the media to create the kind of Oprah-like story that draws viewers and readers.
There is enough unreality in American politics without help from so-called professionals. And men, if you don't want Hillary, you'd better get out there and vote.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, hillary clinton
If it were not for the polls showing Obama with a 12 point lead, the actual results would have been well within reasonable expectations. Obama would not have suffered a "crushing" defeat, and Hillary would not be the "comeback kid."
Zogby now says the results on Monday showed Hillary within 2 points of Obama, one way or the other - but in order to use proper polling procedure he had to factor in the huge surge Obama showed on Friday and Saturday. I have two things to say about this:
1) If there was a huge surge on Saturday that had disappeared by Monday, why are we allowing people with such casual, celebrity-motivated opinions to vote at all?
2) If Hillary had closed the gap by Monday, Zogby should have said so. The fact that he didn't suggests that he was helping the media to create the kind of Oprah-like story that draws viewers and readers.
There is enough unreality in American politics without help from so-called professionals. And men, if you don't want Hillary, you'd better get out there and vote.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, hillary clinton
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
GROUNDED
Okay, we're grounded now.
Hillary will go on at least through February 5. As for Obama, I don't know.
So much of his campaign depended on momentum. That has now been stopped in its tracks. Hillary held the women's vote in NH, and I simply do not know what Obama could possibly do about that now. The other interesting statistic was that for those for whom the economy was the major issue, and who reported themselves as not doing well, Hillary was the preferred candidate. I don't know why that would be. I can't imagine what she's said that would be music to their ears. The speculation on TV was that people hoped she bring them back to the happy Bill Clinton years. I think that's probably true - and good luck to them.
Both candidates are going to have to change their tack completely: Obama, because looking at all the "change" signs at Hillary's headquarters, and listening to her victory speech in which she still sounds insincere and in which she suddenly adopted all of Obama's talking points, the Obama campaign is corrupted in the same way a virus corrupts your computer. It needs to be rethought. It's starting to smell a bit like Howard Dean. (Of course, this also shows how corrupt Hillary's campaign is, and once again that she will say anything to get elected.)
As for Hillary, she said (before she won NH) that, as opposed to Obama who talks big and has done nothing, she was going to tell us everything she's done. That would be a wonderful development, since she has told us none of that so far, and the only things I know she's done are vote for the Iraq war and for Kyl-Leiberman. But it's my bet that with the NH victory she will backtrack on that commitment and two months from now we still will have no idea who she is.
In the meantime, I hope someone is going to explain why the polls were so wrong. Or weren't they? Is it possible that in one day she reversed huge Obama momentum? If so, how?
And please, John Edwards - throw in with Obama, because you are going nowhere. Unfortunately, people do not care about the homeless, and do not care who doesn't have health insurance as long as they do. We are about eight years from an American recognition that the country has been raped - and that the middle class has been gang raped.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, hillary clinton, barack obama, john edwards
Hillary will go on at least through February 5. As for Obama, I don't know.
So much of his campaign depended on momentum. That has now been stopped in its tracks. Hillary held the women's vote in NH, and I simply do not know what Obama could possibly do about that now. The other interesting statistic was that for those for whom the economy was the major issue, and who reported themselves as not doing well, Hillary was the preferred candidate. I don't know why that would be. I can't imagine what she's said that would be music to their ears. The speculation on TV was that people hoped she bring them back to the happy Bill Clinton years. I think that's probably true - and good luck to them.
Both candidates are going to have to change their tack completely: Obama, because looking at all the "change" signs at Hillary's headquarters, and listening to her victory speech in which she still sounds insincere and in which she suddenly adopted all of Obama's talking points, the Obama campaign is corrupted in the same way a virus corrupts your computer. It needs to be rethought. It's starting to smell a bit like Howard Dean. (Of course, this also shows how corrupt Hillary's campaign is, and once again that she will say anything to get elected.)
As for Hillary, she said (before she won NH) that, as opposed to Obama who talks big and has done nothing, she was going to tell us everything she's done. That would be a wonderful development, since she has told us none of that so far, and the only things I know she's done are vote for the Iraq war and for Kyl-Leiberman. But it's my bet that with the NH victory she will backtrack on that commitment and two months from now we still will have no idea who she is.
In the meantime, I hope someone is going to explain why the polls were so wrong. Or weren't they? Is it possible that in one day she reversed huge Obama momentum? If so, how?
And please, John Edwards - throw in with Obama, because you are going nowhere. Unfortunately, people do not care about the homeless, and do not care who doesn't have health insurance as long as they do. We are about eight years from an American recognition that the country has been raped - and that the middle class has been gang raped.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, hillary clinton, barack obama, john edwards
EARS OPEN
The recent incident in the Straits of Hormuz is intriguing. It was clearly intended to appear to be a Cole-like attack.
The American commanders showed amazing restraint, considering that the Iranians radioed that the American ships would explode, that they rushed the ships with five small boats and dropped objects ahead of some of the ships. What probably stopped the commanders from firing was the radio warning. Terrorists don't usually do that sort of thing.
I know Iranians aren't Arabs, but there is enough similarity to allow me to say that for certain Arabs this kind of braggadocio is par for the course. They love to tell you how tough they are, when they aren't.
But from how high up the Iranian chain of command did the order come to do this? What for? Why now? Was this just a couple of local boys having some fun? Unfortunately, I doubt we are ever going to know - unless something follows logically on the heels of the incident. I'm keeping my ears open.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion,
The American commanders showed amazing restraint, considering that the Iranians radioed that the American ships would explode, that they rushed the ships with five small boats and dropped objects ahead of some of the ships. What probably stopped the commanders from firing was the radio warning. Terrorists don't usually do that sort of thing.
I know Iranians aren't Arabs, but there is enough similarity to allow me to say that for certain Arabs this kind of braggadocio is par for the course. They love to tell you how tough they are, when they aren't.
But from how high up the Iranian chain of command did the order come to do this? What for? Why now? Was this just a couple of local boys having some fun? Unfortunately, I doubt we are ever going to know - unless something follows logically on the heels of the incident. I'm keeping my ears open.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion,
TURNING OUT
Hillary is quite right: a new president must be prepared to meet, on his or her first day in office, a crisis unlike anything any president has seen before. That's why, for the most part, "experience" is not likely to be helpful; your experience can color the way you respond to something which is, actually, not in your experience. That can lead to big trouble.
Hillary has an advantage other candidates do not have. And she's mischaracterizing it, which is why she isn't getting the benefit of it. It's not experience she has. What she has is first-hand knowledge, from observation, of how to operate a presidency. So she would have a shorter learning curve. She would step in ready to go. Even most vice presidents - Cheney excluded, of course - don't get the opportunities she had to watch a president work. Perhaps the closest comparison would be to chiefs of staff - and I don't recall anyone running for president who has held that position (Cheney has, but he didn't run for president.)
The problem is that if that "knowledge" of how to run a presidency doesn't fit the times or the circumstances, it could make things worse rather than better.
The truth is that a candidate does not need experience, or first hand knowledge, of foreign policy, or military affairs, or domestic policy. A president can get all the experience he needs from talking to people who actually have that experience - so a key thing to identify with a candidate is who he/she will likely go to for advice. I would like to see candidates asked that specific question, and a specific answer - naming names - demanded. That isn't happening, and it had better.
What a candidate must have is the intelligence to understand these things when they come up or are presented to him/her. That intelligence must be unhindered by ideology. He/she must have the humility or the sense to choose wise people with whom to consult, and to take their counsel seriously. And then he/she must have the skill to make happen what he/she decides must happen. This is political, not policy, skill. It's leadership.
And, of course, we'd like to see a candidate show us that he/she has what is best described as "a good heart."
So what Hillary has been saying is not wrong. We do have to judge the candidates by what they're capable of. And that, I think, is what the voters have been doing. And that explains why things are turning out as they are.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, john edwards, barack obama, hillary clinton
Hillary has an advantage other candidates do not have. And she's mischaracterizing it, which is why she isn't getting the benefit of it. It's not experience she has. What she has is first-hand knowledge, from observation, of how to operate a presidency. So she would have a shorter learning curve. She would step in ready to go. Even most vice presidents - Cheney excluded, of course - don't get the opportunities she had to watch a president work. Perhaps the closest comparison would be to chiefs of staff - and I don't recall anyone running for president who has held that position (Cheney has, but he didn't run for president.)
The problem is that if that "knowledge" of how to run a presidency doesn't fit the times or the circumstances, it could make things worse rather than better.
The truth is that a candidate does not need experience, or first hand knowledge, of foreign policy, or military affairs, or domestic policy. A president can get all the experience he needs from talking to people who actually have that experience - so a key thing to identify with a candidate is who he/she will likely go to for advice. I would like to see candidates asked that specific question, and a specific answer - naming names - demanded. That isn't happening, and it had better.
What a candidate must have is the intelligence to understand these things when they come up or are presented to him/her. That intelligence must be unhindered by ideology. He/she must have the humility or the sense to choose wise people with whom to consult, and to take their counsel seriously. And then he/she must have the skill to make happen what he/she decides must happen. This is political, not policy, skill. It's leadership.
And, of course, we'd like to see a candidate show us that he/she has what is best described as "a good heart."
So what Hillary has been saying is not wrong. We do have to judge the candidates by what they're capable of. And that, I think, is what the voters have been doing. And that explains why things are turning out as they are.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, john edwards, barack obama, hillary clinton
Monday, January 07, 2008
SOME REALLY GOOD ADVICE
It looks like Obama is going to take New Hampshire. Hillary (and her supporters) are very angry about that. I don't know why they're angry - they brought it on themselves. They misread the mood of the country, and they played the wrong game. (And I suspect the reason for that is their determination to ignore the blogosphere, because the mood has been pretty damned obvious. To think that an urgent desire for something new would not spread through the young (and plenty of old folks, too) is to filter your intelligence through your own ego and yesterday's news.)
This is not to rule Hillary out - not yet. But if Edwards loses South Carolina - which he most likely will - he should immediately throw his support to Obama in return for the VP spot. And Obama should announce the deal immediately. And they should begin working in tandem immediately.
The beauty of it is dazzling.
1) It kills Hillary.
2) It puts a tough-talking guy in the Cheney spot. Edwards seems far more able than Obama to counter Republican attacks logically, intensely and truthfully. He will have to moderate his positions some - I don't know if Obama can handle all that much populism (although let's face it, that's what he's winning on), and it would be difficult for Obama to keep on talking unity (which the public is clearly yearning for, but is politically impossible. Edwards is absolutely right on that) when Edwards is bashing the other side of the aisle. But I'm sure they can work it out - and I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama moderate that position once the Republicans start trashing him.
3) It puts the imprimatur of a southern white male on the candidacy of a black man. If there is anything that is going to help Obama skate over racism, this has to be it.
Take my advice, gentlemen. It's better than Mark Penn's.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, john edwards, barack obama, hillary clinton
This is not to rule Hillary out - not yet. But if Edwards loses South Carolina - which he most likely will - he should immediately throw his support to Obama in return for the VP spot. And Obama should announce the deal immediately. And they should begin working in tandem immediately.
The beauty of it is dazzling.
1) It kills Hillary.
2) It puts a tough-talking guy in the Cheney spot. Edwards seems far more able than Obama to counter Republican attacks logically, intensely and truthfully. He will have to moderate his positions some - I don't know if Obama can handle all that much populism (although let's face it, that's what he's winning on), and it would be difficult for Obama to keep on talking unity (which the public is clearly yearning for, but is politically impossible. Edwards is absolutely right on that) when Edwards is bashing the other side of the aisle. But I'm sure they can work it out - and I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama moderate that position once the Republicans start trashing him.
3) It puts the imprimatur of a southern white male on the candidacy of a black man. If there is anything that is going to help Obama skate over racism, this has to be it.
Take my advice, gentlemen. It's better than Mark Penn's.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, john edwards, barack obama, hillary clinton
Sunday, January 06, 2008
LIE, CHEAT AND STEAL
In a current column, David Ignatius decries the internet as responsible for the amplification of what are essentially opinions into deafening facts which create their own reality for a while and then are replaced by other, just as suspect, realities. He calls it the Opinion Accelerator.
He's right about one thing: there is an Opinion Accelerator, and it does exactly what he says it does. But it's not the internet. It's the MSM.
Look, people who write on the internet - for a large part - have analyzed situations and delivered opinions on them. Or, in some cases, delivered facts unknown to the MSM. My guess is that very few internet writers can be accused of having the same motivation as the MSM - that is, to attract a lot of readers and therefore make a lot of money. Sure, everyone on the internet wants readers. Some of them are writing to support advertising on their sites, and some of those aren't any better than the MSM, or even are the MSM. But I will bet you that it is still true that most American opinion is created on TV with a boost from formerly purist rags like the Washington Post (for which Ignatius writes).
I'm even willing to split the blame 50/50. But why do so many of the MSM want to blame the internet exclusively for a problem everyone knows the MSM created? How about this for an answer? The more credible the internet becomes, the more likely Ignatius is out of a job. Because let's face it: he isn't any smarter, nor does he know any better, than any relatively well-informed reader or blogger.
Now, if he'd just admit that, I'd forgive him everything. We all know you have to lie, cheat and steal to make a good living in America these days.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, david ignatius
He's right about one thing: there is an Opinion Accelerator, and it does exactly what he says it does. But it's not the internet. It's the MSM.
Look, people who write on the internet - for a large part - have analyzed situations and delivered opinions on them. Or, in some cases, delivered facts unknown to the MSM. My guess is that very few internet writers can be accused of having the same motivation as the MSM - that is, to attract a lot of readers and therefore make a lot of money. Sure, everyone on the internet wants readers. Some of them are writing to support advertising on their sites, and some of those aren't any better than the MSM, or even are the MSM. But I will bet you that it is still true that most American opinion is created on TV with a boost from formerly purist rags like the Washington Post (for which Ignatius writes).
I'm even willing to split the blame 50/50. But why do so many of the MSM want to blame the internet exclusively for a problem everyone knows the MSM created? How about this for an answer? The more credible the internet becomes, the more likely Ignatius is out of a job. Because let's face it: he isn't any smarter, nor does he know any better, than any relatively well-informed reader or blogger.
Now, if he'd just admit that, I'd forgive him everything. We all know you have to lie, cheat and steal to make a good living in America these days.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, david ignatius
PLACE TO GET WARM
Every time there's an election like Iowa's - okay, it was a caucus, but there were votes - my first reaction is to restore my faith in the American public. Whether you agree with the outcome or not, you have to recognize that the voters used independent and reasonably sophisticated thought process and readings of their emotions in order to come out with that result - and that they were not as stupid or easy to read as the pundits and the Beltway folk assume they are.
Then I remember that there were some seven million eligible voters in Iowa, and a total of about 400,000 came out for the caucuses. Therefore I am now justified in having in faith in about 5% of the American public.
If they don't vote, they can't cause political damage, can they?
Yes they can. They can create a mood of indifference which can affect people who find it hard to motivate themselves even when they recognize a threat to their way of life. They can follow, like Germans in Hitler's time, any silly trend which tends to debase our national intelligence - whether it's worship of Britney Spears or devotion to chia pets. There is such a thing as a national mood, and when it comes from those folks, it settles like a miasma over all of us and forces us to live with people like Bush. I am not convinced that it's true that what matters are the sparks. If there are many more lumps than sparks, you may have to step in a lot of shit to find a place to get warm.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, iowa
Then I remember that there were some seven million eligible voters in Iowa, and a total of about 400,000 came out for the caucuses. Therefore I am now justified in having in faith in about 5% of the American public.
If they don't vote, they can't cause political damage, can they?
Yes they can. They can create a mood of indifference which can affect people who find it hard to motivate themselves even when they recognize a threat to their way of life. They can follow, like Germans in Hitler's time, any silly trend which tends to debase our national intelligence - whether it's worship of Britney Spears or devotion to chia pets. There is such a thing as a national mood, and when it comes from those folks, it settles like a miasma over all of us and forces us to live with people like Bush. I am not convinced that it's true that what matters are the sparks. If there are many more lumps than sparks, you may have to step in a lot of shit to find a place to get warm.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, iowa
RUDY ONE-NOTE
Giuliani is running one ad on Florida TV, and all it talks about are islamic extremists. The election is three weeks away, and I think he's making a big mistake.
I think - or I hope - that Americans - even Republicans - have moved away from the single-minded focus on fear and safety that they showed in 2004. If I'm right, since the Florida primaries are three weeks away, Giuliani is going to get hurt in Florida as long as he remains a one-issue candidate.
We'll see.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, giuliani
I think - or I hope - that Americans - even Republicans - have moved away from the single-minded focus on fear and safety that they showed in 2004. If I'm right, since the Florida primaries are three weeks away, Giuliani is going to get hurt in Florida as long as he remains a one-issue candidate.
We'll see.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, giuliani
HEDGE FUND GUYS
Has anybody considered the possibility that American consumers' discretionary spending is dropping because they already have everything?
Not the rich, of course. There aren't many of them who can't step up to a higher level because they already own the best of everything. But the rest of us - you bought a TV, you bought a car, you bought a surround sound system. If they come out with a better one three months later, can you still convince yourself you have to have it? Does your wife still think she needs every pair of shoes she likes? If so, you're not a consumer, you're a mental case.
The American economy is dependent on consumer spending. What nobody seems to have factored into this is that the development of relevant new products, while amazingly fast, is not fast enough to keep people spending week after week. Hi-tech may have come up with a new MRI machine last month, but you don't have the room for it. Your kitchen pots can last a lifetime. How many computers do you need? You surely don't need books - you never read.
Sooner or later Americans are going to become resistant to the induced frenzy advertising produces. The only way I can think of to continue the goosing of demand is to make more products which used to be luxuries just affordable enough for the average Joe. When they come up with a $50,000 100-foot yacht, demand is going to go through the roof. Because that's what American consumption is about: everyday people wanting what the hedge fund guys have got.
This makes it difficult for the hedge fund guys. They have to spend more and more time ferreting out stuff that nobody else can afford, to maintain their cache - because why make all that money if you can't turn it into something that proves what a (whatever) guy you are.
Don't get me wrong: there's no shortage of hedge-fund-guy things to acquire. You just keep driving up the price of things of which there aren't many - like Picassos, or Ferraris, or I don't know what. But there isn't going to be a $50,000 100-foot yacht. So America's economy is going to have to depend on hedge-fund-guy spending. This is not good news for General Motors.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, hedge fund, consumer spending, economy, luxury
Not the rich, of course. There aren't many of them who can't step up to a higher level because they already own the best of everything. But the rest of us - you bought a TV, you bought a car, you bought a surround sound system. If they come out with a better one three months later, can you still convince yourself you have to have it? Does your wife still think she needs every pair of shoes she likes? If so, you're not a consumer, you're a mental case.
The American economy is dependent on consumer spending. What nobody seems to have factored into this is that the development of relevant new products, while amazingly fast, is not fast enough to keep people spending week after week. Hi-tech may have come up with a new MRI machine last month, but you don't have the room for it. Your kitchen pots can last a lifetime. How many computers do you need? You surely don't need books - you never read.
Sooner or later Americans are going to become resistant to the induced frenzy advertising produces. The only way I can think of to continue the goosing of demand is to make more products which used to be luxuries just affordable enough for the average Joe. When they come up with a $50,000 100-foot yacht, demand is going to go through the roof. Because that's what American consumption is about: everyday people wanting what the hedge fund guys have got.
This makes it difficult for the hedge fund guys. They have to spend more and more time ferreting out stuff that nobody else can afford, to maintain their cache - because why make all that money if you can't turn it into something that proves what a (whatever) guy you are.
Don't get me wrong: there's no shortage of hedge-fund-guy things to acquire. You just keep driving up the price of things of which there aren't many - like Picassos, or Ferraris, or I don't know what. But there isn't going to be a $50,000 100-foot yacht. So America's economy is going to have to depend on hedge-fund-guy spending. This is not good news for General Motors.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, hedge fund, consumer spending, economy, luxury
Thursday, January 03, 2008
WILL & GRACE
With the Iowa caucus upon us, I found this on Huff Po. I wanted to quote the whole thing, but, for protocol's sake, the link is here and the author is Allison Kilkenny.
I have a confession to make.
One time, I watched Will & Grace.
Hear me out. I was sick, all of my friends were out of town, and I could only slice through the sea of static to a single channel with the help of my ancient antenna's reach. While I know no amount of excuses could possibly pardon this crime, there it is. That's my case for why I watched this shitty, shitty sitcom.
There's more, too. I...learned something... from Will & Grace.
See, the whole episode was about Will's conundrum regarding who he was going to vote for in a citywide election. He had two candidates to choose from: black guy and a woman.
Those are the names they use throughout the episode: black guy and woman. Will, Grace, and Jack know nothing about the candidates. They only know the candidates are refreshingly different than the uptight, old white dudes currently running the city. How are they different? They have no clue other than one is black and the other possesses a vagina.
Welcome to Election Year 2008. Will it be the black guy or the vag-carrier?
And it's not Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton's fault for being America's Black Guy and Woman. Their respective race and sex don't disqualify them from being president, though it seems some liberals have been tricked into automatically assuming Barack and Hillary are progressive because of their minority statuses.
This isn't the tired "Is he black enough?/Is she feminine enough?" argument.
This is the: Are They Poor Enough? argument.
Barack Obama didn't grow up in rural Louisiana sharing a swamp shack with seven siblings. He is from a middle class family that made sure he attended wonderful schools and received the finest education. Hillary Clinton can fake that southern accent all she wants, but she was raised in an Illinois household in a family that ran a successful textile business. These two are no strangers to wealth.
The basic conundrum in this country is that only one TYPE of person is considered presidential. This person is traditionally white and male. However, a different TYPE of person can be considered electable, but they still must be corporation and free trade-friendly.
This is why Hillary has to remain tough on her vote into Iraq. It would be feminine and weak to admit her wrong-doing. One need only ask John Kerry about the power of being labeled a "flip-flopper."
Likewise, Barack has to be careful that he distance himself from anything too "black" i.e. the poor. This is why Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were hesitant to jump on the Obama boat. Under careful scrutiny, Barack isn't really the "black guy." Like Hillary, he's still very much the old order of candidate: business friendly.
And they both must remain corporation-friendly. It's already old news that Hillary is pro-big business. After all, the woman once sat on the board of Walmart. How much more corporate can you get than that? However, we all held out hope for Barack, the man who claimed to be out of Big Business's clawed grasp.
I feel bad for Barack. You can tell he wants to be a revolutionary, but he has to pay his way into the White House, and it's tough to be a maverick when you're at the mercy of lobbyists. Hell, Barack is tighter with the insurance companies than most other politicians in the Senate. He even wants them to help him create a new health care program, which will surely be quite a breathtaking juggling act if he gets the chance to try it.
And now Barack is claiming that Democrats can achieve all their political and social goals whilst simultaneously reaching out to corporations in a classic case of trying to have our cake and eat it too. John Edwards dismissed Barack's cake paradox as a "complete fantasy."
This brings up to the weirdest aspect of Election Year 2008. In this bizarre Opposite Land, the only person shaking things up is...a southern, white dude.
Don't get me wrong, no one wants to punch John Edwards in the face more than me. Whenever he mounts a stage, I want to sob violently. The hair, the suit, EVERYTHING about John Edwards makes him look like a typical, lying politician.
Except, Edwards is the ONLY candidate gunning for the rich, which is weird because HE'S rich. He even pays way too much for his haircuts, you might have heard. It's like the ghost of Christmas Future visited Edwards and showed him his lonely, unfulfilling fate if he kept pedaling for corporate interests.
The new Edwards is thirsty for the blood of multinational corporations. I'm inclined to believe him because he's risking everything by choosing this road to the White House. He actually told CBS: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy."
Say whaaaaat? Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. D.C. is stuffed with corporate fat cats who bully and cajole politicians into voting the right legislation through for the right price.
How the hell does Edwards expect to win with "Fuck the Rich" as his platform? Who does he think he is with his "publicly funded election?" Eugene Debs? COMMUNIST, I say! SOCIALIST!
Get this: Edwards thinks we should totally reform health care WITHOUT the help of the big, insurance companies that dicked us in the first place. What MADNESS is this?! Now I know why his perm is so expensive. Stalin is living in his hair!
In my opinion, the biggest threat facing America isn't terrorism or the Chinese. It's the widening class divide. The rich are too rich, the poor too poor, and the only candidate seriously addressing this issue is John Edwards.
I want to see him go head-to-head with Barack Obama in debates because Barack could still end up taking on corporate lobbyists, but I think only if John Edwards presses him to the left. And I hope he does just that.
I agree with most of this. I like Will & Grace.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, huffington post
I have a confession to make.
One time, I watched Will & Grace.
Hear me out. I was sick, all of my friends were out of town, and I could only slice through the sea of static to a single channel with the help of my ancient antenna's reach. While I know no amount of excuses could possibly pardon this crime, there it is. That's my case for why I watched this shitty, shitty sitcom.
There's more, too. I...learned something... from Will & Grace.
See, the whole episode was about Will's conundrum regarding who he was going to vote for in a citywide election. He had two candidates to choose from: black guy and a woman.
Those are the names they use throughout the episode: black guy and woman. Will, Grace, and Jack know nothing about the candidates. They only know the candidates are refreshingly different than the uptight, old white dudes currently running the city. How are they different? They have no clue other than one is black and the other possesses a vagina.
Welcome to Election Year 2008. Will it be the black guy or the vag-carrier?
And it's not Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton's fault for being America's Black Guy and Woman. Their respective race and sex don't disqualify them from being president, though it seems some liberals have been tricked into automatically assuming Barack and Hillary are progressive because of their minority statuses.
This isn't the tired "Is he black enough?/Is she feminine enough?" argument.
This is the: Are They Poor Enough? argument.
Barack Obama didn't grow up in rural Louisiana sharing a swamp shack with seven siblings. He is from a middle class family that made sure he attended wonderful schools and received the finest education. Hillary Clinton can fake that southern accent all she wants, but she was raised in an Illinois household in a family that ran a successful textile business. These two are no strangers to wealth.
The basic conundrum in this country is that only one TYPE of person is considered presidential. This person is traditionally white and male. However, a different TYPE of person can be considered electable, but they still must be corporation and free trade-friendly.
This is why Hillary has to remain tough on her vote into Iraq. It would be feminine and weak to admit her wrong-doing. One need only ask John Kerry about the power of being labeled a "flip-flopper."
Likewise, Barack has to be careful that he distance himself from anything too "black" i.e. the poor. This is why Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were hesitant to jump on the Obama boat. Under careful scrutiny, Barack isn't really the "black guy." Like Hillary, he's still very much the old order of candidate: business friendly.
And they both must remain corporation-friendly. It's already old news that Hillary is pro-big business. After all, the woman once sat on the board of Walmart. How much more corporate can you get than that? However, we all held out hope for Barack, the man who claimed to be out of Big Business's clawed grasp.
I feel bad for Barack. You can tell he wants to be a revolutionary, but he has to pay his way into the White House, and it's tough to be a maverick when you're at the mercy of lobbyists. Hell, Barack is tighter with the insurance companies than most other politicians in the Senate. He even wants them to help him create a new health care program, which will surely be quite a breathtaking juggling act if he gets the chance to try it.
And now Barack is claiming that Democrats can achieve all their political and social goals whilst simultaneously reaching out to corporations in a classic case of trying to have our cake and eat it too. John Edwards dismissed Barack's cake paradox as a "complete fantasy."
This brings up to the weirdest aspect of Election Year 2008. In this bizarre Opposite Land, the only person shaking things up is...a southern, white dude.
Don't get me wrong, no one wants to punch John Edwards in the face more than me. Whenever he mounts a stage, I want to sob violently. The hair, the suit, EVERYTHING about John Edwards makes him look like a typical, lying politician.
Except, Edwards is the ONLY candidate gunning for the rich, which is weird because HE'S rich. He even pays way too much for his haircuts, you might have heard. It's like the ghost of Christmas Future visited Edwards and showed him his lonely, unfulfilling fate if he kept pedaling for corporate interests.
The new Edwards is thirsty for the blood of multinational corporations. I'm inclined to believe him because he's risking everything by choosing this road to the White House. He actually told CBS: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy."
Say whaaaaat? Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. D.C. is stuffed with corporate fat cats who bully and cajole politicians into voting the right legislation through for the right price.
How the hell does Edwards expect to win with "Fuck the Rich" as his platform? Who does he think he is with his "publicly funded election?" Eugene Debs? COMMUNIST, I say! SOCIALIST!
Get this: Edwards thinks we should totally reform health care WITHOUT the help of the big, insurance companies that dicked us in the first place. What MADNESS is this?! Now I know why his perm is so expensive. Stalin is living in his hair!
In my opinion, the biggest threat facing America isn't terrorism or the Chinese. It's the widening class divide. The rich are too rich, the poor too poor, and the only candidate seriously addressing this issue is John Edwards.
I want to see him go head-to-head with Barack Obama in debates because Barack could still end up taking on corporate lobbyists, but I think only if John Edwards presses him to the left. And I hope he does just that.
I agree with most of this. I like Will & Grace.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, huffington post
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
DUMMY'S DUMMY
Would America elect another liar - like, say, Mitt Romney - as president? I think so.
Americans like to be told what they want to hear - and don't particularly care to study on whether what they've heard is true. Actually, we all think we already know the truth, and the only thing we want to hear is that we're right about that.
Romney presents a particularly interesting situation, because his lies are so obvious and so many and there's so much evidence about them around. No one with a half ounce of sense can believe other than that Romney will say anything to win this election (as he did in Massachusetts, where all those really smart people are supposed to live). So if you vote for Romney, it means you like what he says now and you hope to hell that he'll do what he says voluntarily or somehow be forced into it.
What does this mean? It means you want to be president, but you haven't got the money, looks or personality, so you've hired a ventriloquist's dummy to run on your behalf. Romney's a dummy's dummy, apparently. But what if he actually has some ideas? And what if you're not going to like them? And what if, when he gets into office, he decides to enact those ideas, explaining that his views have changed after intensive meditation? Or what if he really is an ever-alterable tabula rasa, and someone gets to him with more ideas you don't like?
Good luck to you.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, mitt romney
Americans like to be told what they want to hear - and don't particularly care to study on whether what they've heard is true. Actually, we all think we already know the truth, and the only thing we want to hear is that we're right about that.
Romney presents a particularly interesting situation, because his lies are so obvious and so many and there's so much evidence about them around. No one with a half ounce of sense can believe other than that Romney will say anything to win this election (as he did in Massachusetts, where all those really smart people are supposed to live). So if you vote for Romney, it means you like what he says now and you hope to hell that he'll do what he says voluntarily or somehow be forced into it.
What does this mean? It means you want to be president, but you haven't got the money, looks or personality, so you've hired a ventriloquist's dummy to run on your behalf. Romney's a dummy's dummy, apparently. But what if he actually has some ideas? And what if you're not going to like them? And what if, when he gets into office, he decides to enact those ideas, explaining that his views have changed after intensive meditation? Or what if he really is an ever-alterable tabula rasa, and someone gets to him with more ideas you don't like?
Good luck to you.
Tags: tweet petite's onions, tweet petite, hype, hype vaccine, innoculation, political, politics, cultural, bullshit, news, opinion, mitt romney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
+(2)+(Custom).jpg)
