In my early morning daze, the push notification on my phone read Paul and I damn near fell out of bed. "Holy shit! Romney picked Ron Paul to be his VP!"
Oh wait, no. Paul RYAN...the name wound its way through my groggy brain, pushing through cobwebs and tannins til it landed in its familiar file of "Economic disaster."
The sun light filtered through the shades - outside, grapes ripened on vines cascading over rolling hills. Paul Ryan trickled out of my mind.
His nomination just wasn't that interesting to be honest.
He's just right - not too hot, not too cold - for the Republicans and their corporate keepers.
He's not an extreme choice like Sarah Palin was. He's what I like to call an "econ-con," a double entendre I chuckled over in my simultaneous dismay.
He's a business-friendly, economically motivated Republican, as opposed to Tea Party evangelical loony tunes like Bachmann.
He fills in a lot of holes in Romney's personality and campaign.
He doesn't have a history of see-sawing, he has no experience in the financial sector which will take some heat off of Romney for being viewed as a heartless millionaire.
Of course, let's just disregard the fact that just a few months ago, Romney said that anyone without business experience shouldn't be allowed inside the White House...ahem, ahem, cough, cough.
Well, if you've been following Romney, you'll know that flip-flopping is not something he's afraid to do - the man practically has springs on his feet, and now he'll have to jump again.
Remember Romney-care? Yeah, tricky one. Particularly when your new VP sliced and diced any semblance of socialized health care like a horror movie surgeon (which by the way, you'll have to pay top dollar for). Not to mention Romney's relaxed view on abortion - Ryan? Well he wants to ban many forms of birth control - I hear the problem with abstinence is people just aren't giving it a fair shot.
Ryan's economic plan takes the rug out from middle and lower class Americans (not that there is much of a middle anymore) and then proceeds to beat them with it.
While some have claimed that he's the compromising kind, that's about as true as Obama being a beacon for hope and change.
What he is, is again, just right (pun absolutely intended).
During the debt ceiling debates, Ryan made it a point to personally visit Cantor and Boehner, dissuading them from signing any agreement that would raise taxes and not make sufficient cuts to entitlement and other federally funded programs, such as Social Security. Basically, don't compromise with Republican ideologies.
Well golly gee, doesn't that just sound all bi-partisan and cozy?
No. Of course it doesn't.
Romney is gelatinous enough on his own. Granted, he doesn't gel over to the center but he's not the straight up and down conservative that the GOP wants to neatly niche out their party.
Ryan is.
And that's how this works. The right needs to stay right. The fact that much of Romney's history shows him flirting with centrist notions makes no difference now. He can't say that he's in favor of gun control at this point - he's got the NRA up his ass with a .45.
He can't say he's OK with birth control - he's got a religious right wing flapping at him.
The fact of the matter is, is that so long as elections run this course: right vs. left, no one on either side will be allowed to tickle the line between their side and center side. It has to be us vs. them, we're righteous, they're evil. Because after all, it's really about conservative and liberal, not about one nation - for the people, by the people and of the people. Ha - pipe dreams!
So, I'm not super bummed or super excited about this choice. Romney will win some and lose some based on his running mate. Florida will probably move a few points further away, while conservative swing states that don't favor Romney's swing, will pendulum over to the right.
Corporate funds will bolster as per usual, happy with Ryan's favoring of lax regulations and taxes.
So, in reality, it's business as usual. The right stays right, the left stays left and in between, the no man's land of a quiet center simmers in the final months before election.
And the pipeline of the majority of Americans between left and right will continue to shoot out pipe dreams of progress until simmer turns to boil.
Showing posts with label tea party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tea party. Show all posts
Monday, August 13, 2012
Friday, July 20, 2012
Around the World
My dad, a historian, travels all over the world speaking and lecturing on US history. A colleague of his recently contacted him asking if some German middle schoolers could email him with questions on the upcoming US Presidential elections. He said of course, remarking to me how sad it is that many of the college students in the US don't even know what kind of government Germany has, much less who runs in elections, wins and loses. Hard to imagine US middle schoolers emailing German professors with detailed, intelligent questions on their elections.
Whether it's a matter of being smarter or just paying more attention, Europe, and well - much of the world is way ahead of us.
I can recall a girl in my freshman class at UCSB who though Berlin was in Russia...I'm serious.
I don't want to get into a rant about the educational system b/c it'll exhaust me and unless you care, bore you.
But what is short and sweet to note is that paying attention to what goes on in other countries makes it easier and more interesting to pay attention to your own. The US is clutching to a faded name of "superpower," and our influence is felt all over the world, culturally and politically. Stepping outside of the mundane, media mogul driven heap of how we arrogantly and ignorantly look in the mirror - why not check out a few other viewpoints? Tis, after all, the digital age. It takes you just as long to get to BBC, and Al Jazeera English as it does CNN and FOX.
So hey, live a little and take your brain around the world for a spin :)
It's a conspiracy! I'm not gonna lie - I sometimes enjoy pondering conspiracy theories - toying with the notion of underlying secrets and intrigue. Some don't even warrant that phrase due to overwhelming evidence and fact. However, this is not one of those cases.
Remember Bachmann? Yeah - that Tea Party nut job who threw her name into the hat for President way back when. Yeah, she wants in to the spotlight again, this time with a conspiracy that long time aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in cahoots with the Muslim Brotherhood and is really a spy for the organization. Huma Abedin has been a close aide to Hillary Clinton since her days in the Senate, and the Senate was not quiet on their attacks against Bachmann and her letter. John McCain, no stranger to controversy or the Tea Party had this to say: "These attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis and no merit, and they need to stop now." House speaker Boehner echoed that sentiment, "From everything I do know of [Huma Abedin], she has a sterling character, and I think accusations like this being thrown around are pretty dangerous." Dangerous and stupid, maybe, but not enough to get Bachmann to apologize. She stands by her motion for a probe into the White House questioning the influence of the Brotherhood. On Wednesday she released a statement, effectively telling everyone to go fuck themselves and she will not apologize, and "not be silent as this administration appeases our enemies instead of telling the truth about the threats our country faces".
Fear, fear, fear, fear!! Run, run, run, run!!! Wait, I have an idea. Bachmann - why don't you get your small-minded, big mouthed head the hell out of politics.
We've already got all the loony tunes we need.
Apocalypse: In that same vein of fear and controversy, I thought I'd introduce you to a new book I came across: The Last Myth - What the rise of Apocalyptic thinking tells us about America. In this book co-authors, Mel Gilles and Matthew Barrett Gross argue that the US's obsession with the Apocalypse, whether that be global warming, the NWO, Jesus, the A-bomb or October 2012, our constant worry about the impending end leads us down paths of extremes that ultimately fuck us over. For example, not dealing with issues as they pertain to the present, but only seeing them as inevitable - such as global warming. It's never too late to stop torturing our own bodies with waste, and yet because of the apocalyptic notion that it's all fucked anyway, we fight less for the here and now. Same thing goes for the apparent 3 million "preppers" in the US. These extremers believe that due to some rapidly approaching mayhem - war, famine, zombies, etc. - they need to keep basements fully stocked with spam and ammunition. Now as Gross says, there's nothing wrong with being prepared, but when you make all your decisions based on an unforeseen future, you skew your present to reflect a hypothesis that is often times unfounded, at least time line wise. Gross argues that if the Apocalypse didn't play such a major roll in America's thinking, we'd be more inclined to stay active in our country, both politically and socially, recognizing the present as now and the future as when we get to it.
The Syrian sink hole: A deadly blast on Wednesday killed over 180 people, including al-Assad's defense minister. There are conflicting reports as to whether it was a suicide bombing or remote controlled - government says the former, rebels say the latter.
Either way, with targets of al-Assad's inner circle, many are hoping that this signals the beginning of the end for him and his regime. Fareed Zakaria made a good point in his CNN post, saying that we are often times too quick to celebrate things like this - the truth of the matter is, much like our overall foreign policy, we don't know that much about what's happening in Syria,
We don't know who the rebels are, how organized they are, if there's a central chain of command, or even what their agenda is, besides overthrowing al-Assad.
Beyond that, in reality, the rebels don't control any part of Syria - they cause a ruckus, sure, but that's certainly not the same as organized control of an area. Zakaria goes on to ask several questions about the rebels:
"is the opposition fighting together in a coordinated way? Who leads it? Does the Syrian National Council — the main exile opposition group – have any sway over these forces? Do the groups on the ground have any sectarian flavor? Are they largely Kurdish or Sunni? What is the role of the jihadi militant groups in the Syrian rebellion?"
These questions are spot on in terms of the role we, and any other nations, will play in Syria. It's not a promotion of inactivity, but having seen historically the wide gap between what lack of planning (Iraq, cough, cough, cough) and careful planning (WW2) can lead to, it'd be best to do a little recon - maybe figure out where Berlin is, so to speak, before we blast through there like an old Western.
Big Banks: Sound familiar? Yeah...currently four of Europe's largest banks are under investigation following a rate-fixing scandal. Crédit Agricole, HSBC, Deutsche Bank and Société Générale under the leadership of Barclays' traders, most notably Philippe Moryoussef, apparently set out to rig the regions benchmark interest rate. However, at this time, only Barclays' is under fire - having also tripped up on its blown attempt at fixing the London interbank offered rate (Libor) and the European equivalent, Euribor.
Unfortunately, any hope I have for justice on this front is tarnished by past experience. Considering how well the US banks fared after grave counts of fraud and corruption, a little slap on the wrist for billion-dollar corporations doesn't do a damn thing for the people at the bottom.
Hope springs eternal but I'm not expecting a few probes to pull the rug out from under corporate behemoths. That's something only we could do...
Whether it's a matter of being smarter or just paying more attention, Europe, and well - much of the world is way ahead of us.
I can recall a girl in my freshman class at UCSB who though Berlin was in Russia...I'm serious.
I don't want to get into a rant about the educational system b/c it'll exhaust me and unless you care, bore you.
But what is short and sweet to note is that paying attention to what goes on in other countries makes it easier and more interesting to pay attention to your own. The US is clutching to a faded name of "superpower," and our influence is felt all over the world, culturally and politically. Stepping outside of the mundane, media mogul driven heap of how we arrogantly and ignorantly look in the mirror - why not check out a few other viewpoints? Tis, after all, the digital age. It takes you just as long to get to BBC, and Al Jazeera English as it does CNN and FOX.
So hey, live a little and take your brain around the world for a spin :)
It's a conspiracy! I'm not gonna lie - I sometimes enjoy pondering conspiracy theories - toying with the notion of underlying secrets and intrigue. Some don't even warrant that phrase due to overwhelming evidence and fact. However, this is not one of those cases.
Remember Bachmann? Yeah - that Tea Party nut job who threw her name into the hat for President way back when. Yeah, she wants in to the spotlight again, this time with a conspiracy that long time aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in cahoots with the Muslim Brotherhood and is really a spy for the organization. Huma Abedin has been a close aide to Hillary Clinton since her days in the Senate, and the Senate was not quiet on their attacks against Bachmann and her letter. John McCain, no stranger to controversy or the Tea Party had this to say: "These attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis and no merit, and they need to stop now." House speaker Boehner echoed that sentiment, "From everything I do know of [Huma Abedin], she has a sterling character, and I think accusations like this being thrown around are pretty dangerous." Dangerous and stupid, maybe, but not enough to get Bachmann to apologize. She stands by her motion for a probe into the White House questioning the influence of the Brotherhood. On Wednesday she released a statement, effectively telling everyone to go fuck themselves and she will not apologize, and "not be silent as this administration appeases our enemies instead of telling the truth about the threats our country faces".
Fear, fear, fear, fear!! Run, run, run, run!!! Wait, I have an idea. Bachmann - why don't you get your small-minded, big mouthed head the hell out of politics.
We've already got all the loony tunes we need.
Apocalypse: In that same vein of fear and controversy, I thought I'd introduce you to a new book I came across: The Last Myth - What the rise of Apocalyptic thinking tells us about America. In this book co-authors, Mel Gilles and Matthew Barrett Gross argue that the US's obsession with the Apocalypse, whether that be global warming, the NWO, Jesus, the A-bomb or October 2012, our constant worry about the impending end leads us down paths of extremes that ultimately fuck us over. For example, not dealing with issues as they pertain to the present, but only seeing them as inevitable - such as global warming. It's never too late to stop torturing our own bodies with waste, and yet because of the apocalyptic notion that it's all fucked anyway, we fight less for the here and now. Same thing goes for the apparent 3 million "preppers" in the US. These extremers believe that due to some rapidly approaching mayhem - war, famine, zombies, etc. - they need to keep basements fully stocked with spam and ammunition. Now as Gross says, there's nothing wrong with being prepared, but when you make all your decisions based on an unforeseen future, you skew your present to reflect a hypothesis that is often times unfounded, at least time line wise. Gross argues that if the Apocalypse didn't play such a major roll in America's thinking, we'd be more inclined to stay active in our country, both politically and socially, recognizing the present as now and the future as when we get to it.
The Syrian sink hole: A deadly blast on Wednesday killed over 180 people, including al-Assad's defense minister. There are conflicting reports as to whether it was a suicide bombing or remote controlled - government says the former, rebels say the latter.
Either way, with targets of al-Assad's inner circle, many are hoping that this signals the beginning of the end for him and his regime. Fareed Zakaria made a good point in his CNN post, saying that we are often times too quick to celebrate things like this - the truth of the matter is, much like our overall foreign policy, we don't know that much about what's happening in Syria,
We don't know who the rebels are, how organized they are, if there's a central chain of command, or even what their agenda is, besides overthrowing al-Assad.
Beyond that, in reality, the rebels don't control any part of Syria - they cause a ruckus, sure, but that's certainly not the same as organized control of an area. Zakaria goes on to ask several questions about the rebels:
"is the opposition fighting together in a coordinated way? Who leads it? Does the Syrian National Council — the main exile opposition group – have any sway over these forces? Do the groups on the ground have any sectarian flavor? Are they largely Kurdish or Sunni? What is the role of the jihadi militant groups in the Syrian rebellion?"
These questions are spot on in terms of the role we, and any other nations, will play in Syria. It's not a promotion of inactivity, but having seen historically the wide gap between what lack of planning (Iraq, cough, cough, cough) and careful planning (WW2) can lead to, it'd be best to do a little recon - maybe figure out where Berlin is, so to speak, before we blast through there like an old Western.
Big Banks: Sound familiar? Yeah...currently four of Europe's largest banks are under investigation following a rate-fixing scandal. Crédit Agricole, HSBC, Deutsche Bank and Société Générale under the leadership of Barclays' traders, most notably Philippe Moryoussef, apparently set out to rig the regions benchmark interest rate. However, at this time, only Barclays' is under fire - having also tripped up on its blown attempt at fixing the London interbank offered rate (Libor) and the European equivalent, Euribor.
Unfortunately, any hope I have for justice on this front is tarnished by past experience. Considering how well the US banks fared after grave counts of fraud and corruption, a little slap on the wrist for billion-dollar corporations doesn't do a damn thing for the people at the bottom.
Hope springs eternal but I'm not expecting a few probes to pull the rug out from under corporate behemoths. That's something only we could do...
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Volvo with a gun rack
As I read through some of the debate dialog, from Republican hopefuls to the Senate Resolution, an old memory of Robin Williams' voice put a smile, albeit a weak one, on my face. "Compassionate conservative? That's like a Volvo with a gun rack."
Back in the day, 'compassionate conservative' was an actual term, a tongue-in-cheek way of noting certain right wingers un-right wing affinity for government sponsored social organizations and subsidies. It was a snide remark back then, descriptive of few. Now, it's damn near ludicrous and imaginary.
At last weeks debate, Wolf Blitzer from CNN posed a question to Ron Paul about a hypothetical 30 year old man with no health insurance who had fallen very ill. In order to survive he would need 6 months in the ICU. Should, he asked, "we just let him die?" Before Ron Paul could answer, several Tea Partiers in the crowd yelled, "Yeah!" followed by cheers, jeers and applause. Ummmmmm...
Let me put it this way, if I beat the ever loving shit out of you, not kill you (because then I know we'd go with death penalty), but just beat you to the point where you need a fingerprint to prove it's actually you - society should pay for me to sit in jail, get three meals a day, learn how to shank and become a drug dealer, but you, you, the victim - society should let you either die in a gutter or, pay medical bills for the rest of your life...
Hmmmm - justice?
Now, let me go ahead and say that I don't think this country could EVER become a socialist nation. It's simply not in our DNA. However, I do think that a socialized republic is a lofty but ultimately attainable goal. That is of course, if we can get up off our asses and do something about it. But that's another soap box I'm not getting up on right now.
Right wingers seem to think that simply by cutting down government, everything from the market to humanity will even itself out to its best full potential. For fucks sake people - I mean, come on! Daniel Foster actually wrote in the NationalReview.com that the best way for people to get through tough times is to lean on family, friends and the church, not government. OK - well let's say all your friends and family are shit poor too - and the church? Oh, blow it out your ass Foster. The only thing the church is good for in times of need is to remind you how fucked you are by having to pay taxes they skirt because of some guy nailed to a pair of sticks.
Wanna know what I see here in downtown LA? On the average day, just going out for simple errands: walk to the bank, post office, coffee shop, the car - I see on average 20 homeless people. Wanna know what else I see? I see people outside of government subsidized missions and homeless shelters, waiting in line for food and blankets. Guess whose stoop is empty? The church.
It sounds nice and philanthropic but this utopia where a band of family, friends and make believe deities is always there with the right amount of cash, love and guidance just isn't fucking reality. Forgive me for entering into the realm of depressive realism, but reality blows sometimes.
That being said, reality can blow a lot less with a buffer against the harsh, biting winds of bad times. That buffer is called a government for the people, by the people and of the people. A government that works on behalf of the people it governs. It does not sit, laissez-faire while its people beg each other for loose change and a hand out. However, it does not hand out needlessly or without self interest. Interestingly enough, when a well formed government acts in its own self interest, that self interest is your self interest - hahaha, wow! Follow along with me for a second...
It creates and maintains a system of give and take. You put in an appropriate amount of your earnings knowing that should you need that buffer, it's there for you. You realize that when you go into the hospital or when you send your kids to school, it's your money that's paying for it, but also that of your friends, family and neighbours (not the church tho - they don't pay dick). You can feel proud and ironically, free, knowing that you are part of a strong, people drive system, working for the people, by the people. It is a colossal behemoth of human ingenuity and drive - progressively moving forward without leaving everyone behind. It cares without coddling. It sets up rules and regulations based on the interests of many, not the prized few. It takes into account well being, not accounts. And in so doing, it has a healthy account, both monetarily and in the hearts and minds of those it governs.
Sounds Utopian? Probably. But these tenets are tenets taken from the ideas and dreams of the founding of this country. If the constitutionalists behind people like Ron Paul really wanna feel patriotic, consider stepping outside the confines of bottom lines and extremist propaganda.
There's no such thing as a free market that works. There's no such thing as a non-existent government that works. And there's no such thing as a free people under either.
Drop your extremist ideologies, and come see what the center feels like. I promise, if you look back at our country's history - it looks pretty damn healthy, happy, successful, and...free.
Friday, July 29, 2011
T-4 days and counting...
Well, I kinda feel like I should consult my Bucket List for some crazy shit to fill these next four days...sky-diving? spontaneous travel? tango lessons? eating monkey brains...well, maybe not that last one. But I do hear they're quite good chilled.
Regardless, the final countdown is upon us. And judging by the news blasts I get from various sources, we're full steam ahead towards a default and every damn politician's too proud to reach for the break or cut the wheel.
As it stands right now, the Senate has rejected Boehner's debt plan and Obama is pleading with everyone to move forward with a plan.
The way I see it: the right, who's stance has become hardened and far more immovable by extremist Tea Partiers is going to force the left to cede on several points, making the eventual deal absolute dog shit. If that doesn't happen, we'll default. And you know what, why not?
Maybe we need it. Maybe as a country we need to fall on the cold, hard surface of concrete failure to wake up and fucking give a shit! To demand that this ridiculous juvenile banter NOT be a part of democratic governance. To become engaged, or at the very least, have the slightest fucking clue as to what's going on. Maybe it will take a massive default to make that happen. Because the way I see it, either way, things will get worse.
I really hate to be so pessimistic but let's look at the options. As I suggested, new taxes won't be on there in any useful form. Loopholes for the rich and greedy will remain in tact, because both sides are up to their necks in corporate shit. Government spending will be annihilated. In fact, anything remotely "Keynesian" will be flushed.
Keynes, as you may know, was the British economist who among other things, founded the IMF (the original one, not the debt hauling colonialists of today) and built up an economic theory based on choice government spending to bolster a sagging economy. It was this mentality that the New Deal was founded upon. Even Nixon once said, "We're all Keynesians now." Well Dick, not so much anymore.
Nope, now we're Freidman fostered, free market corporate junkies, and anything government can do, big business can do better. Cut government spending, cut taxes and hope by pulling the regulation rug out from under the market, it'll be stable enough to find footing. Well, it's not! For fuck's sake, look at the facts: for example (again, I urge you to do research as well - not hard facts to find), according to JPMorgan Chase - a corporate heavyweight - U.S salaries are at a 50-year low relative to the GDP and company sales. Simultaneously, profit margins of big corporations have soared to almost 13%, the highest since the 60s. And why are profit margins so damn high? Well, at least 75% of the reason, is because wages are low. In a nutshell, pay people less, keep more. Makes sense. Is that any way to boost an economy? Fuck no! Does anyone give a shit? Apparently not.
As Harold Myerson says in the Washington Post, "Where's the rage?"
I'm with you Harold, where the hell is it?
We may not have the ability to pull out a New Deal, but we certainly have the ability to cut tax loopholes for the rich and raise taxes to boost revenue, WHILST boosting government funded infrastructure projects. That in turn would provide jobs for the now 9.2% of Americans out of work, who would then be taxed according to their wages, and in tiny steps, the economy would pick itself up off the floor, begin to lick it's wounds and maybe, just maybe sneak out of the House before right wing Tea Partiers beat the ever loving shit out of it.
But I fear that view is too Utopian. At least for where we stand right now. And that is why I play with the idea of a default, play with the positive aspect of giving every single American a kick in the ass. Because that's who's gonna get it. You don't think the pansy political players in Washington are gonna feel a pinch. No, no. They're career politicians, pockets deeper than pre-historic caves. They'll be fine. It'll be you, and it'll be me. The ones who have up till now, paid for it, and due to our laissez-faire response, will continue to, because we make no motion to object.
So for the next four days, enjoy apathy, enjoy the nonchalant carefree attitude of a citizen with no woes. Because the gigantic cloud of woes hanging above us, will drop. If not on August 2nd, at some point in the future. We will be forced to care. Unless by some miracle, we wake up before we are woken...
Regardless, the final countdown is upon us. And judging by the news blasts I get from various sources, we're full steam ahead towards a default and every damn politician's too proud to reach for the break or cut the wheel.
As it stands right now, the Senate has rejected Boehner's debt plan and Obama is pleading with everyone to move forward with a plan.
The way I see it: the right, who's stance has become hardened and far more immovable by extremist Tea Partiers is going to force the left to cede on several points, making the eventual deal absolute dog shit. If that doesn't happen, we'll default. And you know what, why not?
Maybe we need it. Maybe as a country we need to fall on the cold, hard surface of concrete failure to wake up and fucking give a shit! To demand that this ridiculous juvenile banter NOT be a part of democratic governance. To become engaged, or at the very least, have the slightest fucking clue as to what's going on. Maybe it will take a massive default to make that happen. Because the way I see it, either way, things will get worse.
I really hate to be so pessimistic but let's look at the options. As I suggested, new taxes won't be on there in any useful form. Loopholes for the rich and greedy will remain in tact, because both sides are up to their necks in corporate shit. Government spending will be annihilated. In fact, anything remotely "Keynesian" will be flushed.
Keynes, as you may know, was the British economist who among other things, founded the IMF (the original one, not the debt hauling colonialists of today) and built up an economic theory based on choice government spending to bolster a sagging economy. It was this mentality that the New Deal was founded upon. Even Nixon once said, "We're all Keynesians now." Well Dick, not so much anymore.
Nope, now we're Freidman fostered, free market corporate junkies, and anything government can do, big business can do better. Cut government spending, cut taxes and hope by pulling the regulation rug out from under the market, it'll be stable enough to find footing. Well, it's not! For fuck's sake, look at the facts: for example (again, I urge you to do research as well - not hard facts to find), according to JPMorgan Chase - a corporate heavyweight - U.S salaries are at a 50-year low relative to the GDP and company sales. Simultaneously, profit margins of big corporations have soared to almost 13%, the highest since the 60s. And why are profit margins so damn high? Well, at least 75% of the reason, is because wages are low. In a nutshell, pay people less, keep more. Makes sense. Is that any way to boost an economy? Fuck no! Does anyone give a shit? Apparently not.
As Harold Myerson says in the Washington Post, "Where's the rage?"
I'm with you Harold, where the hell is it?
We may not have the ability to pull out a New Deal, but we certainly have the ability to cut tax loopholes for the rich and raise taxes to boost revenue, WHILST boosting government funded infrastructure projects. That in turn would provide jobs for the now 9.2% of Americans out of work, who would then be taxed according to their wages, and in tiny steps, the economy would pick itself up off the floor, begin to lick it's wounds and maybe, just maybe sneak out of the House before right wing Tea Partiers beat the ever loving shit out of it.
But I fear that view is too Utopian. At least for where we stand right now. And that is why I play with the idea of a default, play with the positive aspect of giving every single American a kick in the ass. Because that's who's gonna get it. You don't think the pansy political players in Washington are gonna feel a pinch. No, no. They're career politicians, pockets deeper than pre-historic caves. They'll be fine. It'll be you, and it'll be me. The ones who have up till now, paid for it, and due to our laissez-faire response, will continue to, because we make no motion to object.
So for the next four days, enjoy apathy, enjoy the nonchalant carefree attitude of a citizen with no woes. Because the gigantic cloud of woes hanging above us, will drop. If not on August 2nd, at some point in the future. We will be forced to care. Unless by some miracle, we wake up before we are woken...
Saturday, July 16, 2011
It's my party...
Have you ever been to a party where the hosts are arguing? Or just finished arguing and the tension could tear through those cute little puff pastries? A snide comment here, a stubborn refusal there - It's pretty damn awkward.
Now magnify that times a billion and throw in a sagging infrastructure, a bankrupt economy, faltering credit score, arrogance, ignorance, not to mention, the lives of 300 million Americans, including ones with M-16s and tanks in the sweeping desert sands of foreign quagmires-oh and take away the puff pastries.
As much as I hate to admit it, comparing our political stage to at-odds party hosts isn't much of a stretch. For a start, there are only two sides. In political systems with only two parties, progress must come from the center - there must be a constant compromise and debate, ideologies can not be ultimatums but instead starting points from which to move towards the middle. If you've been paying attention at all, it's pretty clear - that's not the case here. Ours is a classic example of two pulling poles - the grey area squashed by the extreme black and white - right and wrong, my side and your side. I've mentioned this before but in truth, there is no compromise between good and evil. When your platform is your ideology, your faith - God help the guy on the other end.
And that is the birth place for these juvenile dealings. Why the fuck have we not reached a decision on the debt crisis? Because the no-man's land center is entirely void of political dealings. Agendas cling to their far left and right platforms and ideas are shot down by the other side before they can even leave the trench.
Now, I do have to hand it to Obama - at least from what I've heard, he seems to be far more interested in negotiating than the Republicans, who simply can't imagine raising taxes or closing loopholes for the wealthiest in the nation.
In fact, if you take a look at the contenders for Republican nominee, you'll find a streamlined group of conservatives, more or less, seemingly allergic to anything not stated in their far right tenets of government.
For example, on Ron Paul's "Debt Ceiling Betrayal Petition," he writes that Boehner will only cave to Obama's wishes to raise taxes and the debt ceiling: "...as long as Speaker Boehner refuses to take a clear stand in support of only passing a debt ceiling if a strict 'Cut, Cap, and Balance' plan is also enacted, then he's just playing 'Let's make a Deal' with America's future."
Cute names - reminds me of kindergarten when you'd learn little sayings to remember the planets and presidents. And by the way Ron, I'm not sure where you studied politics, but making a deal is WHAT GOVERNANCE IS ALL ABOUT! You make deals to move forward - ummmm....heard of the New Deal by chance? Heard of compromise and debate? Probably not - he'd have been too busy scribbling 'End the Fed' on his notebook to notice the keystone of successful governance is DEALing with the wants and needs of your constituents, DEALing with the opposition, not just clapping together a cute saying, plastering it over an extreme platform of free markets, no regulations and itsy bitsy government.
And how about Mitt Romney...oh boy. He must've really liked see-saws as a kid. After his comment that Obama has only made the recession much worse, when faced with the facts that he indeed hadn't made it worse, Romney jumped to the other side of the see-saw, hoping to rise back up saying that's not in fact what he had said, he said it hadn't gotten better...somewhere, a comedian is very happy...his platform is similar to Paul's: small government, free trade, lax regulations, kill the federally funded programs, yet contrary to Paul's anti-war stance, Romney supports an even stronger military, saying "The best ally world peace has ever known is a strong America." Good Christ, I wish these people would read a fucking history book!
And then there's Michele Bachmann - I don't think I have enough space on the world wide web for this one. It actually says on her website, as a top priority: "Rebuild respect for America as the shining city upon a hill." This kind of idealistic, Utopian psychotic behaviour is what pushes the US to lose all semblance of respect overseas. We're not a fucking city upon a hill, and with platforms such as Bachmann's tiny government, cuts to federally funded programs, "strengthen the family and defend marriage," spending more on military and defense, and opening up the environment to our out-of-control fossil fuel addiction, we're not inching too close to gaining respect any time soon. Again, the steadfast ideological stance is clear. There will be no compromise - you can not compromise with policy based on faith, based on intangible beliefs in our superiority, our arrogant greatness. The dirty truths slide off your mind like water off a duck.
There are other contenders for Republican nominee but I'm too angry and exhausted to share those with you. I will tell you to check out http://2012.republican-candidates.org/ for a complete list. I do recommend that you nap in between, maybe have a punching bag nearby. All joking aside, these politicians are serious choices for many Americans. And what about Obama? Is he doing a good job? Is he representing us to the best of his ability? These aren't rhetorical questions. I want to know what you think.
This party is out of control. I know it's uncomfortable to step into the fray, to stand up and get involved. But unlike most parties, this one has our future on the line. This one has our livelihood on the line, and for many, their lives.
Put the puff pastry down. Think. React. Do Something.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
The faith of politics
It's not easy being a vehement moderate, a progressive activist. The very basis of activism suggests some kind of extremist background that pushes you into the ring, your ideologies guiding your sword against the evils of those who disagree.
Yeah, that's not me. I don't own weapons and I use logic and debate as my weapons...the pen (or in today's world, the keypad) is mightier than the sword.
I am highly opinionated and hold on to truth and fact as often as possible. I make it a point to constantly question what I think so that I do not fall into a quagmire of my own beliefs. Politics as faith is no different than a God based faith - if anything, it's more dangerous. Religion never claimed to be logic based - politics are supposed to be based on logic, debate, compromise, diplomacy. When your platform becomes your holy writ, your political stance becomes a religion, a faith, and all who stand outside are wrong, even evil. And from that is born extremist movements that weaken the body politic with every God guided punch from their corner.
Unfortunately, most politicians these days fall under that category. Ron Paul is such a man.
For the past 30 years, he's held on to his viewpoints, unwavering through thick and thin, fact and fiction. His never-ending crusade against the Fed, his loony tune tirades about free markets, smaller government, no taxes, and liquidation of half the Federal agencies. I do appreciate his support of ending all military activity overseas, but if that ever happens, I'll have to check how much of his legalized heroin I've been shooting up.
Hailing himself as the father of the Tea Party, the rise of it's popularity suggests there may be strengthened support for someone like him in the upcoming elections. Obama's continued shuffle to the right gives extremist right-wingers the chance to stand up as "true Republicans," distancing themselves from the ever encroaching evil Democrats.
Meanwhile, polling suggests that the bulk of Americans don't actually support the fringe ideals of the Tea Party and friends.
There's been a recent backlash from the public in regards to the Health Care Bill and even Rep. Ryan's sea of support has evaporated into mere pools after public opinion showed his ideas little affection.
To get into a party war, the Republicans have weak leadership and are fractured between right and extreme right, allowing for more room but also more infighting. The Democrats are just weak from top to bottom. Their ability to govern with any semblance of a spine is about as effective as a doggie door in an elephant cage. Yet there is no hope for a third party, at least not now. The civil war in the ranks of the Republicans may break into a third party but it would soon disband and be swallowed by one of the terror twins.
And yet as polls show Americans drifting more towards the center, progressively thinking (if not apathetically), the political stage is still awash with partisan banter, extremist views and an impassable no-mans land in between. As seen in recent attempts at legislation and governance, extremist ideologies hold no place in politics. There is no room for pedestals made of unwavering beliefs that you are right and "they" are wrong.
But as long as that faith holds fast, as long as those beliefs stand firm, our country will make less progress than a drunk turtle at a Nascar race.
I don't expect Ron Paul to become president - I don't think he'll win the Republican nomination either. But the recent Republican gun slingers taking the stage against Obama shows an interesting trend in the rise of extremist viewpoints among that party: Gingrich, Paul, Trump - like I said, perhaps a direct reaction to the bi-partisan, spineless trend in the Democratic party. As usual, I think both sides are fucked. I predict that Obama will win a second term but not as a shoo-in. Just as Clinton beat out Bush after his "impressive" show of power in Kuwait, the bottom line is that domestic issues are showing a much more questionable trial and error report card than the simplistic one-shot-to-the-head escapade in Pakistan.
Political faith and what the Republicans/Tea Party have brewing scares me. But political apathy scares me even more. The biggest threat to any government is a people who think. The biggest threat to a faith is people who think. Read, research, learn, react, Do Something.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Land of the free?
In keeping with American tradition, I am going to completely ignore the current events in the Ivory Coast, the overthrow of Gbagbo, the nearly thousands of dead civilians - burned and tortured, and the waves of protests and underground mutterings regarding French involvement and the future reign of Ouattara.
Why?
Because they don't have oil and their religious feud is far less interesting than the quagmire that is the Middle East.
So, let's talk about the Middle East, a subject that never gets dull due to the constant train of broken promises, dead soldiers, dollars and cents.
First of all, the 2010 deadline has clearly already passed to bring troops out of Iraq and now it looks as though this year might not reach that glorious milestone either. Excuse me while I feign surprise. I was highly suspicious of that bullshit laden speech as soon as it wafted out from Obama's mouth. Now that he's building his re-election campaign however, he'll have to come up with something good to avoid the glaring truth that he furthered an unpopular war and has not stood by his promise to end it....umm...I suggest the good old fashioned "It's our safety at stake here. We're preventing terrorist attacks."
Meanwhile, in Syria, a country that until recently seemed immune to the "Arab Spring," is now entering into the cyclone of public disapproval and mass protests. Rallies keep escalating as the death toll of civilians killed by the government surpasses 100 people. What critics say is making President Bashar al-Assad (successor to his father, Hafez) really nervous is that the epicenter of these protests is in Daraa, a highly conservative town, as opposed to towns such as Hama or Aleppo, where the banned Muslim Brotherhood has a slew of supporters. Needless to say, it's only a matter of time before the dominoes really start crashing. The interesting thing, once again, is the eerie parallels between Syria and our own city upon a hill. While their chants call for freedom and democracy, the economy is the real source of their outrage. The agricultural regions of the South have been battered by a drought while the entire country suffers from shitty money management. Unemployment for young citizens is a huge issue, most young graduates with advanced degrees do menial work such as drive taxis. There's also much grievance with corruption in the upper echelons of society, particularly targeting Assad's cousin, Rami Makhlouf, a tycoon infamous for pocketing government kickbacks.
Hmmmmmm...sounds so familiar....wait, don't tell me...holy shit! It's like us! Ha, small world huh?
Here's where it actually starts to differ - the President has in fact begun to make some concessions towards the will of the people: he has released jailed protesters, fired his entire cabinet and tossed out the publicly loathed governor of Daraa, Faysal Kalthum. He's still on thin ice but clearly realizes that he is not immune to the power of public opinion. It's not quite clear if Syria is on track to completely overhaul their government or if reform is enough to quiet the uprisings. We wait with bated breath...
Meanwhile, in Yemen, the US is now putting pressure on President Saleh to step down. It's been a tricky call for us, considering that Saleh has been a main player in fighting the Yemeni branch of Al Qaida. We waited while his supporters fired on unarmed demonstrators in the streets, hoping that it would all just go away like a bad dream and we could go back to playing puppet master in the sand box of the Middle East. Unfortunately, no play time on the horizon. Protests continue to escalate so we now have made public our reluctant suggestion for Saleh to cede power to a deputy, while simultaneously keeping his relatives in charge of counterterrorism...ummmm..OK. I think the point is to just oust the whole fucking house of cards, dick sticks, but by all means, place your agenda at the forefront and move your pawns accordingly. The "little people" of Yemen are not too pleased by the US's eventual commentary. Tawakul Karman, a leader of the anti-government youth movement said, "We are really very, very angry...We feel that we have been betrayed." Well done US. Your diplomacy is about as effective as a doggy door in an elephant cage.
Onwards to Libya where Qaddafi toys with the idea of escape, but only if he receives full immunity, something NATO forces are not completely tossing out. If they can get Qaddafi the hell out of there and try to begin the rebuilding process, NATO feels that it might be the only way to save lives. Meanwhile NATO has quieted their guns due to the confusion brought on by a recent bombing of Qaddafi's tanks, which had been overtaken and were then manned by the rebels...oops. So, the rebels are pissed b/c they're not getting much back up anymore and NATO is pissed b/c they don't know who the fuck is who and don't want to guess, risking the lives of not just soldiers but hundreds of civilians.
And, by the by, who are we really fighting for? I'm all for democracy and peace, but something has to fill the vacuum, and I'm guessing it won't be hippies with flowers in their hair and love in their hearts. While rulers like Qaddafi and Mubarak were cruel dictators by trade, they knew how to keep a lid on extremists, at least to a point...kinda like Hussein. Yeah, remember him? The truth of the matter is that although extremist groups like Al Qaida are not widely popular in countries like Egypt or Libya, the turmoil is perfect for their kind of rhetoric. Get rid of the Western leaning secular swine and replace him with an Islamist ruler. It really doesn't sound far fetched - particularly when you consider that there have been mutterings of Al Qaida involvement with the rebels in Libya, even by NATO's commander, U.S. Adm. James Stavridis.
It's kind of like the Tea Party here - it's not that the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with their extremist views, it's just that they are the loudest and they jumped into action at the perfect time - grabbing key support and raising their bullshit agenda above the seemingly lost sheep of the rest of the country. Something similar may be happening in Libya, particularly when you consider out track record in the Middle East is an easy target for new recruits. You don't have to travel far to find a bomb or gun shell with our name on it.
So, in the end, maybe we should've at least done a little more research before we sent our monster planes over to save the day. But, as Bush and friends will tell you, planning takes time - time we don't have b/c the terrorists are after us...ooooo - don't look now but the Boogie Man outside is holding a Quran.
Bottom line: you save more lives with intelligent diplomacy than you do with air raids. It just makes for less exciting television.
Why?
Because they don't have oil and their religious feud is far less interesting than the quagmire that is the Middle East.
So, let's talk about the Middle East, a subject that never gets dull due to the constant train of broken promises, dead soldiers, dollars and cents.
First of all, the 2010 deadline has clearly already passed to bring troops out of Iraq and now it looks as though this year might not reach that glorious milestone either. Excuse me while I feign surprise. I was highly suspicious of that bullshit laden speech as soon as it wafted out from Obama's mouth. Now that he's building his re-election campaign however, he'll have to come up with something good to avoid the glaring truth that he furthered an unpopular war and has not stood by his promise to end it....umm...I suggest the good old fashioned "It's our safety at stake here. We're preventing terrorist attacks."
Meanwhile, in Syria, a country that until recently seemed immune to the "Arab Spring," is now entering into the cyclone of public disapproval and mass protests. Rallies keep escalating as the death toll of civilians killed by the government surpasses 100 people. What critics say is making President Bashar al-Assad (successor to his father, Hafez) really nervous is that the epicenter of these protests is in Daraa, a highly conservative town, as opposed to towns such as Hama or Aleppo, where the banned Muslim Brotherhood has a slew of supporters. Needless to say, it's only a matter of time before the dominoes really start crashing. The interesting thing, once again, is the eerie parallels between Syria and our own city upon a hill. While their chants call for freedom and democracy, the economy is the real source of their outrage. The agricultural regions of the South have been battered by a drought while the entire country suffers from shitty money management. Unemployment for young citizens is a huge issue, most young graduates with advanced degrees do menial work such as drive taxis. There's also much grievance with corruption in the upper echelons of society, particularly targeting Assad's cousin, Rami Makhlouf, a tycoon infamous for pocketing government kickbacks.
Hmmmmmm...sounds so familiar....wait, don't tell me...holy shit! It's like us! Ha, small world huh?
Here's where it actually starts to differ - the President has in fact begun to make some concessions towards the will of the people: he has released jailed protesters, fired his entire cabinet and tossed out the publicly loathed governor of Daraa, Faysal Kalthum. He's still on thin ice but clearly realizes that he is not immune to the power of public opinion. It's not quite clear if Syria is on track to completely overhaul their government or if reform is enough to quiet the uprisings. We wait with bated breath...
Meanwhile, in Yemen, the US is now putting pressure on President Saleh to step down. It's been a tricky call for us, considering that Saleh has been a main player in fighting the Yemeni branch of Al Qaida. We waited while his supporters fired on unarmed demonstrators in the streets, hoping that it would all just go away like a bad dream and we could go back to playing puppet master in the sand box of the Middle East. Unfortunately, no play time on the horizon. Protests continue to escalate so we now have made public our reluctant suggestion for Saleh to cede power to a deputy, while simultaneously keeping his relatives in charge of counterterrorism...ummmm..OK. I think the point is to just oust the whole fucking house of cards, dick sticks, but by all means, place your agenda at the forefront and move your pawns accordingly. The "little people" of Yemen are not too pleased by the US's eventual commentary. Tawakul Karman, a leader of the anti-government youth movement said, "We are really very, very angry...We feel that we have been betrayed." Well done US. Your diplomacy is about as effective as a doggy door in an elephant cage.
Onwards to Libya where Qaddafi toys with the idea of escape, but only if he receives full immunity, something NATO forces are not completely tossing out. If they can get Qaddafi the hell out of there and try to begin the rebuilding process, NATO feels that it might be the only way to save lives. Meanwhile NATO has quieted their guns due to the confusion brought on by a recent bombing of Qaddafi's tanks, which had been overtaken and were then manned by the rebels...oops. So, the rebels are pissed b/c they're not getting much back up anymore and NATO is pissed b/c they don't know who the fuck is who and don't want to guess, risking the lives of not just soldiers but hundreds of civilians.
And, by the by, who are we really fighting for? I'm all for democracy and peace, but something has to fill the vacuum, and I'm guessing it won't be hippies with flowers in their hair and love in their hearts. While rulers like Qaddafi and Mubarak were cruel dictators by trade, they knew how to keep a lid on extremists, at least to a point...kinda like Hussein. Yeah, remember him? The truth of the matter is that although extremist groups like Al Qaida are not widely popular in countries like Egypt or Libya, the turmoil is perfect for their kind of rhetoric. Get rid of the Western leaning secular swine and replace him with an Islamist ruler. It really doesn't sound far fetched - particularly when you consider that there have been mutterings of Al Qaida involvement with the rebels in Libya, even by NATO's commander, U.S. Adm. James Stavridis.
It's kind of like the Tea Party here - it's not that the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with their extremist views, it's just that they are the loudest and they jumped into action at the perfect time - grabbing key support and raising their bullshit agenda above the seemingly lost sheep of the rest of the country. Something similar may be happening in Libya, particularly when you consider out track record in the Middle East is an easy target for new recruits. You don't have to travel far to find a bomb or gun shell with our name on it.
So, in the end, maybe we should've at least done a little more research before we sent our monster planes over to save the day. But, as Bush and friends will tell you, planning takes time - time we don't have b/c the terrorists are after us...ooooo - don't look now but the Boogie Man outside is holding a Quran.
Bottom line: you save more lives with intelligent diplomacy than you do with air raids. It just makes for less exciting television.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Tug o' War
People really aren’t letting the midterm elections go. As if something completely unprecedented happened and now everyone and their mother has to offer opinions and play-by-plays as to what went wrong and what needs to happen now. So, I might as well chime in too.
People saw the tea party as too extreme, the democrats too spineless and clearly unable to get the job (any job) done. And republicans just right...that’s what i think happened in many cases. Here we see an archaic emergence of a possible multi-party system. I verbally teeter around that statement because we haven’t really seen the extent to which the tea party can or will go with their extremist agenda. The only thing that’s clear is that they are making their mark in the political realm. However, it’s not enough of a mark to coax the left and the right into significantly altering how they do business. Aside from the open Democratic admission that legislation would be trickery to get across (aka nothing will get passed unless it’s a Republican idea), Democrats also re-elected Nancy Pelosi as their minority speaker, despite the clear public opinion that she has done jack-squat for her party, constituents and country (well nothing positive anyway). Obama continues on his cowering way towards a ferocious fail in 2012 while Republicans continue with their gun-toting, praise Jesus and America, I’m right you’re wrong mentality. Really, it’s business as usual.
At this juncture, the Tea Party is more a thorn in the side of two giants playing tug-o-war than a viable contender. And I doubt much will change until the Tea Party or (please, christ, please) some other party steps up to the plate and demands an end to this bi-partisan shit show.
So, enough about me, let’s see what everyone else is saying. DeWayne Wickham of USA Today suggests that Obama and friends grow at least one set of balls and step away from the moderate center and kick some Republican ass from the liberal corner. He says “voters will reward a party that fights tenaciously for what it believes.” E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post agrees saying that “moderation and compromise is a loser’s game.”
Well guys, here’s the problem with that mentality. Politics is about compromise, it’s about debate and push/pull. If you can’t do that, you have no place in government. The other issue is that the US is made up of moderates. Polls have shown for years that most Americans only vote one way or the other because it most closely represents a few main issues, and by no means is a solid representation of them as citizens. Multi-party system, cough, cough. The problem isn’t that the Democrats have compromised, the problem is that they have given way, big difference. Compromise entails using a majority and muscle when you need to and working to hurdle differences for the good of the people you govern. Of course if you go up against the hard headed Republicans with nothing but a weak request for change you’re gonna get your asses handed to you. But if you walk in there, dispense with the niceties of crossing the aisle, kumba-ya and all that shit, flash ‘em of a glimpse of your “big stick” as it were and then bullet point what the hell needs to get done, it’ll get done.
It’s so easy to retreat back to your party fold and say, ok fine, we lost, daddy donkey will make it all better again. Horse shit. Daddy donkey needs to be put out to pasture and you need to come up with something fresh. The demure approach clearly didn’t work. Standing your ground when your foundation is built on washed up spineless wishy-washers (umm...Pelosi) and loosely formulated ideas that are just begging to be ripped apart (ummm...health care, economy) is another recipe for disaster.
Get the lack-luster cooks out of the kitchen, roll your sleeves up and govern. And that’s that, that’s my take on the whole cluster fuck.
People saw the tea party as too extreme, the democrats too spineless and clearly unable to get the job (any job) done. And republicans just right...that’s what i think happened in many cases. Here we see an archaic emergence of a possible multi-party system. I verbally teeter around that statement because we haven’t really seen the extent to which the tea party can or will go with their extremist agenda. The only thing that’s clear is that they are making their mark in the political realm. However, it’s not enough of a mark to coax the left and the right into significantly altering how they do business. Aside from the open Democratic admission that legislation would be trickery to get across (aka nothing will get passed unless it’s a Republican idea), Democrats also re-elected Nancy Pelosi as their minority speaker, despite the clear public opinion that she has done jack-squat for her party, constituents and country (well nothing positive anyway). Obama continues on his cowering way towards a ferocious fail in 2012 while Republicans continue with their gun-toting, praise Jesus and America, I’m right you’re wrong mentality. Really, it’s business as usual.
At this juncture, the Tea Party is more a thorn in the side of two giants playing tug-o-war than a viable contender. And I doubt much will change until the Tea Party or (please, christ, please) some other party steps up to the plate and demands an end to this bi-partisan shit show.
So, enough about me, let’s see what everyone else is saying. DeWayne Wickham of USA Today suggests that Obama and friends grow at least one set of balls and step away from the moderate center and kick some Republican ass from the liberal corner. He says “voters will reward a party that fights tenaciously for what it believes.” E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post agrees saying that “moderation and compromise is a loser’s game.”
Well guys, here’s the problem with that mentality. Politics is about compromise, it’s about debate and push/pull. If you can’t do that, you have no place in government. The other issue is that the US is made up of moderates. Polls have shown for years that most Americans only vote one way or the other because it most closely represents a few main issues, and by no means is a solid representation of them as citizens. Multi-party system, cough, cough. The problem isn’t that the Democrats have compromised, the problem is that they have given way, big difference. Compromise entails using a majority and muscle when you need to and working to hurdle differences for the good of the people you govern. Of course if you go up against the hard headed Republicans with nothing but a weak request for change you’re gonna get your asses handed to you. But if you walk in there, dispense with the niceties of crossing the aisle, kumba-ya and all that shit, flash ‘em of a glimpse of your “big stick” as it were and then bullet point what the hell needs to get done, it’ll get done.
It’s so easy to retreat back to your party fold and say, ok fine, we lost, daddy donkey will make it all better again. Horse shit. Daddy donkey needs to be put out to pasture and you need to come up with something fresh. The demure approach clearly didn’t work. Standing your ground when your foundation is built on washed up spineless wishy-washers (umm...Pelosi) and loosely formulated ideas that are just begging to be ripped apart (ummm...health care, economy) is another recipe for disaster.
Get the lack-luster cooks out of the kitchen, roll your sleeves up and govern. And that’s that, that’s my take on the whole cluster fuck.
Monday, November 1, 2010
A comedy of errors
Americans love entertainment. It's kind of like kids and sweets. And if you have a kid or have ever seen one, you know how they feel about eating their vegetables. That's how Americans are with real, hard facts. They shy away from them as if their pure, additive-free existence would do them physical harm, when in reality, it's quite the opposite. So, what do many parents do? Trick their simple minded children into eating fruits and veggies by putting chocolate syrup on a fruit salad or cheese on broccoli.
That's what the truth bearers must do. Many feel that's just what John Stewart and Stephen Colbert did with their "Rally to restore Sanity and/or Fear."
First of all, the fucking rally was packed. People came from all over the country. The trains were jam packed, the streets filled with people carrying signs, dressed patriotically, and genuinely excited to gather in the name of veggies and fruit.
The question everyone wants answered, particularly with the elections so close, is whether it worked or not. Was it enough to get a rise out of the dormant Democratic drive and propel them into not getting totally fucked tomorrow? Was it enough to make a mockery of extremist groups like the Tea Party? Was it enough to move Americans more towards the change we all bitch about and all hope for?
Well, I can't really answer that the day after - kinda like a pregnancy. You might have to wait a few months to see how things are shaping up. In the meantime, just judging by the events of the rally, I'll make my hypothesis.
This won't be the behemoth change that will catapult the average American into giving a shit. However, it's a start. When I was younger, I listened to music not because I was politically engaged but because Axl and Slash proved to me that I could never be a lesbian...and they were just cool. However, as I gained years and wisdom, I looked into the words and found some political ones. Then I dug deeper. I checked out other bands that were politically engaged (unfortunately most of them were from the 60s and 70s) and began my journey on the rocky path of a politically conscious citizen. Like I said, Americans love entertainment.
It wasn't enough at the ripe young age of 8 for my history professor to say politics were important. I needed a little push. I needed to discover for myself through my own avenues, not just having truth after truth shoved in my face. Music was a doorway, a doorway that made that broccoli look yummy, without the velveeta cheese.
John Stewart and Stephen Colbert could prove to be a part of that doorway. Other pieces will need to be set in place, but there was a significant response to yesterdays rally, significant enough for even the most uninterested constituent to at least watch a film clip and chuckle to himself. And that could be a very vital catalyst.
Music, comedy, art, anything that coats the obvious, unfortunate truths of society with a veil of chic, cool, or fun will win more people than a constant cluster fuck of information. It may be sad, but it is true. Those two late night comedic geniuses might just be geniuses for another reason. Getting this country off its proverbial ass and in step with current events, national and international is a tall order. So far, no one has succeeded. Perhaps where the mundane in humanity has failed, the eccentric, artistic and creative can take over and effect the change this country needs.
That's what the truth bearers must do. Many feel that's just what John Stewart and Stephen Colbert did with their "Rally to restore Sanity and/or Fear."
First of all, the fucking rally was packed. People came from all over the country. The trains were jam packed, the streets filled with people carrying signs, dressed patriotically, and genuinely excited to gather in the name of veggies and fruit.
The question everyone wants answered, particularly with the elections so close, is whether it worked or not. Was it enough to get a rise out of the dormant Democratic drive and propel them into not getting totally fucked tomorrow? Was it enough to make a mockery of extremist groups like the Tea Party? Was it enough to move Americans more towards the change we all bitch about and all hope for?
Well, I can't really answer that the day after - kinda like a pregnancy. You might have to wait a few months to see how things are shaping up. In the meantime, just judging by the events of the rally, I'll make my hypothesis.
This won't be the behemoth change that will catapult the average American into giving a shit. However, it's a start. When I was younger, I listened to music not because I was politically engaged but because Axl and Slash proved to me that I could never be a lesbian...and they were just cool. However, as I gained years and wisdom, I looked into the words and found some political ones. Then I dug deeper. I checked out other bands that were politically engaged (unfortunately most of them were from the 60s and 70s) and began my journey on the rocky path of a politically conscious citizen. Like I said, Americans love entertainment.
It wasn't enough at the ripe young age of 8 for my history professor to say politics were important. I needed a little push. I needed to discover for myself through my own avenues, not just having truth after truth shoved in my face. Music was a doorway, a doorway that made that broccoli look yummy, without the velveeta cheese.
John Stewart and Stephen Colbert could prove to be a part of that doorway. Other pieces will need to be set in place, but there was a significant response to yesterdays rally, significant enough for even the most uninterested constituent to at least watch a film clip and chuckle to himself. And that could be a very vital catalyst.
Music, comedy, art, anything that coats the obvious, unfortunate truths of society with a veil of chic, cool, or fun will win more people than a constant cluster fuck of information. It may be sad, but it is true. Those two late night comedic geniuses might just be geniuses for another reason. Getting this country off its proverbial ass and in step with current events, national and international is a tall order. So far, no one has succeeded. Perhaps where the mundane in humanity has failed, the eccentric, artistic and creative can take over and effect the change this country needs.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Right in the middle...
As we all know this country is a two-party governmental system. With the primaries sneaking ever closer, there are few illusions as to the voiceless middle's absence from any sort of campaigning or long shot chance at a victory in key races. Wandering through the myriad of news stories yesterday, I came across an interesting piece on CNN discussing the "Militant Middle" as they're coming to be known. If you follow politics, you'll know that most of the US is not made up of tea partiers and Greenpeace vegans. At least, at the very least, 1/3 of Americans are in fact moderates. That doesn't necessarily mean independents or Green partiers that like ruining the election for the terror twins. No, it just means that they don't necessarily fit the corporate status quo laid out by the left and right pillars of our government. I found it interesting when the article quoted Rep. Kathleen Curry (Colorado) as saying she left the Democratic party due to their demands she listen to them more than her constituents. It is a complaint too few politicians are making and far too few voters are acknowledging. However, according to the article, there is a growing middle "party" if you will, that is acknowledging this horrendous disconnect between voters wants/needs and what is actually getting done. I checked out one of the sites mentioned in the article, ModerateVoters.org and found an interesting buffet of moderate styled news. Their key phrase at the top reads: "First, there was the conservative Drudge Report. Next, there was the liberal Huffington Post. Finally, for the rest of us, there is Moderate Voters."
While I joined the site and appreciate the growing forum for people who don't like being pulled left or right for the sake of a politicians career, I wonder if it's not unfortunately more lip service. Rick Bayan, a moderate who was excited about Obama and now complains he's more establishment than promised (sorry Rick, should've seen that coming) concedes that what this country needs is "extremist moderates." I don't really like that terminology. Extremist anything implies the inability to see anyone else's point of view other than your own. It smacks of arrogance, self righteousness and overall asshole-ishness that I don't think we need more of in this country.
I will however agree that if shit is going to change, the people who aren't loony tuned extreme left and right need to step up and do something, without pussy footing around issues or people's personal feelings. Bipartisanship my ass, it's called getting shit done for this country. You don't need to "cross party lines," you need to ignore party lines, lay down your ill-placed loyalties to elephants and donkeys and focus on the people instead. There is a growing middle and I think we've all noticed it. The Tea Party has certainly provided moderate Republicans a reason to start walking towards the middle a bit. Disappointment with Obama and really anyone else elected under a Democrat or Republican party flag is coaxing more and more people to head center. And contrary to popular belief, these are the people that are the most engaged in politics - again, what this country needs. Many people complain that moderates or independents just need to make up their mind. In fact, they have. Just like most atheists or agnostics are so because of their experiences in religion, most moderates chose to be so not because they're indecisive but because they dug past party propaganda and found nothing but empty promises and mud slinging popularity contests.
So, what's next? Well, as I said, while I'm excited about the new mutterings of moderates getting louder, I fear it may be more talk than action. The right and left history of this country is ingrained in more than just those who uphold it. If a third party were to be introduced would Americans (even those who are tired with the right and left) know how to handle it? Is the two-party system too tattooed in our political minds to break away from the choking comfort it brings?
Apart from the voters side, the terror twins are not likely to willingly accept another contender for CEO of the White House, particularly if that contender is more honest and less corrupt.
It's a long, hard road for an endeavour such as this. One thing is definitely for certain. If moderates are to rise to legitimately battle the right and the left for power, toppling status quo and the for sale nature of our government, they must rise above forums and the chic suffering of an alternative culture.
Another article I read today spoke of conservative activists crossing lines of custom, tradition and even the law to get their point across. Not to be a bad influence, but how come the middle isn't doing that? Why are the Ann Coulters the only ones who have a fire in their bellies? Grab hold of the average American psyche - the one that can't be explained with extremist left or right hectoring. Grab hold of it and change something, not hope for change or campaign for change, really change something. As I sit here writing this with no plans to blow up parliament, I realize the hypocritical nature of this post. So, I leave you to go write some incendiary lyrics to stir the pot...hope to see you on the other side.
While I joined the site and appreciate the growing forum for people who don't like being pulled left or right for the sake of a politicians career, I wonder if it's not unfortunately more lip service. Rick Bayan, a moderate who was excited about Obama and now complains he's more establishment than promised (sorry Rick, should've seen that coming) concedes that what this country needs is "extremist moderates." I don't really like that terminology. Extremist anything implies the inability to see anyone else's point of view other than your own. It smacks of arrogance, self righteousness and overall asshole-ishness that I don't think we need more of in this country.
I will however agree that if shit is going to change, the people who aren't loony tuned extreme left and right need to step up and do something, without pussy footing around issues or people's personal feelings. Bipartisanship my ass, it's called getting shit done for this country. You don't need to "cross party lines," you need to ignore party lines, lay down your ill-placed loyalties to elephants and donkeys and focus on the people instead. There is a growing middle and I think we've all noticed it. The Tea Party has certainly provided moderate Republicans a reason to start walking towards the middle a bit. Disappointment with Obama and really anyone else elected under a Democrat or Republican party flag is coaxing more and more people to head center. And contrary to popular belief, these are the people that are the most engaged in politics - again, what this country needs. Many people complain that moderates or independents just need to make up their mind. In fact, they have. Just like most atheists or agnostics are so because of their experiences in religion, most moderates chose to be so not because they're indecisive but because they dug past party propaganda and found nothing but empty promises and mud slinging popularity contests.
So, what's next? Well, as I said, while I'm excited about the new mutterings of moderates getting louder, I fear it may be more talk than action. The right and left history of this country is ingrained in more than just those who uphold it. If a third party were to be introduced would Americans (even those who are tired with the right and left) know how to handle it? Is the two-party system too tattooed in our political minds to break away from the choking comfort it brings?
Apart from the voters side, the terror twins are not likely to willingly accept another contender for CEO of the White House, particularly if that contender is more honest and less corrupt.
It's a long, hard road for an endeavour such as this. One thing is definitely for certain. If moderates are to rise to legitimately battle the right and the left for power, toppling status quo and the for sale nature of our government, they must rise above forums and the chic suffering of an alternative culture.
Another article I read today spoke of conservative activists crossing lines of custom, tradition and even the law to get their point across. Not to be a bad influence, but how come the middle isn't doing that? Why are the Ann Coulters the only ones who have a fire in their bellies? Grab hold of the average American psyche - the one that can't be explained with extremist left or right hectoring. Grab hold of it and change something, not hope for change or campaign for change, really change something. As I sit here writing this with no plans to blow up parliament, I realize the hypocritical nature of this post. So, I leave you to go write some incendiary lyrics to stir the pot...hope to see you on the other side.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Tea is to Coffee as Republican is to Democrat
On the heels of the expulsion of the Tea Party Express a.k.a the Tea Party on speed, I decided to check into some of the workings of both the Tea Party and its sworn enemy, the Coffee Party.
What I found was a striking case of déja-vu. Granted, I did grow up in the South so hearing people refer to blacks as "colored people" like Mark Williams, leader of Tea Party Express did, is unfortunately not a new thing to me. However, neither are the stances or arguments of either group.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree here and from top organizers to tea and coffee drinkers across the US, the right vs. left hectoring runs deep.
The Tea Party came first, and started with a message of anger and action at a time when that's what the US needed. Having started as a response to the bailouts, the group quickly morphed into a sick, right wing extremist bitch fest complete with guns and an ironic support for the very people who caused the bailout.
The Coffee Party began as a response to the Tea Party which in reality is a shitty reason to start an organization. Annabel Park wanted to have a little sit down to discuss issues from a non-Tea Party viewpoint.
Beginning to see the trend? Tea Partiers like their Republican overlords are loud, stupid, ill-advised, close-minded, gun-toting right wingers while the Coffee Partiers are quiet, spineless, peace loving lefties.
May seem a harsh representation but overall, am I wrong?
These two parties offer nothing that the two party system doesn't. If anything, they're just amplified versions of the guys in suits that get paid to run this country into the shitter. You have Sarah Palin as a poster child, who many Republicans feel is a little too off the intelligence and experience reservation. You have support of extremist candidates and good old boys like Mark Williams and Richard Behney cleaning their guns and watching out for "colored people," a sentiment most Republicans wouldn't agree with or at least state openly.
Then you have the Coffee Party that is submissive and sweet, starting each meeting with a pledge to respect with patience and understanding the viewpoints of those who don't agree with them. You have members saying that they don't wanna "make a ruckus," they just want to sit down and converse about issues. Well, isn't that nice?
And to top it off, you have right and left bashing from each group. After all, coffee doesn't like tea and tea doesn't like coffee. So, how does that move this country forward? How does a "grassroots" representation of the suited version in congress make a shit stick of difference?
Well, it doesn't really.
For those of us who don't wake up proclaiming our undying devotion to either party, we have to sit in the sticky, untasty middle between coffee and tea.
Polls show that most US citizens are not staunchly Republican or Democrat, that they fall under the heading of "moderate." To me, that suggests that Republicans and Democrats, likewise Tea and Coffee are out of the loop.
The two party system is debunked, it doesn't work. It is flawed beyond repair. Our country is stagnating as corporate interests feed off our indecision. We don't need more offshoots of the same old shit, we need a real grassroots organization, a real NEW theme: to move forward, not right and left.
What I found was a striking case of déja-vu. Granted, I did grow up in the South so hearing people refer to blacks as "colored people" like Mark Williams, leader of Tea Party Express did, is unfortunately not a new thing to me. However, neither are the stances or arguments of either group.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree here and from top organizers to tea and coffee drinkers across the US, the right vs. left hectoring runs deep.
The Tea Party came first, and started with a message of anger and action at a time when that's what the US needed. Having started as a response to the bailouts, the group quickly morphed into a sick, right wing extremist bitch fest complete with guns and an ironic support for the very people who caused the bailout.
The Coffee Party began as a response to the Tea Party which in reality is a shitty reason to start an organization. Annabel Park wanted to have a little sit down to discuss issues from a non-Tea Party viewpoint.
Beginning to see the trend? Tea Partiers like their Republican overlords are loud, stupid, ill-advised, close-minded, gun-toting right wingers while the Coffee Partiers are quiet, spineless, peace loving lefties.
May seem a harsh representation but overall, am I wrong?
These two parties offer nothing that the two party system doesn't. If anything, they're just amplified versions of the guys in suits that get paid to run this country into the shitter. You have Sarah Palin as a poster child, who many Republicans feel is a little too off the intelligence and experience reservation. You have support of extremist candidates and good old boys like Mark Williams and Richard Behney cleaning their guns and watching out for "colored people," a sentiment most Republicans wouldn't agree with or at least state openly.
Then you have the Coffee Party that is submissive and sweet, starting each meeting with a pledge to respect with patience and understanding the viewpoints of those who don't agree with them. You have members saying that they don't wanna "make a ruckus," they just want to sit down and converse about issues. Well, isn't that nice?
And to top it off, you have right and left bashing from each group. After all, coffee doesn't like tea and tea doesn't like coffee. So, how does that move this country forward? How does a "grassroots" representation of the suited version in congress make a shit stick of difference?
Well, it doesn't really.
For those of us who don't wake up proclaiming our undying devotion to either party, we have to sit in the sticky, untasty middle between coffee and tea.
Polls show that most US citizens are not staunchly Republican or Democrat, that they fall under the heading of "moderate." To me, that suggests that Republicans and Democrats, likewise Tea and Coffee are out of the loop.
The two party system is debunked, it doesn't work. It is flawed beyond repair. Our country is stagnating as corporate interests feed off our indecision. We don't need more offshoots of the same old shit, we need a real grassroots organization, a real NEW theme: to move forward, not right and left.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Clinton looks back
Former President Bill Clinton sat down with Wolf Blitzer in the Situation Room (sounds like something out of a superhero movie) to discuss the upcoming anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, which occurred on April 19th, 1995.
Among some of the commentary, Clinton expressed concern at the parallel moods in the country now and then. He also noted that back in '95, getting in touch with other extremists had to be done on a more local level, a more face-to-face scenario. These days, with the Internet, you can find people just as loopy as you who want to destroy the world.
"Then, you had the rise of extremist voices on talk radio. Here, you have a billion Internet sites." Clinton said. "The main thing that bothered us since the time of Oklahoma City was that already, there was enough use of the internet that if you knew how to find a Web site - and not everybody even had a computer back then, but if you knew how to find it, you could learn, for example, how to make a bomb."
You can also learn that from the Anarchist cook book, or the crazy kid next door who likes to stab roaches with bobby pins. While I agree with the Clinton on the unsettling fact that now extremist groups have access to the boundless reaches of the Internet, you can't blow up a building via the internet. You can't march on Washington via facebook.
I think the bigger problem is that extremist groups are allowed to flourish the way that they do. What happened to the people who shot rounds into windows or threw bricks into homes the day the Health Care Bill passed. What happens to the people who advocate grabbing your gun and marching on Washington? Do these people not get a red flag, regardless of how many hours they're on the internet?
Clinton noted that he didn't want to analogize the past and present too much, in fact "I actually love this political debate." He went on to say that groups like the Tea Party are highly political but "they're not advocating violence or encouraging other people to do it." Ummmmm...
“I’m cleaning my guns and getting ready for the big show. And I’m serious about that, and I bet you are, too.” Richard Behney
Tea Party hero and Minnesota congresswoman, said she wanted “people in Minnesota armed and dangerous." In Texas, the Tea Party gubenatorial sweetheart, reminded folks at a rally that “the tree of freedom is occasionally watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.”
Yeah, that doesn't sound confrontational at all. They're not advocating violence, they just want people who believe in shedding blood in the name of freedom, armed and dangerous. Oh goody.
While I'd like to think that Tea Partiers are more like the buff guy in the gym who talks a lot and acts a little, I can't trust that fragment of hope. And the Tea Partiers aren't the only extremists out there. You've got Anarchists, Larouche crazies, White Supremacists, Communists, Islamists, and on and on.
The internet can't be blamed for the ills of political extremism. What I see this as is more of a question of free speech. Where do you draw the line? On a smaller level, it is illegal to threaten someone directly. Is that also a infringement on freedom of speech? To make threats against an entire government is ok but to one person isn't?
Where do you draw that line, and why? Extremist groups should be allowed to have a voice, so long as that voice isn't riddled with death threats.
Now, I have issues with our current government. I personally feel it's a corrupt web of corporate interests spending our money and spinning our hearts and minds into corpotocratic mayhem. However, I don't believe that killing people will get my point across.
Clinton warned that demonizing the government with incendiary language can have effects beyond just rallying a crowd. This is very true. What are your thoughts?
Among some of the commentary, Clinton expressed concern at the parallel moods in the country now and then. He also noted that back in '95, getting in touch with other extremists had to be done on a more local level, a more face-to-face scenario. These days, with the Internet, you can find people just as loopy as you who want to destroy the world.
"Then, you had the rise of extremist voices on talk radio. Here, you have a billion Internet sites." Clinton said. "The main thing that bothered us since the time of Oklahoma City was that already, there was enough use of the internet that if you knew how to find a Web site - and not everybody even had a computer back then, but if you knew how to find it, you could learn, for example, how to make a bomb."
You can also learn that from the Anarchist cook book, or the crazy kid next door who likes to stab roaches with bobby pins. While I agree with the Clinton on the unsettling fact that now extremist groups have access to the boundless reaches of the Internet, you can't blow up a building via the internet. You can't march on Washington via facebook.
I think the bigger problem is that extremist groups are allowed to flourish the way that they do. What happened to the people who shot rounds into windows or threw bricks into homes the day the Health Care Bill passed. What happens to the people who advocate grabbing your gun and marching on Washington? Do these people not get a red flag, regardless of how many hours they're on the internet?
Clinton noted that he didn't want to analogize the past and present too much, in fact "I actually love this political debate." He went on to say that groups like the Tea Party are highly political but "they're not advocating violence or encouraging other people to do it." Ummmmm...
“I’m cleaning my guns and getting ready for the big show. And I’m serious about that, and I bet you are, too.” Richard Behney
Tea Party hero and Minnesota congresswoman, said she wanted “people in Minnesota armed and dangerous." In Texas, the Tea Party gubenatorial sweetheart, reminded folks at a rally that “the tree of freedom is occasionally watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.”
Yeah, that doesn't sound confrontational at all. They're not advocating violence, they just want people who believe in shedding blood in the name of freedom, armed and dangerous. Oh goody.
While I'd like to think that Tea Partiers are more like the buff guy in the gym who talks a lot and acts a little, I can't trust that fragment of hope. And the Tea Partiers aren't the only extremists out there. You've got Anarchists, Larouche crazies, White Supremacists, Communists, Islamists, and on and on.
The internet can't be blamed for the ills of political extremism. What I see this as is more of a question of free speech. Where do you draw the line? On a smaller level, it is illegal to threaten someone directly. Is that also a infringement on freedom of speech? To make threats against an entire government is ok but to one person isn't?
Where do you draw that line, and why? Extremist groups should be allowed to have a voice, so long as that voice isn't riddled with death threats.
Now, I have issues with our current government. I personally feel it's a corrupt web of corporate interests spending our money and spinning our hearts and minds into corpotocratic mayhem. However, I don't believe that killing people will get my point across.
Clinton warned that demonizing the government with incendiary language can have effects beyond just rallying a crowd. This is very true. What are your thoughts?
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Healthy violence
So, apparently not everyone is stoked about the Health Care Bill passing. Who knew?
I admit, I'm not entirely ecstatic about the bill. I feel that it has its fair share of flaws and by the time it got past the road blocks and obstacles, it was bruised and battered. Not to mention that, still, nobody really seems able to tell the people what the hell is actually in there, other than broad subjects like pre-existing conditions.
Well, now violence can be added as a side effect to swallowing the bitter Health Care pill.
To list just a few occurrences: Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York got an envelope with a threatening letter and white powder, Rep. Russ Carnahan had a coffin delivered to his house and placed on his lawn by Tea Partiers, a bullet was fired through Rep. Eric Cantor's (a Republican by the by) window, Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (also a Republican) received a death threat on her voicemail.
Apparently, these representatives (Democrats and Republicans, you may have noticed) are throwing blame at each other instead of at the ones responsible. Rep. Cantor accused the Democrats of "using acts of violence for political gain."
House Democratic Majority Whip, James Clyburn told CNN "We in this Congress have got to come together in a bipartisan way and tamp this foolishness down. It doesn't make sense. That's not what a democracy is all about."
I'm kinda with Clyburn, other than the fact that we're a republic, not a democracy. But over all, this is ridiculous. I'm all for moving forward and forcing people to notice the needs and issues of truly concerned citizens, as you may have seen from my rally blog. But this is not it. This is terrorism. Not to sound like a loon, but am I wrong? Targeting representatives' homes, offices and families leads to nothing more than violence and the writing off of all of us who do really care but aren't fucked up enough in the head to threaten someone's life.
If you want real change, if you want real results, organize, educate and fight the real culprits with real ammo: fight the corporate kings of America with the power of the people. We don't need a bunch of guns and white powder to get a point across. In fact, if you want to get a point across that doesn't just label you a complete stooge, use your head instead of your trigger finger.
I admit, I'm not entirely ecstatic about the bill. I feel that it has its fair share of flaws and by the time it got past the road blocks and obstacles, it was bruised and battered. Not to mention that, still, nobody really seems able to tell the people what the hell is actually in there, other than broad subjects like pre-existing conditions.
Well, now violence can be added as a side effect to swallowing the bitter Health Care pill.
To list just a few occurrences: Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York got an envelope with a threatening letter and white powder, Rep. Russ Carnahan had a coffin delivered to his house and placed on his lawn by Tea Partiers, a bullet was fired through Rep. Eric Cantor's (a Republican by the by) window, Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (also a Republican) received a death threat on her voicemail.
Apparently, these representatives (Democrats and Republicans, you may have noticed) are throwing blame at each other instead of at the ones responsible. Rep. Cantor accused the Democrats of "using acts of violence for political gain."
House Democratic Majority Whip, James Clyburn told CNN "We in this Congress have got to come together in a bipartisan way and tamp this foolishness down. It doesn't make sense. That's not what a democracy is all about."
I'm kinda with Clyburn, other than the fact that we're a republic, not a democracy. But over all, this is ridiculous. I'm all for moving forward and forcing people to notice the needs and issues of truly concerned citizens, as you may have seen from my rally blog. But this is not it. This is terrorism. Not to sound like a loon, but am I wrong? Targeting representatives' homes, offices and families leads to nothing more than violence and the writing off of all of us who do really care but aren't fucked up enough in the head to threaten someone's life.
If you want real change, if you want real results, organize, educate and fight the real culprits with real ammo: fight the corporate kings of America with the power of the people. We don't need a bunch of guns and white powder to get a point across. In fact, if you want to get a point across that doesn't just label you a complete stooge, use your head instead of your trigger finger.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Tea or Coffee?
Sorry, can't come up with anything more clever than that for the moment. I'll work on it...
As I'm sure you have all heard, the Coffee Party is gaining momentum as the "answer" to the extremist conservative Tea Party Movement. The Coffee Party had their official kickoff yesterday, which was apparently a great success, with between 350-400 meetups held across the country, aptly held at coffee houses.
Now, I have to say that I was rather skeptical of this group at the beginning, being that they started purely as a response to an extremist movement. I was waiting for a polar opposite, an exact pull in the opposite direction.
However, according to their description, they are not aligned with any party and the founder refers to the two party system as out of date.
The meetings were awash with people from all age groups and races, conservative and liberals alike.
Annabel Park, the groups founder, said "Just like in the American Revolution, we are looking for real representation right now. We don't feel represented by our government right now, and we don't really feel represented well by the media either...it's a simple call to action for people to wake up and take control over their future and demand representation. And it requires people standing up and speaking up."
That sounds a lot like the Tea Party and I'm not gonna lie, sounds a lot like me too. However, I don't cite the Revolution or Constitution as much as these two groups do.
I feel that the return to certain ideals on which this country was founded on is very important, but we still need to move forward. This is not the 1700s. Our past brought us to our future but we can not re-live that past. We must continue to build upon it. I sometimes feel that groups such as these have good intentions but fail to differentiate between our country's past, present and future. The return to the good ole days mentality isn't what we need. We need a strong step forward with a clear cut, solid plan for our future.
I'm interested to see where the Coffee Party heads next. But for now, I'll wait before I jump on their bandwagon. How bout you?
As I'm sure you have all heard, the Coffee Party is gaining momentum as the "answer" to the extremist conservative Tea Party Movement. The Coffee Party had their official kickoff yesterday, which was apparently a great success, with between 350-400 meetups held across the country, aptly held at coffee houses.
Now, I have to say that I was rather skeptical of this group at the beginning, being that they started purely as a response to an extremist movement. I was waiting for a polar opposite, an exact pull in the opposite direction.
However, according to their description, they are not aligned with any party and the founder refers to the two party system as out of date.
The meetings were awash with people from all age groups and races, conservative and liberals alike.
Annabel Park, the groups founder, said "Just like in the American Revolution, we are looking for real representation right now. We don't feel represented by our government right now, and we don't really feel represented well by the media either...it's a simple call to action for people to wake up and take control over their future and demand representation. And it requires people standing up and speaking up."
That sounds a lot like the Tea Party and I'm not gonna lie, sounds a lot like me too. However, I don't cite the Revolution or Constitution as much as these two groups do.
I feel that the return to certain ideals on which this country was founded on is very important, but we still need to move forward. This is not the 1700s. Our past brought us to our future but we can not re-live that past. We must continue to build upon it. I sometimes feel that groups such as these have good intentions but fail to differentiate between our country's past, present and future. The return to the good ole days mentality isn't what we need. We need a strong step forward with a clear cut, solid plan for our future.
I'm interested to see where the Coffee Party heads next. But for now, I'll wait before I jump on their bandwagon. How bout you?
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Questions answered
I recently had a comment posted on one of my youtube videos with several important questions. I wanted to share those questions and my answers here on the blog. Continuously questioning people and ideologies around you and even in the mirror is vital to facilitating change.
The video focused on the Tea Party and former governor Palin being their ironic figurehead.
funkalunatic:
Palin's BS aside, what specifically do you mean by extremist? Isn't revolution as politically extreme as it gets? What should we be meeting in the middle of? What about people who want different things?
rooftoprevolutionary:
thanks for watching and the questions. an extremist to me is anyone who clings to one ideology with no willingness to hear arguments against their own viewpoints, or work with people who do not wholly adhere to one fanatical school of thought. meeting in the middle, in terms of leaving the left and right out of it. we're americans. our passports don't say republican or democrat. in reality, even those who are members of a party are moderate in their views, progressive in their thinking.
if we can be informed, active citizens, then i truly believe that we have the ability to facilitate change. we may all have different backgrounds, histories. i might want something from life that you don't. that doesn't matter. what matters is that i doubt either one of us wants to be fucked over by corporate america and the very people we put into power to help us, not abandon our needs and critical issues.
again, thanks for watching. hope to see you at our skype chat on sunday 14th, 5pm
The video focused on the Tea Party and former governor Palin being their ironic figurehead.
funkalunatic:
Palin's BS aside, what specifically do you mean by extremist? Isn't revolution as politically extreme as it gets? What should we be meeting in the middle of? What about people who want different things?
rooftoprevolutionary:
thanks for watching and the questions. an extremist to me is anyone who clings to one ideology with no willingness to hear arguments against their own viewpoints, or work with people who do not wholly adhere to one fanatical school of thought. meeting in the middle, in terms of leaving the left and right out of it. we're americans. our passports don't say republican or democrat. in reality, even those who are members of a party are moderate in their views, progressive in their thinking.
if we can be informed, active citizens, then i truly believe that we have the ability to facilitate change. we may all have different backgrounds, histories. i might want something from life that you don't. that doesn't matter. what matters is that i doubt either one of us wants to be fucked over by corporate america and the very people we put into power to help us, not abandon our needs and critical issues.
again, thanks for watching. hope to see you at our skype chat on sunday 14th, 5pm
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Not Alice's Tea Party
I've been trying to wrap my head around the Tea Party for quite some time. As I said, I used to be a member until I found out that they had taken a bus to loony-ville and weren't coming back any time soon. The idea for the basis of this movement seemed good: concerned citizens pissed off about the fact that their government was spending money they didn't have on issues their constituents didn't profit from, monetarily or otherwise. That sounds like a good start to me.
There can be books written on the derailment of this good idea but I'm not gonna be the author. I just want to point out some things that alarm and concern me.
The movement is not fully coherent, there is not one leader, there are small groups of people that run their own versions across the country. They do not have a clear cut goal, unless you consider their blatant hatred for anything not outlined in the constitution a goal. Their ideology is based on right wing extremism, with a popular shirt sold at rallies stating: "Proud Right-Wing Extremist." They seem to have no ability to see or care about an opposing viewpoint. It's the good old fashioned, "You're either with us or against us" motif.
Now, I have a fear of any extremist, whether it be religious or secular. The reason being is that, like I said above, they offer no place for opposition, for questions to be raised. How do you know God exists? He just does Timmy, get your ass to church. Same thinking here. What's wrong with this country? It's a corrupt socialist money sucking liberal hot bed! Where's your proof? Shut up, I have a gun!
I wish that last bit were just a joking exaggeration. At a recent Tea Party rally, Richard Behney, a Republican Senate candidate, told Tea Party supporters his plan if the 2010 elections didn't swing in his favor: “I’m cleaning my guns and getting ready for the big show. And I’m serious about that, and I bet you are, too.”
On ResistNet.com, a Tea Party supporting blog, "fellow patriots" are encouraged to "grab their guns." Just one day after Stack crashed a plane into an Austin IRS office, Minnesota governor, Tim Pawlenty, told a group of Tea Partiers to take a page from Tiger Woods’s wife's book and “take a 9-iron and smash the window out of big government in this country." Tea Party hero and Minnesota congresswoman, said she wanted “people in Minnesota armed and dangerous." In Texas, the Tea Party gubenatorial sweetheart, reminded folks at a rally that “the tree of freedom is occasionally watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.”
These are just a few examples. Now, this scares the shit out of me already. But just wait, the plot thickens.
“I voted twice and I failed political science twice,” said Darin Stevens, leader of the Spokane 9/12 Project, Glenn Beck's pet project closely tied to the Tea Party.
Another Tea Partier, Leah Southwell’s admits that “I knew zero about the Constitution," having until recently been a top Mary Kay sales rep.
Ok, so here's how I'm reading this. Let me know if you think I'm off: Tea Partiers are turning to increasingly more violent rhetoric with increasingly less knowledge of their country or its past and what brought it to its current state of affairs that they are so ready to overthrow. Hmmmmm...They don't even seem to realize that one of their champions (Palin) used to be the running mate of a man they think is way too liberal (McCain)!
If you check out a previous post of mine, it shows a link to a video of a man interviewing some of Palin's supporters outside of a book signing. They know DICK about ANYTHING. It is absolutely amazing that they stand outside waiting to meet someone they know nothing about yet blindly support.
We are royally fucked (even more so than now) if the Tea Party movement ever reaches a place where it is legitimately considered a viable political party and not a cult.
Do we have no answer to this? Do we have no response to the "Proud Right-Wing Extremists?"
There can be books written on the derailment of this good idea but I'm not gonna be the author. I just want to point out some things that alarm and concern me.
The movement is not fully coherent, there is not one leader, there are small groups of people that run their own versions across the country. They do not have a clear cut goal, unless you consider their blatant hatred for anything not outlined in the constitution a goal. Their ideology is based on right wing extremism, with a popular shirt sold at rallies stating: "Proud Right-Wing Extremist." They seem to have no ability to see or care about an opposing viewpoint. It's the good old fashioned, "You're either with us or against us" motif.
Now, I have a fear of any extremist, whether it be religious or secular. The reason being is that, like I said above, they offer no place for opposition, for questions to be raised. How do you know God exists? He just does Timmy, get your ass to church. Same thinking here. What's wrong with this country? It's a corrupt socialist money sucking liberal hot bed! Where's your proof? Shut up, I have a gun!
I wish that last bit were just a joking exaggeration. At a recent Tea Party rally, Richard Behney, a Republican Senate candidate, told Tea Party supporters his plan if the 2010 elections didn't swing in his favor: “I’m cleaning my guns and getting ready for the big show. And I’m serious about that, and I bet you are, too.”
On ResistNet.com, a Tea Party supporting blog, "fellow patriots" are encouraged to "grab their guns." Just one day after Stack crashed a plane into an Austin IRS office, Minnesota governor, Tim Pawlenty, told a group of Tea Partiers to take a page from Tiger Woods’s wife's book and “take a 9-iron and smash the window out of big government in this country." Tea Party hero and Minnesota congresswoman, said she wanted “people in Minnesota armed and dangerous." In Texas, the Tea Party gubenatorial sweetheart, reminded folks at a rally that “the tree of freedom is occasionally watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.”
These are just a few examples. Now, this scares the shit out of me already. But just wait, the plot thickens.
“I voted twice and I failed political science twice,” said Darin Stevens, leader of the Spokane 9/12 Project, Glenn Beck's pet project closely tied to the Tea Party.
Another Tea Partier, Leah Southwell’s admits that “I knew zero about the Constitution," having until recently been a top Mary Kay sales rep.
Ok, so here's how I'm reading this. Let me know if you think I'm off: Tea Partiers are turning to increasingly more violent rhetoric with increasingly less knowledge of their country or its past and what brought it to its current state of affairs that they are so ready to overthrow. Hmmmmm...They don't even seem to realize that one of their champions (Palin) used to be the running mate of a man they think is way too liberal (McCain)!
If you check out a previous post of mine, it shows a link to a video of a man interviewing some of Palin's supporters outside of a book signing. They know DICK about ANYTHING. It is absolutely amazing that they stand outside waiting to meet someone they know nothing about yet blindly support.
We are royally fucked (even more so than now) if the Tea Party movement ever reaches a place where it is legitimately considered a viable political party and not a cult.
Do we have no answer to this? Do we have no response to the "Proud Right-Wing Extremists?"
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
Tea Party
Here's my latest video blog entry. This one is on the Tea Party Movement which is currently convening in Washington DC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnfboemxoJk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnfboemxoJk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)