Americans are so Stupid

Not-so-Christian Love

2012-01-23T13:56:00.000-08:00

I have learned not to engage in pointless conversations, but every once in a while I digress. Newt Gingrich while speaking in SC recently said "The domestic challenge is defeating the secularists." So, as a member of the most hated and derided of American minorities (people who think God is a silly fucking idea), my dander was up, and I got into this little spat on facebook. If the story linked below is interesting, check-out this blog where someone has collected the many, many incredibly violent remarks--mostly threats and incitements to violence--made by a young girl's schoolmates. Really just astonishing.

Friend verychristian of the asshats, typical though

Christians bombard teen activistwith hate and abuse.

www.examiner.com

It'snot really news that Christians are often hateful and abusive towards secularactivists. We've seen it enough times now. (LINK) As with reports

Friend’s Friend Yeah, I saw this earlier this week. All shit like this doesis make me want to do something to raise the ire of those idiots on a nationallevel. You want to be big men and target a teenaged girl? Rock it, but youbetter be the same big men when I'm the target, though I'll give 'em a place tomeet me (I'd say give 'em my address, but no need for my mother to get involvedas she lives downstairs ;-)).

Friend’s Sister I don't believe the majority of Christians are like this. Iwould even venture to say that those people are not Christians at all.

MeI agree those people aren't Christians. But, I don't think most Christians arevery Christian either. I'm god-free, and I'm more of a Christian than most of'em.

Friend’s Other Friend

Ibelieve this story deserves press, but the first line is irritating to me. Idon't like how open game christians are to scrutiny like this. I don't like how open game christians are to scrutiny likethis. It is unfair to generalize christians like that. of course the nutjobsare the ones who get the attention. They arethe ones causing the attention. But to categorize an entire religiousintitution over a few knuckleheads is wrong. No different than the reputationjihadists give to muslims or street thugs give to african american community.The media (even bloggers) are much more careful how they report those typestories. Christians for the most part always seem like fair game.

Friend’s Other Friend Then, after reading the entire article, wow. That writer islike a regular Joseph Goebbels. He makes every attempt possible to categorizethe entire christian population with some idiots in a single community.

MeI see a lot of such incidents. The event and comments aren't unique; they'retypical. Comparing the journalist to the likes of Goebbels is also prettytypical. I think the writer does a pretty nice job of reporting a fairly normalinstance of Christian anger that results from their delusions of oppression,minority status, and victimhood. :-)

Friend’s Other Friend

alot of the comments the blogger posted as examples had no particular referenceto religion, christian or otherwise. some simply expressed disappointment and anotion that the mentioned banner had some history for this town. In fact mostwere obviously written by classmates i can assume are classmates with thetypical maturity level you'd expect. I understand completely what you mean by"reporting a fairly normal instance of Christian anger that results fromtheir delusions of oppression, minority status, and victimhood." But idon't think it is as nice of a job as you suggest. In fact, after I read it, itseemed a little more like using an isolated incident to criminalize christian"behavior" which is also pretty typical in this type of journalism :)Just the fact that this prayer mural was up in 2012 tells me either this isprobably not a community used to this type deviance or it meant a little moreto this school than just the prayer inscribed (as referenced in some of theposted comments). Not excusing the behavior, but I am certainly not going toexcuse the prejudicial tone of the blog either. The Goebbels reference was obviouslyan exaggeration. Not as much of an exaggeration of the christian population inthis blog though. I just don't like the generalization. there are extremists inany group. christians included. especially when you are dealing with a smallamerican town where the community may not be as diverse or culturally dilutedtherefore it ends up being influenced by itself.
Most of the people I've ever met in my life were christians. From all differentdenominations, cultures, states, countries, etc. I have never met any that arethis extreme. I have met some that are passionate about their faith and somethat are "lukewarm". I have known christians with opinions influencedby their faith and I have known some that felt it thier (annoying, but harmless)duty to share their beliefs with a non believer. But never have I met anyone asextreme as any of these "crazy christians" stories we always hearabout. Now, either I have just been really lucky in my own experience, or thereis a bit more generalization going on here.

Friend’s Friend

By saying "those people aren't Christians" youjust exacerbate the problem. The definition of Christianity is a belief systemderived from the teachings of the New and Old Testaments of the Bible. Thosepeople are absolutely following just that. Of course, one sect ignores onepassage and emphasizes another, while another sect does the opposite. However,both sides are equally Christian. By going with the "They're just notChristian" argument you encourage the silent moderate majority to continueto let the most extreme finge elements be the voice.

As for Mr. Friend’s Friend's comments: Well, I'll give you that very oftenentire groups are placed within the full spectrum of the most extreme becausethose groups generally allow the most extreme to be their voice. However, otherthan that quit trying to play this "Christianity is the victim"bullshit. The only reason Christianity is favored in these discussions over theother faiths is simply because they are the majority. They are the most vocalof the 3 monotheist faiths in this country. It's not a matter of singling out,though playing it off as such is the easiest way to get the idiot mass thatdominates our populace riled up.

Friend’s Other Friend

Sorry,in no way am I trying to play a victimized card. I am completely impartial toany opinion in reports of bigotry. On the contrary, i am fascinated by itespecially in the way we excuse it in some ways and in others cheer it on.
So i really want to clarify what i was saying. First, the blog was weak in it'spoint. It starts off citing examples of typical christian controversy (which weagree will have a higher ratio due to it's majority presence) and suggestingthat such incidents make us not notice new incidents that are just as bad aspedophilia and homosexual pastors. then it reminds us Christian corruptionstill lives on and we are just desensitized to it because of the tales ofdebauchery that we are all too familiar with.
then we are treated to the story of a small scale incident in a small town in asmall state in a part of the US that doesn't even show up on a map. It relatedthis local story to a generalization that christians have no class when dealingwith secular protest. It backed it's story up by posting 21 examples of the"CHRISTIAN THREATS" this young lady was subjected to.

Of these 21 there are 9 comments that are obviously written by high schoolpeers. I am definately not playing "christianity is the victim" whenI guess that typically the girls in biology class and facebook spammers don'treflect christian morality.

In fact, only 4 comments out of the 21 made any mention of religion OR lackthereof.

An equal 4 comments relate disdain because of the banners history. I believethis is where the biggest outcry comes from. This wasn't just some temporarypaper banner. This banner was part of the auditorium, erected in the school in1963. It isn't even a prayer. It was more or less a code of honor for theschool. But since it started with "Oh Heavenly Father" and ended with"amen" it was deemed offensive by this girl and she took to the ACLUto have this banner removed.

A 50 year staple to the school now has to be brought down to appease oneindividual who finds it offensive for the next two years she'll be there. thattends to annoy people, christian or not.

The author stresses "The cause of all this abuse is the removal of onebanner from a school. One banner is getting taken down. One banner." Iwonder if he read the banner, I did. It isn't even religious. I wonder if heresearched the tradition of the school, I did.

In no way am i condoning by the banner loving, teenage residents of WestCranston RI, (because really, that is a more accurate description to theculprits than "christians") I am just clarifying my point of viewthat this blogger is irresponsible and obviously trying to create a hot topicout of nothing. This is where my criticism comes in.
Maybe the author could write blogs on school pride fervor.

Finally, the blog concluded with a choice for our own assessment. Two simpleoptions : "Either most Christians really are hateful, or most Christiansare unwilling to be good Samaritans and come to the aid of non-Christians, astheir holy writ instructs. In either case, it is understandable why so manypeople are left with a sick feeling in their stomachs after experiencing"Christian love"

WOW, now, I am not a christian, nor a christian sympathizer, but for theblogger to summarize that article with no better examples than 4 out of 21 (ofcourse hand-picked) comments, by asking if christians are that hateful, or ifthey are just unwilling to come defend some teenager in some highschool in somesmall town in some small state

As I said, i am fascinated by this type of social topic. I am curious to theunconditional social rules involving a changing culture of diversity and thetolerance thereof. To me there is an obvious set of boundaries on differentcreeds, cultures, ethnicities and religions and this article exemplifies that.In fact, the only reason why I read this article in the first place was thestrong accusatory title.

I could've respected Westboro Baptist church as a better example for theauthor's thoughts. go after the church that applauds at the funerals ofservicemen, they've been to Norfolk. cheering in front of mourning mothers anddaughters at the burial. but really. in the author's own words "The causeof all this abuse is the removal of one banner from a school. One banner isgetting taken down. One banner."

here is the link to the actual news story, where you can read the banner. as itrelates to the story, this isn't a believer - non believer issue.
http://cranston.patch.com/articles/ahlquist-fight-over-mural-despite-harrassment-threats-worth-it#photo-8111939

Friend’s Other Friend

hereis the banner. erected in 1963. other than the opening and closing, it has noreligious tone whatsoever: our heavenly father
grant us each day the desire to do our best to grow mentally and morally aswell as physically. to be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers. tobe honest with ourselves as well as with others. help us to be good sports andsmile when we lose as well as when we win. teach us the value of truefriendship. help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit tocranston high school west
amen

Firstof all, how is a "prayer" that asks that a magical spaceman help usbe good sports, get good grades, etc. NOT religious? Please don't answer.

Let's pretend like you're really concerned about bad journalism andovergeneralization/ stereotyping. First, you're missing the point if you thinkthis article is about this one instance. The author is using this one instanceto illustrate the general state of things. This happens repeatedly all over thecountry every year--I would venture a guess around 10 times. I can’t give you areal number, because there's no good book keeping on stats of such cases. Iusually go with the American Heritage Dictionary, but in this case I'll go withRandom House's terrorism: "the use of violence and threats to intimidateor coerce, especially for political purposes" or Collins' terrorize:"to coerce or control by violence, fear, threats, etc." The samplingof comments clearly represents a case of terrorism against this young girl. Idon't think it's "history" that's got 'em all astir. And, this onecase reflects the norm that we see in all such cases. Christians try to ramtheir religion down everyone else's throat, thinking "we're allChristians, so how could this offend anybody?" And, on the rare occasionsthat any "deviants" stand up for their First Amendment right not tobe proselytized to by government institutions, they receive a barrage of_terrorism_. The fact that the banner was in violation of the First Amendmentwould be obvious to anyone who knew—or cared to recognize—the simple facts oflaw re. church-state separation. The fact that, despite the federal judge’sruling, the banner was not removed but rather conspicuously covered with a tarpand that the city are considering an appeal rather than comply with the rulingon what is a very basic case of First Amendment violation drives home the facton religious intolerance. Additionally, every florist in town has refused todeliver flowers to her. At least one cited the safety of delivery personsrather than her [non]religious beliefs, but all claiming the right to choosetheir customers. Even this girl’s elected representatives have chimed-in.“Rhode Island State Representative Peter Palumbo… made comments aboutAhlquist…. Palumbo called her ‘an evil little thing’ and said ‘Poor thing. Andit’s not her fault. She’s being trained to be like that.’” And another RI statesenator, Beth Moura, posted on twitter, “Look at ACLU’s sweetheart Twitter acctand rhetoric of her followers. Not good.” Basically, thewhole f-ing town showed-up to demand that the school board use taxpayer moneyto appeal the ruling and fight for the right to proselytize to childrenusing taxpayer money. This shit is precisely why the First amendment waswritten and why it’s the FIRST Amendment. So, don’t pretend you’re upset aboutsome dude stereotyping this girl’s Christian assailants. They represent thecommunity at large, who though they are probably conditioned to deny it whilebeing privately proud of it are a bunch of aspiring theocrats.

And, this isn't about our increasingly diverse society. This problem ofaspiring theocrats has been with the US since it's inception. Theocracy was asubstantial reason for migration to the colonies and the major reason for theUS's establishment of a secular government, which has constantly been underattack by people like this girl's assailants ever since.

MeNow, go to bed!

Friend’s Friend Mr. Me, you sir, are tits! ;-) (Sometimes the group Ibelong to, "Things That Are Tits!" bleeds over)

MeWhy, thank you.

Friend’s Other Friend

Iwasn't merely pretending to be more concerned about overgeneralizing. That isthe only interest I have in this blog. Also I am completely aware of theauthor's intent. I am not arguing any opinion about the incident. In fact, hispoint isn't anything I necessarily disagree with. I just find it a weak exampleof what he is trying to convey. Like I said in my last comment, there arebetter examples to drive home the same point. Now I see nothing suggesting thatstudents were required to chant the scripts of the banner, like, say themorning brainwashing ritual of the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance, whichnot only references a God, but also has kids as young as 5 more or less takingan oath to the government. That would be a different story altogether. But thisseems to be more of an ornamental thing. The comments the author cited as anexample of "christian outrage" fall short of convincing me that thegirl is being targeted more by the christian population and not so much by somelocal classmates that are pissed at her for altering the school's identity.Again, I am not dismissing the actions, only commenting on the validity of thearticle itself as it relates to behavior of christians as a whole. I'm notarguing what's right or wrong in this article. I am arguing the blogger'sability to make his point using this incident as an example. Not sayingbullying is right, not saying standing up for what you believe in as wrong.Only saying that the blogger's point was weak and is an irresponsible way tocategorize the christian majority. IF there was a larger scale call to armsthroughout the christian community to threaten this girl into intimidation, thenthose examples should have been included. But as the article stands, there are21 examples the author lists with only 4 that have any kind of religious tone,christian or otherwise (in fact, none of those 4 identify 100 % as christian).Hell, you posted better examples in your comment than the author posted in theentire blog about the florists and the comments made by the state electedofficial. How could this not be an example of overgeneralizing?

Friend’s Sister I'm proud to profess my Christianity, but it was a longroad for me to get where I am now. But even when I wasn't living withinBiblical principles I didn't have any hatred towards any group. And I wouldn'trefer to any person's higher power as a "magical space-man."

Myapologies, Friend’s Sister. I'd like to say I didn't mean to be disrespectful.But, obviously the opposite is true. I however do regret offending youpersonally.

Friends Friend, I'll accept that your only objection is that the guyconstructed his argument poorly. But, I think the guy's target audience is onethat keeps track of these incidents and doesn't need the entire picture drawnfor them. That kinda makes the point moot. And, you're being absurdly skepticalto think there's a Mormon's chance in Sodom that this girl's terrorists aren't(self identified) Christians. When a father stones his daughter after she'sbeen raped, no one needs to prove that the guy is following his religion...orwhat that religion is.

Friend, I'll get off your wall now. Sorry.

Friend’s Sister Wow, Mr. Me, you are a classy guy. Thanks.

Back again...

2010-12-03T04:51:00.000-08:00

I usually wake-up to the radio. Sometimes I latch right on to what they're saying; less often I just want to beat the clock into oblivion. This morning was one of the former. Fricking John McCain was on the radio talking about how we can't end the "don't ask--don't tell" policy re. gays in the military. Not surprising, really. He is both conservative and old (ie. really conservative). But, what reason does he give? Not that it's an abomination or against God or bad for morale or or or. Many things could provide sufficient reason for a conservative to discriminate against ...well... anyone they choose, but no. He says we can't eliminate the policy until we study the problem further--military studies, congressional studies, any studies. Of course he just wants to postpone the inevitable. But, isn't that some shit. He chooses the stereotypically liberal reason. Studies mean people get paid your tax dollars to perform the study--even if it's a sham study (because we know the answer already). Paying people with your tax dollars to waste their time on unwanted useless shit has to be the definition of bad big government. How on earth can he let his mind even go there? Is it the new well-right-of-center congress that might back him? Is he just getting senile? Is it that he is totally broken after being tossed aside for Bush II and then scuttled by his campaign managers who brought-in Sarah Palin? Idunno, but the first thought that came out of my little head this morning was "that's awfully hypocritical."

Bush's millennialism

2009-06-01T14:37:00.000-07:00

Former President Bush's reputation as a Christian Fundamentalist is widely recognized. In at least one White House press briefing it has been asked what millennialist/ apocalyptic beliefs he had with the result being Scott McClellan immediately ending the press conference--"running off the stage." Admittedly some...many...Americans have no problem with this, but there are many more who find it very disturbing. Simply put, if the leader of the nation believes that the four horsemen of The Apocalypse could be trotting up the street at any time, then the leader is practically bound to make some ill-advised decisions. Reportedly, he is ...and did. And, Blair was on board with him.

For example, I think it was George Schultz, Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, who when asked about policy on some environmental issue--like global warming--responded something like "The world is coming to an end anyway, so why should we bother?" In light of current events (global politicians at long last embracing scientists concerns about CO2 and its climatological effects) we can see how such Apocalyptic Millennialism could have, at the time, led the Reagan administration to fail in its environmental responsibilities. (There's a good bit more on Reagan ~page 239 of "Longing for the End" on Googlebooks.)

Belief that human existence faces some finite fate over which they have no control is one thing (a sufficiently silly thing on it's own), but actively trying to bring about The Apocalypse is a whole other! Using the military of a supposedly areligious/ secular nation as the means? Illegal and immoral. Believing that some god is telling you to do it? Delusional. Believing you have the right, obligation, or mandate to do it? Megalomaniacal. Believing for a second that some prehistoric Apocalyptic fantasy is a part of your personal reality or that of all of us? Fucking wacko. Voting for a millennialist to be POTUS? Well...

And, with all the hullabaloo currently being made over the end of the the Mayan calendar in 2012, the biblical "end of the age" as well as the Mayan prediction are astronomical predictions--not even necessarily astrological. So, turn off the Nostradamus special on the "History" Channel, and go get a fish sandwich.

Bonus psychobabble.

Honored more in the breach than in observance

2009-05-01T05:01:00.000-07:00

A great chapter in Samuel Kramer's History Begins at Sumer thirty-nine firsts in recorded history is The First "Sick" Society. Identifying himself as a Sumerologist, Kramer conveys vividly Sumerian culture and societal values. In this chapter he set out to compare our contemporary (mid to late 1900s) social ills with ancient ones. What he found was basically a mirror image of today's society that "yearned for peace but was constantly at war," "professed ideals such as justice, equity, and compassion but abounded in injustice, inequality, and oppression," that was "materialistic and shortsighted." The general message seems to me to be human society hasn't changed so much in 4500 years. It is particularly interesting though that the examples, which repeatedly point to the ideal of justice and the eradication of injustice, specify that it is the thievery and brutality of the rich and powerful that must be reigned-in. Perhaps it's telling that Sumer was an egalitarian society and that Sumerian kings generally rose from the population and therefore were all too acquainted with the ways of the rich and powerful and the challenges of the poor and meek--also that they relied on the support of the populace to maintain their rule. So, even 4500 years ago the picture of human values seems a battle between the rich, the powerful, the egoist and the poor, the meek, the altruist.

Evolution deniers are idiots.

2009-04-24T10:00:00.000-07:00

Just a little pointer for evolution deniers: George Bush, a denier himself hedged his bet on the Almighty when he directed Federal agencies to prepare for the adaptation of bird flu to human infection. For, if bird flu was not adapting so much as being engineered by a god to infect humans, then Bushie would be going against the will of the god. And, that just couldn't be the case, could it?

Now, there is an even more striking similar case of evolution in which “the flu … combines pig, bird and human viruses in a way that researchers have not seen before, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday. The evolution and outbreak of this virus seem to be a pretty novel occurrence—it’s the platypus of viruses.

I just caught onto his as an everyday example of evolution, but it is also interesting that it could just as well provide fuel for intelligent design advocates. You see, while the scientific community generally sees phylogeny in the similarity of DNA and RNA, ID advocates say the appearance of phylogeny is the result of God’s re-use of previously created building blocks. For example, chimps must have been the last thing created before homo sapiens, since they have the most similar DNA to us.

Anyway, the point is that evolution deniers are idiots.

Happy late Darwin Day.

Evangelism is rampant in the military...duh!

2009-04-23T19:27:00.000-07:00

This story on NPR about Sikhs not being allowed to maintain their religiously prescribed personal grooming after enlistment is interesting. There are some issues in conflict--military respect for religious freedom, military rules laid-out for practicality and uniformity, the honorable service of Sikhs in the armed forces before the rather recent "gotta-shave" rule, basic fairness. But, what really gets me is that so many of the commenters seem oblivious to the fact that religious bias is not only accepted in the US armed forces, Christian evangelism is unofficially endorsed, sanctioned, and promoted--despite rules that prohibit any such act. Perhaps the mass uninformedness is a result of news media failure. The Public Record is the only journal doing a decent job of covering the issue, and their latest article is here.

Maybe Rapture is really meant to save the rest of us from the "saved" by getting them off my planet?! If so, bring it on!

Why couldn't we have a shadow government that didn't suck?!

2009-04-01T10:58:00.000-07:00

Like a hypochondriac who won’t go to the doctor because he thinks he’s just being hypochondriacal, I have doubted my own assessment that the US government is controlled—essentially owned—by wealthy oligarchs who pay for the elections and votes of our politicians, that the Executive and Legislative branches (at least) of the US government are simply an elaborate puppet show designed to appease the masses with illusions of self determination. Finally, much to my chagrin, a former chief economist at the IMF says I’m right. Fuck! I knew it all along—wishing whole-heartedly I was wrong. (Original article.) This dude at the Rolling Stone takes a different tack to say practically the same thing and spells it out with more detail in a ridiculously long article. So, all you paranoid conspiracy hounds, rest easy; there really is a “shadow government” controlling your nation and your fate.

SOS

2009-01-31T04:33:00.000-08:00

OK, so I've been keeping my thoughts to myself for a while. ‘Fraid I usually stop paying attention so closely to politics after an election, because no matter what the result I feel basically helpless to affect anything once the ball gets rolling—not that I ever have any power beyond my one little vote. But, this blog is only for my personal gratification anyway, so I guess I’ve just been lazy.

I’ve been watching the Israel-Palestine conflict, like I always have. This article and many others like it are particularly disheartening. I am glad to know that so many Americans feel the way I do about it—that the US has been enabling the oppressors and that we need to stop if there is to be any justice and peace, but I’m blown away that the administration fails to grasp our undermining role. For all of the positive and negative “internationalist” finger-pointing, Obama is after all either a poor student of the I-P conflict or he is on the wrong side of the philosophical debate about US’s role. The US has a moral obligation to support the underdog and when it fails to do so, it is usually if not always for transparent political or economic motives. Turkey has been a much better ally than Israel, WTF do we need Israel for? Are we trying to keep them paid off so that we don’t have to fight them? The ass-kissing is one-sided. When do we get something back from them for our support? Idunno.

The whole domestic sustainable power thing is looking like a hamster wheel. We have all this money we just said we were gonna inject into the economy. But, the guys with the power are bickering about investing through deficit spending—Yeah, it sucks, but ya got another idea? I want my goddam sidewalks, so I can walk to the store. What’s it gonna take to get you jackasses to gimme my goddam sidewalks!?!? I see no reason why we can take a chunk of that money and put it directly into wind turbine factories and the purchase of property to put ‘em on. Yeah yeah. Socialism. Blah. The private sector aint doin’ it. The gov’t forced me to pay for the Iraq war and subsidize Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians, they can damn sure force some SUV-driving Limbaugh listener to pay for a sustainable energy system.

SOS. Same ol’ shit.

Retards for Palin

2008-11-01T09:06:00.000-07:00

Do I really need to say anything about this? Probably not. But I will anyway. Is there any better way to illustrate that you're a fanatic that stripping half nude and painting your body as a banner for your cause? Well, you could burn a symbol of your enemy...but let's not got there. Need I say that the more fanatical someone is the less rational he/she is likely being about his/her cause? Ugh. The pic comes from here. It's from an article about "Palin Dudes," who dole out the idiotic quotes as quick as they make complete tools of themselves: "You rock me out, Sarah." Way, Dude! Rockenroll! One dude "wore a 'Proud to be voting for a hot chick' button," as if that's a good reason to vote for someone and that he should be proud of thinking with the little head. "Who can't trust a mother?" Maybe a kid whose been drowned by one or a husband who had one sleep around on him or hide her pregnancy from him. What kind of dumbass would stereotype someone into being trustworthy? She's a politician, dipshit. "Marry me, Sarah." You get the picture.

The article then goes in an entirely different direction describing a segment of the men who have come to distrust men and deeply want female leadership, but not just any female leadership, her female leadership. They see her as a woman as a woman should be--a wife and a mother, a woman who would marry a man like them. They don't want an intellectual woman or a woman who has had to masculate herself in order to climb the political ladder. They don't want a woman who stresses stereotypically feminine issues like education. Because she likes hunting and generically tough-guy stuff, she is nonthreatening. Aside from her being marginally doable, she's possesses nothing typically feminine. She is effectively a "dude" like them--moreso than McCain even. So, they're voting for themselves but repressing this fact and representing their choice superficially as a vote for radical (which tough-guy feminism is) change. Rationality apparently never comes into the equation.

These are weird times.

Briefly, Regarding Windpower

2008-11-01T08:45:00.000-07:00

I have assumed, correctly I think, that people want very badly to exploit alternative energy sources. By alternative, I mean “not fossil fuels.” It is very tempting to add nuclear to the category, since, if we had more practical alternatives, nuclear would immediately be taken off the table. While “utility scale” wind generation is growing rapidly, it is years and billions of dollars away from the needed degree of implementation. This has left poor jokers like myself to consider household scale alternative energy production. This is a topic I spend way too much time thinking about particularly considering that I can hardly afford anything more than the most trivial household generator. But, apparently I am not alone. The linked article details just how impractical if not imprudent and how unaffordable household generation systems are. But, by virtue of all these points, it illustrates how desperate people are for alternative energy sources—because they buy the systems despite the great impracticality.

Let me tell you, my friends

2008-10-08T05:46:00.000-07:00

The last dozen times I’ve sat down to write anything here one thing came to mind: where do I begin? McCain trying to keep the campaigns focused on personality and emotion rather than about the issues, McCain recklessly selecting an incompetent and unworthy VP candidate, the bizarre appeal of Palin to so many voters, …. One thing keeps me from bothering to write anything: the fact that people see and hear what they want to see and hear--my self included.

But a couple things struck me about last night’s debate that I thought might be worth putting down. The first is the reason McCain put his name on McCain-Feingold. He thought it was the way around the party chiefs who held him back in 2000. He realized, later, of course, that he could just sell his soul to them instead, and he didn’t need to get the rest of the Senate’s support to do that. It was also striking that this failed piece of legislation was the sole thing he could (or did) identify as evidence of his being a reformer. After decades in Washington, that’s all he’s got? Weak.

A second observation is that if the challenges we face are unprecedented, as McCain said, what is all of his experience good for? Twenty years of doing not a heck of a lot doesn’t make him stand out as the guy to lead the way into a new era with challenges we, nor he, has ever seen before.

Lastly, I thank you for these questions, my friends. They are such very good questions, and as President I will answer them clearly with my strait talk as you, my friends, know so well. Can you say condescension? Is this the 1930s. WTF does he take us for?

The Debate

2008-09-29T04:36:00.000-07:00

The debate…well, I frankly had a hard time paying attention. Whether it was the white noise coming from the candidates or the third beer or just being tired, it was mind-numbing like reading a grammar textbook. A Virginian caller to C-span Saturday said what was on my mind pretty well; “I think the American people were the losers last night….” (His comments are here—go to recent programs > Saturday, 27th > “watch entire program” > and scroll to 15 minutes.) I brought away two main things and a few lesser points.

Like the caller to C-span says, both candidates are “warmongering”—declaring nations “rogue states” and aggressors without weighing the facts. It doesn’t surprise me that McCain does this, but to have the left wing candidate participate in this insanity is just baffling to me. Being too busy to rewrite what I wrote the other day, I said to my brother, “For both of them (and, I am particularly disappointed in the case of Obama), I found the tough talk (if not "warmongering") against Russia, Venezuela and Iran deeply troubling. I believe strongly (though it is very hard to be certain with the lack of factual media coverage) that Russia was rightfully defending S. Ossetia which is populated by ethnic Russians with Russian citizenship, which was only included in Georgia fairly recently as a matter of post-Soviet convenience, and which has a history of being treated brutally by Georgia. It baffles me that we/ our politicians stand with the oppressor against the liberator and call us the defender. Iran, i think, we ought to deal with via hyperdiplomacy--simply try to build some sort of cultural understanding. Economic times should make this more acceptable than trying to beat the antiAmericanness out of them. The hyperbole of Ahmedinezhadorhoweverthefuckyouspellhisname is blown up to be all sorts of crazy genocidal rhetoric by the west while he's just just saying what he thinks he needs to say to get elected (all too familiar). Fucking Chavez--he's a Democratically elected president of an American nation, and I think most USAmericans fail to understand that Communism is an economic system absolutely compatible with Democracy, which is a political system. In fact the US has gone around the world for fifty some years now undermining democracies over and over again because when given Democratic government, the people frequently choose a Socialist or Communist leader. This is the reason that Chavez spews his antiAmerican rhetoric--because we (US tax payers) have sponsored a coup attempt which successfully (though temporarily) deposed his democratically appointed administration and subsequently have sponsored the opposition media which lays a constant barrage of attacks against him. Thereby we have encouraged him to use hateful rhetoric against us. We have given him reason to clamp down on the "free press" (can you imagine if China was so rich that they bought our media and used it to shape US public opinion re. our leaders? We would have a fricken fit too.) and attempt to appoint himself permanent ruler. If instead we took him by the hand and said, "hey we really admire what you've been able to do for your people by using oil wealth for the general good and we hope that you'll strengthen your fragile democracy and your nation by abdicating your office and letting someone else have a shot at it," we could have a MUCH more productive relationship.”

Oh hell; I need to get to work. This is the rest of the e-mail to my brother:
“Another 5% was that McCain is again aiming really low. By not looking at Obama the whole time, I think he was trying to send a message that Obama is inhuman or unworthy of acknowledgement or something. He had to have some psychologist on his staff telling him to do this, because it was just so obviously intentional and such an unnatural/artifical interaction (or lack thereof). He's aiming for some gut response because he can't compete on substance...again.

“One of them answered that first question quite succinctly--"there is no final form of the legislation, so I cant say whether i'd sign it or not." I was glad one of them could at least spit that out. Big deal about nothing.

“Re. What would you cut? McCain said basically everything but the military, and Obama wouldn't say he'd give up anything. McCain was speaking to the shortsighted antigovernment folks and I would think he alienated anyone who values anything other than war. Omaba has said in the past and should have said in that context, "I'd give up tax breaks for people making over a quarter million a year" and "I would get the heck out of Iraq"--hows that for a budget cuts. I guess he was thinking more about what not to say; must be tough to be on the hotseat. Lerher (sp) shoulda said,let me put it like this, "tomorrow, every country on earth tells it's banks and citizens, do not lend any more money to the US. How are you going to balance the budget?"

“BTW, did you catch when McCain said Obama doesnt know the dif b'tween tactics and strategy and then not two minutes later called a tactic a strategy himself?”

"Sarah Palin is..." Google Search Results

2008-09-18T12:56:00.000-07:00

Google search results (September 17, 1530 hrs):
"sarah palin is" 878,000 hits
"Sarah Palin is unqualified" 209,000 hits
"sarah palin is a babe" 132,000 hits
"sarah palin is hot" 62,800 hits
"Sarah Palin is scary" 48,400 hits
"sarah palin is awesome" 27,900 hits
"Sarah Palin is an idiot" 24,100 hits
"sarah palin is not qualified" 15,500 hits
"sarah palin is dangerous" 1990 hits
"sarah Palin is crazy" 984 hits
"sarah palin isn't qualified" 850 hits
"sarah palin is a MILF" 823 hits
"sarah palin is a dangerous" 755 hits
"sarah palin is great" 652 hits
"Sarah Palin is a nightmare" 601 hits
"sarah palin is the devil" 574 hits
"sarah palin is the antichrist" 490 hits
"sarah palin is stupid" 386 hits
"sarah palin is a godsend" 277 hits
"Sarah Palin is hypocritical" 259 hits
"sarah palin is a whore" 206 hits
"sarah palin is fantastic" 92 hits
"sarah palin is wonderful" 78 hits
"sarah palin is weak" 76 hits
"Sarah Palin is ugly" 65 hits
"sarah palin is irrelevant" 64 hits
"Sarah Palin is a retard" 51 hits
"Sarah Palin is a fucking idiot" 10 hits
"sarah palin is retarded" 7 hits
"sarah palin is a zealot" 5 hits
"sarah palin is the spawn of" 3 hits (Ronald Reagan, Jesse Helms, and the devil)
"sarah palin is the answer to our prayers" 2 hits
"Sarah Palin is a fucking retard" 1 hit

Meyera Oberndorf for President!

2008-09-13T11:16:00.001-07:00

A letter to the editor that got out of hand:

Meyera Oberndorf for President! I’m just joking; she’s really not qualified.

She’s been the Mayor of a city, Virginia Beach, with a population comparable to that of the entire state of Alaska for twenty years and was in the City Council for a decade before that. She oversaw the city through a decade when it was the fastest growing city in the nation. She presided over the city as its size doubled and redoubled. Virginia Beach is home to the largest naval air station in the world as well as several other notable military installations. Considered together with the adjacent cities’ military operations, including the largest naval base in the world, the naval operations in Virginia Beach make it vitally important to our national defense. The Virginia Beach campus of Tidewater Community College alone enrolls two thirds as many students annually as the entire state-wide University of Alaska System. The city has the 45th largest public school system in the nation. Meyera has managed this domain for decades, not just years, and for any shortcomings she’s had, we have to let her off the hook, because it has not been an easy task. Meyer has interfaced with international businesses and delegations. She’s dealt with the military. She’s dealt with job loss and job creation, with natural resource shortages, with land and resource development. She’s overseen a police department comparable in size to the Alaska National Guard. But, does this prove she’s qualified to manage the national budget, the national defense, and national economic and energy policies? Can she guide us into energy independence? Does it show she understands the complexities of the conflicts in the Middle East or the foundations and implications of the West’s conflict with Russia? No. No. No. It doesn’t.

Statistically speaking, McCain has a slim chance of surviving his first term based on his age and medical history, so he needs a second who is ready to run with the ball. Sarah Palin is NOT ready. Regardless of how she appeals to people with her ideology, she is simply not qualified. The presidency is not a job that just requires folksy common sense; it requires expertise. And, Palin has none. Her reputation as a reformer is shaky at best, having abused her office, fired any public official with whom she had a disagreement, and having “stood-up to” oil companies by building a pipeline they did not want. Her conservative ticket’s claim to maverickdom is oxymoronic. By choosing her, McCain has completed the sale of everything he stood for eight years ago. He has sought and found the lowest common denominator, and it is shocking to see the people seem to be buying it.

Why are people so fucking dense?

2008-09-10T11:31:00.000-07:00

If it were not the case that people see and hear what they want to see and hear, this (copied below) might make me very happy. It would make me happy because it would show to all of the people the Republican propaganda machine is duping with the "drill here drill now" nonsense that the oil supply is being manipulated to inflate prices and that the only solution to the oil market quandary is to decrease demand. No matter how much oil is produced domestically, it is unforeseeable that the US will ever be oil-independent unless demand is wildly reduced. It hints that the oil market is not being driven by supply and demand (because supply is potentially so great and easily fixable) and that even the chance that the price might drop in response to falling demand is causing suppliers to organize to match the market with a drop in supply (that is to "defend" high prices with artificially decreased supply). While this it is OPEC conspiring to do this, American oil companies will be of no help, because any price elevation is hugely beneficial to them. They are obligated to maximize profits for their shareholders. So, regardless of where and how much you drill, they're going to subject their countrymen to the same manipulated market price the rest of the world is dealing with. Whats more, oil companies are justified in asking whatever price people are willing to pay (basic microeconomics), so, once again, the consumer's only choice is to decrease demand by using an alternative product.

Of course, we need energy, so the only pragmatic and practical long-term solution is to exploit energy alternatives; this is exactly what the Democrats have been saying and proposing. Why are people so fucking dense?

http://www.npr.org/newsinbrief/index.html (Tuesday, September 2, 2008)

Oil Drops To $108 Per Barrel Amid Slowing Demand (Tuesday, September 2, 2008)

Oil prices tumbled below $108 a barrel on Tuesday, down nearly $8 from last week's close, as investors shifted their focus to slowing global demand after worries about Hurricane Gustav subsided.

By midday in Europe, light, sweet crude for October delivery was down $7.85 a barrel to $107.61 in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Earlier in the session it had dropped as low as $105.46.

On Friday, the contract settled at $115.46 a barrel as Gustav approached the U.S. Gulf coast, a key region for oil drilling and refining. But traders were relieved that Gustav weakened as it neared the offshore oil rigs and Louisiana refineries, and appeared to have caused less damage than expected in New Orleans and surrounding areas.

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is scheduled to meet Sept. 9 in Vienna and has indicated it may take action to defend the $100 a barrel level.

More:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7605584.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7607508.stm
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/politics/GlobalOil.html

Drilling for divisiveness

2008-09-07T11:12:00.000-07:00

I went looking to see who pays the bills for Drill Here Drill Now, which appears to be some sort of grassroots organization. I expected to find some slightly fuzzy link to "big oil," but instead I found it, as well as it's parent organization (American solutions for winning the future), and it's leader, Newt Gingrich, are funded primarily by Sheldon Adelson, a casino magnate, the third richest American, and a conservative "philanthropist." Adelson also bankrolls Freedom’s Watch, which was founded primarily as a pro-Iraq-war organization and which has gotten deeply into partisan politics. So, it seems that DHDN’s real aim is partisan politicking, not so much lower gas prices.

Scary thing is the DHDN petition has 1.5 million signatures, and NPR reported thismorning that Democrats in Congress were starting to jump on the bandwagon. Seems a lot of folks don't understand that we simply don't have enough domestic oil to satisfy our needs. Hence the need for energy alternatives...duh.

Associated links:
http://www.alaskawild.org/news-and-events/fact-sheets

Letter to the Editor of the Post and Courier

2008-09-06T15:10:00.000-07:00

I've seen so much disturbing nonsense in the last couple weeks that I just didn't know where to begin, but summarized just a shade of what I've been thinking in a letter to the editor thismorning:

"I considered John McCain a worthy Presidential candidate in 2000, but, through his continuous stream of misinformation and hypocritical rhetoric, he has last lost my respect. The advertisements run during coverage of Tropical Storm Hanna which presented the gross distortion if not lie that Senator Obama will "raise taxes on working families" were the final straw. The fact is that Obama's tax plan will increase taxes on only 5% of Americans who earn the most--hardly your typical "working families." McCain has chosen to undermine the rational selection of a President by overwhelming reason with emotional appeals, indicating not only that he believes Americans are intellectually poor enough to fall for it but that he is willing to exploit them. He has said repeatedly, "more unites us than divides us," but out of the other side of his mouth he implies that democrats don't put their "country first"--that their interests are contrary to America's. The slogan "change we can trust" implies that you can't trust his opponent, Senator Obama; whether you agree with this sentiment or not, it is just a sentiment. We have just as much, or more, reason to trust Obama as we do McCain. Surely, we all have America's best interests—national security, economic health, individual liberty and prosperity--in mind; we Americans just disagree on how to best achieve these ends.

"The facts that we don't all agree on the course of action we should take and that we deliberate the best course and vote on the resulting consensus are what makes this a democracy. The fact of disagreement and the process of resolution are fundamental to the American system. Slogans and propaganda steer people away from thinking rationally about issues that matter and undermine our democracy. McCain's voices opposition to "legislation from the bench" but contradicts himself by supporting "constructionist judges" who will incrementally undermine Roe vs. Wade. This hypocrisy illustrates the manner in which he is using loaded phrases to appeal to individuals' predispositions rather selling them on a rational policy. McCain Advisor Rick Davis said "this election is not about issues. This election is about a composite view of ... these candidates." Davis clarifies that they're not selling policy; they're selling an image and an abstraction. The McCain camp has repeatedly called Obama's speech empty rhetoric, even though it's based on well-defined policy positions available online for months—as if his own campaign's slogans are anything but empty rhetoric. I hope South Carolinians have the strength of character to look beyond the hype, slogans and insinuations to compare these candidates on the virtues of their policies."

Soundbites.

2008-08-22T05:19:00.000-07:00

Obama does a great job beating back McCain at the VFW, but what's it worth when no one is listening? The captive audience was receptive, but as with any good, well-defined policy commentary it took too long to get out and, if anything, will be chopped into criticizable bits before airing on any news. It's a shame that in order to make a point and be heard you need to do it in two sentences, but that's the reality. Obama absolutely needs to go on the offensive, an this speech shows he's well prepared to do it.

Darwin Day is Coming!

2008-08-20T16:44:00.000-07:00

Collin Purrington is giving away temporary Darwin tattoos to promote Darwin Day.

Trust us.

2008-08-12T05:30:00.000-07:00

In the run-up to the Iraq war I felt like the whole Congress was with me in feeling that they reeeeally didn’t believe the administration’s justifications for war but that it was inconceivable for a president to do what we now know he did. Now, the administration wants us to trust in the staff of federal regulatory agencies to do the right thing by us and by the Endangered Species Act. Riiiiight.

If the ESA is wrong, then we should end it, but to simply undermine it and say that it’s meant to benefit us? They’re just attempting to take us all for suckers…again.

Are biased books the newest best form of discourse?

2008-08-09T07:25:00.000-07:00

I just came across the Green Party 2000 Speach by Joel Kovel which I thought was worth watching. This guy seems to have his finger on a bunch of nerves that people don't like touched. From being branded an anti-Semite (he's Jewish , mind you) for his book Overcoming Zionism: Creating a Single Democratic State in Israel/Palestine to redirecting the blame for global warming to the Clinton-Gore administration and capitalism in general in A Really Inconvenient Truth, he really likes to take an alternative stance on things. Is he a rationalist contrarian? Maybe. Why does anyone feel the need to be a contrarian? Because most people don't look beyond the immediate self-serving truth, and someone needs to provide an alternative perspective.

I think the reviews of his book on Amazon are telling. Half the folks are Zionists and argue the poor quality of his writing. The other half are anti-Zionist or non-Zionist and thought it was well worth reading. The degradation of public debate, the purpose of which is to be a rational and progressive dialectic exchange, into televised screaming matches and the deterioration of common communication skills necessary for anyone to communicate, and ultimately, think about any issue openly with reason have created the field upon which rational discourse about any issue is replaced by biased discourse. In this new discourse speakers conform to Column A or Column B and the "truth" outcome is whichever position, A or B, with the most supporters--not the "truth" as discovered through reason. The owning of our democracy by the highest bidder rather than collectively by all of the interested parties as a whole is perhaps an economic analogue of the same phenomenon. The claim of a "mandate" by the administration after winning a slight majority in 2004 similarly illustrates how neglect of the search for truth and the alternative, the embrace of the "loudest" point of view, can materialize in a way that truly undermines democracy.

How far have we come that the President of all people will embrace tyranny of the majority as a principle of democracy rather than as an obstacle to democracy? Since we can no longer debate much less converse about opposing ideas, it seems the only forum for “debate” is in opposing books where ideas can be expounded completely and presented. Maybe this is better than nothing, but maybe its a way of feeding the monster. Maybe we could have less polarized discourse on policy, if we all made the personal effort to converse about ideas and discover “truth.” Reason served civilization pretty well for the last 500 years. But, if individuals can’t simply speak rationally amongst themselves about anything that matters, what can we expect for the country or for civilization?

Real conservativism

2008-08-03T16:26:00.000-07:00

Having been lacking inspiration I started jotting notes down about ideas for essays a month or so ago most of which I readily lost. But, I came across one under a pile of paperwork the other day referencing this brief article in the Times which neatly depicts Obama’s infamous “guns and God” comment as being fundamentally wrong. The author, Larry Bartels, makes a brief but powerful statistical case that Obama’s assumptions are grossly inaccurate. I suppose Obama’s incorrect assumptions are representative of what a lot of, if not most of Americans seem to think—that the rural working class is the conservative base of the Republican Party and that this group is strongly swayed by so-called wedge issues such as gay rights, abortion rights and gun control. The fact appears to be that they are in fact much less likely to be swayed by wedge issues than educated, well-to-do urbanites. One underlying message here seems to be that it is the relatively well-to-do urbanites who can afford to be distracted by such wedge issues, while less well-to-do people have bigger fish to fry. The point of it all is that Obama has embraced a misleading stereotype of a big segment of the population, and that could really hurt his chances of appealing to (or serving the needs of) those people.

Also, I thought this was a really interesting article, because I saw in it a parallel to the perception of “pagans” and “heathens.” Pagans (literally "rural dwellers") and heathens (possibly "dwellers of uncultivated land") became marginalized for their religious beliefs as radical new religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) overran the cities. While these terms were pejorative and were intended to disparage the subjects for deviance, the pagans and heathens actually clung to older, more traditional beliefs and values. That is to say, they were socially conservative, and their cosmopolitan detractors were the real deviants.

Maybe, in the same way, "middle America" is a storehouse for the values our country supposedly has historically embraced. Few would argue with this, but their assumptions about what traditional American values are would vary widely and would often be in sharp contrast to one another. I think Bartels’ article makes it pretty clear what they are not.

The roots of discontent

2008-07-07T08:34:00.000-07:00

The direction America is headed

Well, my bro said that he thought that (what was supposedly) Jay Leno's diatribe was good food for thought, and he was right. I’ve been thinking about it ever since in the context of various other issues. More specifically, I guess I’ve been thinking about the nature and roots of discontentment of Americans. What seemed to be Leno’s presumption was that Americans are discontented with the direction in which America is heading because of the effects poor economic conditions are having on them, i.e. for purely selfish reasons. While he may be right with regard to some people, I think that his interpretation of “the direction the country is headed” is infinitely narrow and shallow. Also, while he is correct that we should feel no small amount of joy about the degree of comfort and privilege that is afforded us as citizens (and residents) of the United States, this is not a reason to overlook the negative aspects of American foreign and domestic policies. Rather, it is all the more reason we should be concerned that our national policies are fair to all affected by them, and it is all the more reason for Americans to be upset when they feel America’s strength is misused. As Ben Parker said, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Actually, it was Churchill, or Roosevelt, or Kipling or…but the point is the same. As THE superpower, we have a responsibility to use our power, which in strict economic terms is derived from American taxpayers, with the utmost moral conscience.

Non-advocative representation

When an elected leader acts on behalf of the represented in a manner contrary to the moral values of the represented he or she violates the most basic principle of our republic. The framers of our constitution knew that power corrupts and their distrust of power and authority derived from power was so firm it led them to lead a revolt against Britain. Certainly, the founding of a nation that would oppress other peoples with its power with the goal of maintaining or expanding its power was not what they had in mind when they committed their treason against the oppressive British crown.

While there could and should be some justification or some validation for the actions the U.S. government has taken in Iraq, it has not been presented to The People. The primary justifications, WMD and collusion with al Queda, have proved unverifiable or false, and the Executive branch has consistently refused to address the questions of doubters, citing national security and executive privilege—basically leaving us in the dark for our own good. While there may be some precedents for such behavior (the Nixon Administration’s spying on the Democratic Party to help ensure that America stays what they perceived as the proper course for us and our covert wars in South and Central America and Asia being examples) that behavior is inherently contrary to the foremost American precept that The People are the sovereign and the role of the elected is to do their bidding, for, if the people are not privy to the information, they cannot make informed decisions. The gravity of this contradiction is particularly illuminated by the withholding of classified information from Congress whose role is supposed to be making informed decisions on The Peoples’ behalf. It is unconceivable to me how the constitution can be twisted to permit this degree of subversion of The People. The propagandization of the news, long perceived as the Fourth Estate, is plainly a component in this puzzle, further disinforming The People and creating an atmosphere where the subversion of The People is permissible. The secrecy of the Executive, the propagandization of the news media and the negligence of the Congress to act on behalf of The People to check executive power have conspired to warrant great suspicions that the government is acting with ulterior motives, not on behalf of or in the interest of The People.

The mere appearance that this is happening should be very alarming to most Americans for a variety of reasons. The appearance of the essential theft of our democracy and betrayal of the pubic trust is perhaps paramount among them. The taking of our tax dollars and the accumulation of debt on our behalf for a war, the justification for which remains mysterious to us, particularly as many Americans are experiencing personal financial difficulties and economic stratification is becoming more intense by a personally selfish oligarchic administration is a betrayal of the trust The People have placed in the government. An elongated list of reasons for alarm would be tangential. These two reasons alone—that the government is not operating in accordance with constitutional mandates and that we are being forced to pay for its unlawful actions—are reason enough for The People to be alarmed and angry. These grievances (unfair taxation and an effective lack of representation) were at the heart of the argument for American independence. To endorse the actions of the current government, specifically with regard to Iraq, is to discard the fundamental principles of republican democracy. The point with regard to Iraq policy is absolutely not to disregard American security; it is to ensure the proper functioning of American democratic government. The point is not to direct blame for Iraq policies or the inexpediency of those policies; it is to ensure that the government serves The People and not visa versa by holding those suspected of having betrayed The People accountable or at least answerable for their actions. The founders would expect nothing less of us than that we hold government accountable to us. The signers of the Declaration of Independence had a healthy distrust of authority (healthy enough to commit treason) and would hope that we use a healthy degree of the same. I use the word “hope,” because it is also true that pessimism ran deep among those men. They expected this experiment in democracy to fail and this nation to fall in to monarchy, authoritarianism, or even theocracy. The appearance of betrayal of our representatives in government and their unaccountability is a symptom of an impending failure of our democracy. This sign of failure is definitely at the root of the problems leading to the discontentment of Americans, but is by no means the sole problem.

Most of what I have said here regarding the responsibility of the government to act in the interest of The People and our responsibility to hold our representatives accountable (lest we discard our democracy) I would have thought would go without saying. However, the great division of Americans over their support for or dissent from America’s policies regarding Iraq indicate that a clarification of the reasons for dissent is needed. The above should at least serve as a starting point for some discussion of Iraq policy in the context of rights and duties of the government and the governed. In this essay, the preceding case against the government is simply a prerequisite to the following.

The nobility of the American working-class?

The failure of the American government to present itself as a faithful servant of The People in the case of Iraq is perceived by many as merely one of several such instances. Perhaps alluded to in Leno’s essay is the discontent of many over economic matters. I say “perhaps,” because, he attributes discontent to America’s being “the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen.” While he might be in the ballpark, I think he’s missing the game entirely. The noble worker holds no small place in the American iconography—he is the quintessential American underdog, the cowboy, the factory worker, the construction worker, the farmer, the soldier, teacher, policeman and fireman. While, in the case of public servants and perhaps farmers the nobility lies in part on the self sacrifice he or she makes for the benefit of the rest of us. For the cowboy and the soldier, nobility comes in part from the romanticized lifestyles and idealized sense of honor we impose on them. For the underdog, who perhaps embodies the American Dream moreso than any of the others, nobility comes from his successful moral or physical struggle against a superior but morally corrupt opposition such as a corporation; a corrupt official; or a richer, more privileged, and spoiled man. He is the Everyman, the common man. For the workers by whose labor this nation was built, nobility comes from being the underdog, fighting the good fight on behalf of the rest of us, making the sacrifices that benefit the rest of us, and, instead of being rewarded for their sacrifices by rising in stature, continuing on through a thankless life of drudgery. It is all most Americans ever know. It is on their shoulders the rest of us are carried. It is true that even the poor in the U.S. live in relative luxury compared to the rest of the world’s poor, but they live in the U.S., not the rest of the world. One can make the argument that each of us chooses his or her place in society and is responsible for his or her place, negating any social responsibility the rest of us might carry for anyone else. So, what status does the American worker hold in society? Is he a noble American icon? Or, is he a blight on society, dependant, willingly exploited, a pathetic contrast to the American Dream? For much of our young nation’s history the American Dream was one of opportunity for everyone, not just one in which anyone can rise to be super successful but one in which anyone can achieve a decent standard of living. None of us may be the idealized, noble American worker but many Americans do nevertheless identify with him and perceive our society from his perspective. Although aristocracy has always had a place in our country, our constitution gives the same privileges to us all, and the usurpation of rights by an oligarchy is an attack on the Constitution.

Much like we embrace Robin Hood who “stole from the rich and gave to the poor,” we embrace the America that is economically destratified, where we are all truly born equals. So, it is from this perspective that Americans feel betrayed by their government. They feel overlooked, neglected, even forsaken in favor of the rich. Wealth is relative, and in the last few decades the rich have been getting richer while the poor have been getting poorer. This is not just the natural order; this has been fostered by our government’s tax policies and business regulations. Contemporary historian and author Kevin Phillips, having recently left the republican party wrote a series books on just this topic during the post-Reagan era: The Politics of Rich and Poor: Wealth and the American Electorate in the Reagan Aftermath (1991), Boiling Point: Democrats, Republicans, and the Decline of Middle-Class Prosperity (1994), and Arrogant Capital: Washington, Wall Street, and the Frustration of American Politics (1995). He was sounding the alarm that America was becoming economically stratified and that this was having negative consequences on our democracy. The pot hasn’t boiled as quickly as he thought, but he was right about the pot boiling, about why and about the consequences. Leno misses with his assertion that we are just a bunch of spoiled brats. Since he is totally out of touch with how the rest of us non-millionaires live and how we feel about our democratic disempowerment and about the degradation of our relative standard of living, he totally misses the point. The exclusion of working-class Americans from our own democracy ought to be reason enough for discontentment, yet there is an even greater problem at the root of it.

The American work ethic and the betrayal of American industry

Implicit in the nobility of the American worker is the idea that Americans derive their pride and patriotism from the belief that we, as a nation are working towards a greater goal. Americans are not the spoiled brats that Leno thinks we are; we want to work hard and work to bring honor upon our selves and our country. It is the inability to do so that breeds discontentment—idle hands, stagnation, the inability to fulfill one’s potential—the classic causes of frustration. This increasingly oligarchic society and economy are betrayals of that trust that we as a nation are unified for a greater purpose. The supply-side economic paradigm exacerbates things, because we are no longer work for American corporations that pay taxes, in turn benefiting the nation or that invest in new technologies that will benefit the nation. American corporations seem to be selfish and exploitative institutions that usurp our national wealth and power by gradually taking and taking and never giving back, slowly tilting the balance of wealth to the point that they own the government and the rest of us are powerless. The failure of corporations to invest back in the society that paid and labored for its empowerment is no less of a slight. Tax cuts for the wealthy initiated under Reagan and persisting today were supposed to provide those who were wealthy enough to make substantial investments with money to do so. And, these investments were supposed to pay-off in jobs that would allow the lost tax income to “trickle down” to the rest of us, thereby fostering economic development and sustaining working-class standards of living—supposedly a win win situation. Many like to attribute the technological advancements of the 1990s on these tax cuts for the wealthy; however, there is no shortage of detractors. The virtues of tax cuts for the wealthy, if there are any, will not be known for decades if ever, yet this is the form of tax policy. While most Americans are left to wait for wealth to trickle-down to them, American Oil companies enjoy prosperity unimaginable to most of us, American automobile companies refuse to embrace alternative fuel technologies (we’ve been waiting for decades), legislator-lawyers escalate criminal penalties to obtain votes and create business for their industry, American corporations send their jobs to cheap overseas markets—all with the blessings of our representatives. And, all the while, our ability to do anything about any of it is eroded.

Most Americans remain pawns in a game of the rich and powerful from which they will never benefit. Deeper than the political and economic disfranchisement is the forestalling of both American progress and Americans’ ability to do their part in it. Perhaps those working class Americans who do not feel discontent are those who have fulfillment in their working lives or in their creativity, and it is those who do not who are most discontented. As wages stagnate, the cost of living rises and businesses cut jobs, the search for personal fulfillment cannot center on one’s work life. One must create his own form of fulfillment. This is contrary to the fact that in America we have centered our lives on jobs where we enlist the values of honor, dedication, sacrifice, and pursuit of excellence. American progress is built upon American workers who embrace these values and do so with noble intentions of playing their part in American progress. It has been their privilege, the source of their nobility and honor and their willingness to sacrifice. The sense that American workers have been abandoned has created an atmosphere not unlike that of Stalinist Russia where workers have no desire to work because it brings no fulfillment, are hopeless to affect any change in their own conditions and are entirely subject to the government-backed industry. Whatever the American Dream is, this it is not. Perhaps Leno is right, and it is in this sense that Americans are spoiled—Americans have come to expect rewarding work, and the lack of it has soured their attitudes. Regardless, this is from where American rebirth must come. Americans are wanting for work, for good work that will bring them honor and the nation prosperity. They want corporate America to play their part and stop acting purely in self-interest. They want to recreate America as the model it was after WWII, one where sacrifice was honored and rewarded, where there was nobility in our national pursuits and where the government was "of the people, by the people, for the people." And, their frustration results from government’s and industry’s failure to provide them with the opportunity to do so.

The promise of American progress

Now that we’ve put the national wealth in the hands of the rich and the national faith in their willingness and ability to invest wisely to the benefit of the nation, what do we do? We’ve given the wealthy all the cards. We’re waiting … impatiently. But, our representatives aren’t listening to us. The so-called Fourth Estate is trying to manipulate us rather than inform us. And, the industry that we put our faith in appears to be taking over our government and our media and using them against us. Many Americans feel that instead of being able to work together as a nation to better our situation, our prospects are limited. Fulfillment is to be found in the patriotic fight against Islamic radicals who “hate us for our freedom” (a ridiculous slogan that should make the administration’s motives suspect) or in the successful pursuit of endless capital gain (perhaps the new American Dream—proclaiming the virtue of greed), but where else? We’ve been disempowered to do much to change the status quo. Anyone who condescends to say we’re just ungrateful brats has been watching too much network news, trusting too much in the government, blindly assuming the good intentions of American corporations and is totally out of touch with the working-class.

Americans need noble national goals, investment in those goals, and domestic industry that will work towards those goals. It is a lot to ask—true. But, men and nations decide their values and find fulfillment in lives that embrace those values. Progress might be the preeminent American value. Progress is what we as a people demand. Perhaps more that anything else, it is what we believe in. Political, industrial, social, economic, scientific, technological—progress is at the center of the American identity. The abandonment of tangible progress in favor of ideological progress (the supposed propagation of democracy or Christianity) or capitalistic or free-market progress (which is no progress at all for the great majority of Americans) has left most Americans parched for want of something to believe in, something to work towards, and distraught with doubts about validity of these new values. This, the inability to work toward goals we believe are noble and which we believe represent progress, is at the heart of American discontent. Perhaps we are spoiled if we are so audacious to expect such lofty goals and achievements from our nation, but, then, maybe that’s a good thing. I don’t think the men who revolted against Britain on our behalf would object.

Have I mentioned my short attention span?

2008-07-02T08:08:00.000-07:00

I came across this Lynnhaven River restoration group's website and had to find out just how much they knew or were acknowledging about the system's history of environmental problems. I think what they're trying to do is just awesome (even if it may be futile). Here's the string of emails. Apologies for the corrupted formatting. I suppose I just wanted to share my opinion about what's really (or deeper) at the heart of the Lynnhaven's problems but didn't want to tell anyone what they already knew. Seems to me the devastation of the estuary occurred rapidly and didn't correspond to any particular stage of landscape development, indicating that the origin of the problems was neither the cummulative effects of development nor the effect of some particular landscape event (unless the massive oil slick that occurred one year originated on land) but rather, the cause for (what I saw as) the river's rapid decline was a series of water pollution events combined with dredging. And, while the inability of the ecosystem to recover is associated with the stresses of coastal development, it is founded moreso upon the extent of alteration of the physical habitat and biological communities of the Lynnhaven River pre~1982. Anyway, here's the string.

-----Original Message-----> From: > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 8:34 AM> To: > Subject: Howdy?

>> Hello, Ms. X. I'm a VB Native who grew up on the upper> reaches of Thalia Creek, and I know a little bit about marine science.> I know there is no such simple answer, but could you as briefly as> possible (three or for points) tell me why the Lynnhaven River has> become an unhealthy estuary? This may seem a bit like a trick> question; I'm trying to get an idea about the understanding those at> LRNow have of the River and its history. I'll really appreciate it if> you'll humor me with a response.>> I applaud y'all for everything you're doing there and think you're> doing the right things (perhaps 20 years too late). I've been gone> from VB for some time and don't know the status of the watershed these> days, but I would have thought it was ready to be stocked with carp> just to have something living in it. I'd much rather it be stocked> with oysters.

>> Regards,

>> Me, Virginian in exile

- Hide quoted text -
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Ms. X wrote:> Hello Me,>> Thank you for your interest in the Lynnhaven River and for your> compliments to our organization. I am attaching our 2007 State of the> River Report, which gives a really nice 4 page summary of the condition> of the river. We have tracked these indicators for the last 3 years so> we can see how they are changing.>> In 2 points though, I'd say that the Lynnhaven has become an unhealthy> river because:>> 1. The Lynnhaven's watershed is approximately 95% developed, we have> more than 35% impervious surface, and a huge population (220,000 people)> living in the Lynnhaven's watershed. When it rains, pollutants (such as> fertilizers, nutrients, pet waste, sediment, pesticides, oil, and> toxins, to name a few) wash off the watershed and are carried by the> rainwater to stormdrains that expel directly (and untreated) into the> Lynnhaven River. Once the pollutants are in the water, they cause a> variety of complications, including algal blooms, anoxia, turbidity,> toxic pollution, etc.>> 2. We have lost or destroyed thousands of acres of forest, riparian> buffers, and wetlands in the watershed. They are critical to the> river's health because they provide natural filtration systems that> intercept nutrients and sediment before they reach the water. We have> also lost approximately 99% of our historic oyster population. Oysters> are also critical to the river's health because they filter sediment and> algae from the water and they provide tremendous food and habitat in the> river.
I hope that is helpful,
Ms.X, Assistant Director & Marine Scientist> LYNNHAVEN River NOW> 1608 Pleasure House Road, Suite 108> Virginia Beach, VA 23455>> telephone: (757)-962-5398> visit our web site: www.LynnhavenRiverNow.org>>>

Hi, Ms.X. Good to hear back from you.

Coastal development is a huge problem and is certainly responsible fora great deal of estuarine health issues. But, I hope you'll consider an alternative explanation of what is wrong with the Lynnhaven.Fertilizer and sediment runoff among other things may be keeping the Lynnhaven from recovering, but what sent it down the path to its current state was dredging. Back in the 80s, the river was supposedly having eutrophication problems because of the volume of treated wastewater entering the watershed. This was before the consolidated wastewater system there is today, when several local (neighborhood scale) wastewater facilities operated within the watershed. I'll admit the effluent was bright green and there was a nice mat of periphyton lining the channel from the effluent pipe, but I never saw a red tide or any plankton bloom for that matter back in those days.But someone decided the Lynnhaven had gone eutrophic (there are some documents at the library written by the COE and Stokes Environmental Consultants that make this point) and argued that the solution was to increase the flushing rate by dredging. Anyone with a most basic understanding of estuarine ecology could see this was ridiculous: If you increase the flushing rate, you increase the salinity (because the fresh water inputs are too low to compensate) and totally alter the ecosystem. The whole scheme was in fact a transparent justification for dredging, which was a priority issue for waterfront property owners on the shallow Lynnhaven River.

Before the dredging the river transformed with the passing of every tide from a salt water bay full of blue crabs and white perch to afresh water stream with crayfish and catfish. Despite the claims of eutrophication I never ceased to be amazed at the diversity of critters I could catch or the textbook perfection of the whole ecosystem. Around the same time as the dredging (early '80s) there was an oil slick that was responsible for a huge fish kill, then major red tides in successive years, the second one of which was clearly related to the closure of the wastewater plant on Harton Rd. You see,they waited two years for the waste ponds to dry-up and when the sewage just wouldn't dry enough to be covered over, they cut a big notch in the East-facing side of the pond to let the sludge ooze out into Thalia Creek. That was the third punch and roughly coincided with the completion of dredging the upper reaches of the river. It came back a little each time at first, but after the last red tide,the water remained black and devoid of life. All of the fresh water fish we used to see were gone and we never saw any more salt waterfish either -- just that black water. Rather than expediting the release of effluent from the Lynnhaven into the mouth of the Chesapeake, the increased saltwater intrusion helped to wash polluted water deeper into the estuary, contaminating the headwaters and eliminating headwater populations that would be needed to repopulate the river after die-offs.

That's just what I saw from my point on the shoreline. What I am trying to illustrate is that it isn't as simple as restoration of riparian buffers and SAV. The Lynnhaven has been drastically altered-- not simply by expanded impervious surfaces or increased runoff.The very nature of the watershed -- it's morphology, salinity regime, freshwater inputs -- the set of physical characteristics that determine what kind of ecosystem it CAN be has been totally and perhaps irreversibly changed. The native species have probably been totally wiped out, leaving it with an entirely clean slate with respect to its wildlife community. So, restoration is simply out of the question. What's living there now I do not know. It is fantastic that new populations of oysters have been discovered, and I'm sure (at least I would guess) that some populations of something have established themselves since the days I recall. But, whatever ecosystem that has evolved or that will evolve in the Lynnhaven is not and will never be the one that once was. A revitalized Lynnhaven will be an entirely new ecosystem. Greater success might be found by actively trying to engineer that new ecosystem than by trying to passively facilitate any form of recovery.

Anyway, I apologize if I am perhaps too eager to share my opinion, but I wanted to use my personal, historical account to bring attention to some of the Lynnhaven's more elusive issues that usually get ignored or overlooked.
Regards,
Me

Another diversion for my short attention span

2008-07-01T21:41:00.000-07:00

I never really liked Jay Leno (I just don't find him funny). Someone sent me this essay attributed to Leno. My comments are interjected. Long story short: I guess he thinks responses to the "How do yo feel about the direction America is headed?" poll question simply reflect people's comfort level or the depth of their wallets. He seems to be oblivious to any matters of morality, to the stability of our constitutional government or to the problems that face the masses who are not rich as hell. Anyway...

> Jay Leno wrote this; it's the Jay Leno we don't often see....
>
> As most of you know I am not a President Bush fan, nor have I ever been, but
> this is not about Bush, it is about us, as Americans, and it seems to hit
> the mark.
>
> The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some Poll data
> I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the source, right?
>
> The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the
> direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy
> with the performance of the President. In essence 2/3 of the citizenry just
> ain't happy and want a change. So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started
> thinking, 'What are we so unhappy about?''
>
> A. Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 Days a
> week?
>
> B. Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer
> and heating in the winter?
>
> C. Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?
>
> D. Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see
> more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?
>
> E. Maybe it is the ability to drive our cars and trucks from the Pacific

> Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers
> as we move through each state?
>
> F. Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the
> way that can provide temporary shelter?
>
> G. I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around
> the world is just not good enough either.
>
> H. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and
> provide services to help all and even send a helicopter to take you to the
> hospital.
>
> I. Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home.
>
> J. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a
> group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch
> equipment to extinguish the flames, thus saving you, your family, and your
> belongings.
>
> K. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar
> or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest
> will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss.
>
> L. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias
> raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90% of teenagers own
> cell phones and computers.
>
> M. How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy
> that are the envy of everyone in the world?

The three percent of Americans who have been to or are in prison (and particularly the 1/4 of those who were jailed for non-violent drug offenses) would disagree about the status of social freedoms. I personally feel like my religious freedom is under threat as do many of my fellow American atheists (Bans on abortion and suicide are explicitly Bible-based. The use of public finds for religious proselytization in the form of prison ministries and abstinence education are thefts of my tax money by religious politicians. Having "In God we Trust" on my money and "Under God" in my Pledge of Allegiance are personal religious affronts endorsed by my government.) "Complete social and religious freedom" only exist for Christians who don't drink or smoke or or use drugs or have only heterosexual sex in the missionary position. In other words it doesn't exist, and there are those who would like to eliminate any illusion that it does exist.

>
>
> Maybe that is what has 67% of you folks unhappy.
>
> Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has
> ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S., yet has a great disdain for
> its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the
> world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate
> about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.

Maybe he's privy to some information I'm not, but I've always heard the opposite--that foreigners have a problem with the US and not the people (even al Queda states that their beef with us is that we pay taxes that support the US government's actions against their people.) I don't think he has any fucking idea how most Americans live. I'll agree that there are a lot of stupid ungrateful people out there who don't appreciate what they have. For example, all of the idiots commuting in oversized trucks and SUVs have no right to complain about the price of oil, nor do any of the politicians who have allowed the propagation of this stupid huge truck trend in the US. But, to have our government create an unnecessary war that sucked-up not just our tax dollars but probably those of our children and to "justify" it with a series of lies and twisted "facts", unjustly persecute the people of the nation we went to war with and to say he did it because God told him to degrades our nation by undermining our basic expectations of fairness, truth, government transparency, and not having an insane man piss away trillions of our tax dollars on lunacy. This is something to be angry about not despite the fact that you have food on the table and a roof over your head but because you have those luxuries. To live in relative luxury is reason to want to elevate others and all the more reason to be ashamed of what we have done to the Iraqis. To live in a society where ultimately we are responsible for the conduct of our government officials is all the more reason to be upset when those officials mismanage our nation and conduct its business in a manner contradictory to fundamental human values.

>
> I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no
> plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval
> rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days
> after 9/11?

By standing atop a pile of rubble that he failed to prevent despite repeated warnings that an attack was imminent (just what percentage of his time had he spent on vacation at that point? 27% as of 2003--100 days more in three years that Clinton had in seven.) and waving a flag? I didn't feel led. I felt insulted. I still do. He gave the military permission to draw-up plans and go to Afganistan as he should have, but he commanded them to stop short of capturing Bin Ladin and then sent them into Iraq because of some manufactured reasoning. The president and hence the US's response the attack has been a huge disaster militarily and morally. We've created more terrorists than there were to begin with and given them really good reasons for wanting to hate us and attack us. I should thank him?

The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of
> recession?

Are we out of a recession? When the rich folks benefiting from the tax cuts start investing in new energy and transportation technologies and infrastructure, I'll consider considering the virtues of supply side economics. It only works if the rich are altruists, and people don't get rich by being altruists.

Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the
> book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from
> terrorist attacks?

Is there some reason to think that he is somehow personally responsible for us not being attacked? Is he that tight with the terrorists? Did he have the Saudis tell Bin Ladin to step off in exchange for not making a martyr out of him? I never felt threatened to begin with. Do I have him to thank for me still having a job? Would my car have broken down he he had not willed it to keep running? Maybe he's also responsible for the increases in teenage pregnancy and smoking that have occurred under his watch? The idea that he is responsible for us not being attacked is just stupid.

The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is
> out there defending you and me?

The commander in chief that sent our all-volunteer army into harm's way to avenge his daddy or protect Israel or control the Iraqi oil supply or whatever stupid reason it is that we went there? The Commander in chief who basically deserted or avoided real military service using his familial political ties in a time of war (I'd respect him more if he fled the country or deserted outright than I can for joining the National Guard and then not even showing-up? Regarding the Army, they aren't defending me. I'm sure they'd rather be but instead they're on a futile and wasteful mission at the cost of their lives and health and American tax dollars (but not the rich people's tax dollars because it's more important that they have money to invest).

>
> Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this
> news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around
> for yourself and see all the good things and be glad? Think about
> it......are you upset at the President because he actually caused
> you personal pain OR is it because the 'Media' told you he was failing to
> kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.

I don't watch cable or network news. They don't provide real news anymore. The anti-reality movement has ruined ruined the media. This kind of nonsense is a case in point.

>
> Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have
> volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have
> died for your freedom.

No; the ones in Iraq died for the president's misguided war. The ones in Afganistan continue to die because we took the emphasis off of Afganistan and put it on Iraq.

There is currently no draft in this country. They
> didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a
> ''general'' discharge, an 'other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case
> scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.

Yeah, but an "other than honorable discharge" is like having a felony on your record.

>
> So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of
> Americans?
>
> Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads and
> they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and
> guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media
> knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what
> sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by 'justifying' them
> in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like OJ
> Simpson to write a book about how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he
> would have done it this way......Insane!
>
> Turn off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom
> of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as country.
> There is exponentially more good than bad. We are among the most blessed
> people on Earth and should thank God several times a day, or at least be
> thankful and appreciative. With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of
> control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country
> from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist
> attacks, are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of
> Allegiance ?

I don't blame the media for making people discontented; I blame them for not informing the public with facts, but instead waving the flag and sounding the march to war, when they should have been asking "what's the reason for war and where is the evidence and why is ours the only government on earth who interprets the intelligence this way?" I blame them for unquestioningly endorsing administration claims because to do otherwise might be interpreted as unpatriotic and be bad for ratings. "With hurricanes, tornadoes, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks," and with serious environmental, energy, and economic problems facing the US and the world we shouldn't be pissing away our wealth on an ill-conceived war; we should be prosecuting the criminals responsible for it, and we should all feel a sense of guilt for our waste and our disastrous actions against the people of Iraq.

>
> Jay Leno
>

Diversions for my short attention span

2008-07-01T21:21:00.000-07:00

So, I've been slack here lately, but I've been blathering on nonetheless. So, here are a couple links to my remarks on someone else's nonsense.

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=47385
I think I wrote about another page re. this, but decided to be "brief."

http://southernavenger.ccpblogs.com/2008/06/27/the-left-conservative-ralph-nader-white-guilt-and-black-nationalism/

I was blown away by this guy's rants on "white guilt," which I assumed to be some fiction he created, but then discovered the guy he was criticizing actually endorsed a sense of guilt among whites as a step towards interracial harmony (whoa). But after reading enough of this guys rants about liberals and his bad (i think) arguments, I realized he's a ahhhh not to be taken seriously.

The New Business-as-usual

2008-06-11T05:56:00.000-07:00

When Bush I was running for president in 1988 one of the popular cries of the Republicans was that the People should elect a Republican president and a Republican Congress so that they could stop government gridlock and get business done. Of course the Republicans took Congress in 1994 during the Clinton administration, and blocked legislation and government business in a manner unseen in generations. As of 2008, because the Democratic majority of 2006 has been so slight and as to not be effective, the Republicans still keep a stranglehold on Congress and block any legislation for which the president has not requested a rubber stamp. When the Republicans held the majority they tried to ban filibusters, the last ditch minorities have to stop their oppression. Now that they’re in the minority again, the Republicans all for the filibuster. They’ve filibustered the Fair Pay Act. They filibustered legislation that would limit troop deployment cycles. They filibustered a bill that would reduce carbon emissions. As if they thought they would be the majority forever. Clearly they have no concern for any Americans but themselves.

Any notion that the inaction of the legislature on issues that matter to Americans is the fault of the Democrats seems a poorly based one. While I’d like to think it is partisanship that is the problem, the evidence in my eyes seems to point toward the Republicans, perhaps more specifically the new brand of Republicans who have a my-way-or-the-highway attitude about legislation. While I can appreciate the no-compromise-in-defense-of-whathaveyou approach to certain moral issues, that approach is not appropriate on most issues; it just seizes-up the engine of government. And, those who choose that path are decidedly un-American and un-democratic in my eyes. The new Republicans have pursued tyranny of the majority long considered an obstacle to good representative democracy, as if it was mandated by their elections--as if it was their right and their obligation to oppress those who disagree with them.

While the Republicans may have held a parliamentary majority, largely as a result of the election of many of these “new Republicans,” the new Republicans that made the parliamentary majority are actually representative of minorities (fundamentalist Xians being the major one). Christian grass roots organizations began taking over the Republican party in the 70s. They infiltrated local and state parties and displaced the old, moderate Republicans who thought of themselves as American first and Republicans second. Using anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-secular sentiments (it’s much easier to rally people against something than it is to rally them for something) this minority within the Republican party stirred evangelical Xians to go to the polls and vote for whomever towed the party line. Thus the Republican majority was established and the original Republican party was subverted, destroyed and replaced with a new party with an extremist agenda. They sought to replace our secular government with a religious one, and that was just the beginning. Luckily, once they got power, they failed to do much aside from rubber-stamp Dubya’s awful policies. It has seemed to me that they were just using their Xian agenda as a tool to mobilize voters in support of other hidden agendas such as free-market capitalism (economic libertarianism). Like Dubya's "Some people call you the elites; I call you my base" joke at an $800/plate charity dinner suggests, he sees himself as representing the economic elites despite his culture-based appeals to those at the other end of the economic spectrum. Surely, we'll find out who he's really fighting for about the same time as we find out why we really invaded Iraq. In the mean time, I hope those who supported Bush and the new Republicans take a closer look at who they're voting for and why.

Under the guise of freedom of religion, the new Republicans have infiltrated the government with Christian extremists and threatened to implement Christian law. They have derided populism abroad while employing it at home to build voter support for policies that actually go against the common man's own interests. They have stalled or subverted the government when it went against their values and tried to take away the ability of others to do the same. Everyone looks for reasoning that supports their opinions, but the incredible hypocrisy of the new Republicans and their failure to face up to it is unfathomable.

For Void's Sake

2008-06-03T04:33:00.000-07:00

So, I've been practicing my Babylonian math lately. They used a base-60 (sexagesimal) system with an imbedded "10s" digit. So, for example, you count using tallies from 1 to 9 and when you get to 10 you add a different symbol representing 10. You count this way up to 60, then you start tallying sixties and tens of sixties (as opposed to ones) in the same manner till you get to sixties of sixties and so on. Its use of place value notation was a major innovation--one which we employ today with the decimal system. Mesopotamians were using this system ~2000 BC for geometry, measurement of astronomical distances, and of course in economics and trade. The Babylonians knew the Earth revolves around the Sun, they knew the Earth was round and they knew that math and science were the key to unlocking the mysteries of the world. Although their innovations were lost and had to be reinvented, few societies failed to grasp the importance of studying the physical world. Christianity (as an institution rather than a people or a philosophy) was the major exception. Certainly Christians didn't invent intolerance; the Old Testament practically prescribed intolerance as a means of preserving the tribe. But, Christianity innovated suppression of thought. Perhaps also associated with an increasingly barbarous and feudal society and with economic stratification, the control of information by the church (which was one with the government from the rise of the Roman Empire until the founding of the United States) kept the populace ignorant, fearful and subservient. The church/government managed to keep the population largely illiterate by monopolizing education, thereby avoiding the problem of free thought and maintaining cultural hegemony--hence the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages—over a thousand years of suppression of thought by those who feared what people would think if allowed to think for themselves. Why? So, the powerful could stay powerful and keep the masses at their heels.

Why am I writing about this? This is exactly what we have to look forward to if we continue to allow demagogues dominate the mass media (particularly what used to be news) and fail to reject their misinformation and thought control. Need we subject ourselves to this? Must the U.S. stagger intoxicatedly away from the Renaissance into a new Dark Age just as Europe and circa-Mediterranean societies did after the brilliant Preclassical period? I hate to compare Glen Beck or Bill O'Reilly to a pope or a king, but their effect is the same--or it may be more correct to say the effect of institutions empowering them are the same. The so-called news media obfuscate the truth and replace it with fear of an ever-present and unseen enemy. They bury the facts in emotions and charge that questioning this unseen enemy is tantamount to alliance with it. If we are to avoid a new Dark Age, infotainment must be stopped. Apparently people are all too ready to stop thinking. They don't need the help of the news which is supposed to inform and empower them. We can move forward from the Modern Era, we don’t need to digress.

Health Care Commies

2008-05-16T04:56:00.000-07:00

Third cup of coffee is kicking in, and I gotta run soon. This'll havta be short (in more ways than one).

Health care. Everyone has heard the talk about how we need universal health care (or not) and how the politicians are gonna give it to us by subsidizing our insurance payments. How many have stopped and said, "my ass your gonna make some rich extortionist richer with my goddam tax dollars!"? Has it not occurred to these politicians that the profits skimmed by insurance companies and salaries for all the people who are needed to file claims and shuffle paperwork are the reason healthcare costs so damn much? Of course it has. What's more, the insurance companies' lobbyists are well acquainted with the legislators who are going to make it law to redirect your tax money strait into the pockets of insurance salesmen. Health insurance companies make tens of billions of dollars per year; they can afford to invest in lobbying for insurance subsidization. But, wouldn't it be more expedient and less costly for the tax payers, if they want universal health care, to just pay strait into a public pool of cash for healthcare and draw on it as needed, rather than give it to someone who's gonna skim a profit and then make it as hard as possible for you to get your money back? Why aren't the politicians talking about this? For starters, they need the insurance lobby's campaign donations. And, in the end, they need the insurance lobby's campaign donations. In the middle somewhere there is the matter of destroying an industry worth billions of dollars and replacing it with a state institution, which is kinda the definition of communism (although altruistic common sense says "so what?"). There is alot of ideological baggage associated with such a move--much moreso than there was when Soc. Sec. was created pre WWII). I say the health insurance companies are extortionists and, in a moral sense at least, racketeers. Basically they are bookies. You pay them, betting in essence that you will become ill at some point, and they make a counter bet that you will remain healthy. They back up their bet with their capital resources that you don't have; if you did, you wouldn't need health insurance. Thing is, it's just like Vegas. They know the odds [statistics] all too well, so their winning is guaranteed. As if that's not enough, a lot of these crooks like to make it as hard as possible for you to collect on your bet when you win. Meanwhile, you have no choice but to make the bet, because if you don't you're making the wildcard bet that you'll remain healthy right up until your sudden death. HSAs and all that crap are just other ways for third parties to get their hands on your money.

If the whole country had the equivalent of their medical insurance payment taken out of their paychecks (along with the employer's contribution which is an issue unto itself) and that money was put in a centralized account from which folks would draw when they needed medical care (think "non-profit health insurance company"), within a few years there would be ample billions extra (formerly known as "profits") which could be used for investment in health technologies that with promising returns and/or individual payment reductions. Of course, there's always gonna be a crook who gets in a tries to work the system for his/her personal gain, but we'll just have to take him out in the street and beat him/her to death. Works for me. At least then we'll be calling a crook a crook instead of an "insurance salesman."

The Path Forward

2008-05-13T05:07:00.000-07:00

So, I was milling about the internet over my morning coffee looking for some info about the rise of the US Gov't propaganda campaigns. It's (propaganda that is) been integral to the United States as a people and a nation since the country's inception. Recall "Don't tread on me," T.P.'s "Common Sense," slogans like "taxation without representation." Also, the importance B. Franklin's connection if not control of the printed word in the colonies should not be overlooked. Certainly the success of the revolution would have been less certain without effective propaganda. It was after the rise of the Soviet Union that the US Gov't acknowledged the supremacy of and vowed to emulate and out-do the Soviet propaganda machine. It was that decision and successive efforts that put the infrastructure in place for the current taxpayer-funded pro-war journalism that is now being investigated by the few patriots of the Constitution in Congress.

Anyway, that's what I was looking for when I thought to articulate why we need to prosecute the current executive leadership to avoid in the future the kind of malevolent and destructive behavior and policies the current executive has enacted and the current congress has allowed. What's the connection? Well, part of fixing something is dismantling it and throwing out the bad parts. That's what we need to do to with both the Executive branch and the covert branches of our government that work to overthrow foreign governments and undermine the sovereignty of the American people.

To get the whole propaganda thing out of the way, let me just say that propaganda can be good. For example, for the purpose of informing people of some cause for action and the necessary action they should take. The old duck-and-cover, as if that's gonna protect you from fallout, might be such an example. Anti-smoking TV ads like that of truth.org are good examples of positive propaganda campaigns. However, when the purpose is to build paranoia, fear of a fictitious enemy, misinform or otherwise diminish the capacity of the people to make informed, rational decisions, then the propaganda undermines democracy and is the definition of anti-American. No surprise Team W is such a big user of propaganda. The programs that our government is using to subvert our own democracy through misinformation must be rooted out and exposed so that the people are fully aware of how malevolent politicians will misguide them with their own government if allowed. Not that it'll make any difference next time, but it is needed to create new faith in the government now.

The second matter goes to the same end but on a larger scale. It is necessary to prosecute the Bush and gang for their misdeeds to absolve the rest of us for our failure to stop them. This is critical to set a precedent for what happens to leaders who so dramatically overstep the bounds of their office--lying to the press and the public, presenting false arguments for going to war, taking our country to war on false pretenses, killing possibly a million or more foreign nationals on their own soil during an illegal invasion and occupation, amazingly blatant nepotism in the form of no-bid contracts for the Vice President's former Company, pissing away billions of the people's dollars in a fantastically misguided boondoggle designed to profit the president and his cronies. It is also necessary as a means to salvage the image of the US in the world. As much as I believe that we're piling misdeeds upon misdeeds by staying in Iraq, that we are perpetuating a criminal war and that we could and should be spending all those billions of dollars much more wisely, I can't help but feel we have an obligation to the people of Iraq to protect them from the chaos that has besieged their nation (I mean, aside from that for which we're directly responsible). All one foreign national I've asked has assured me the US is under no such obligation, and I find it pretty easy to believe we're doing more harm than good (just look at what the Bushies have done domestically--just imagine if they could get away with murder here), so maybe we should just leave the Iraqi's to deal with the mess we made and stop trying to fix our mess with more of the same. So, we leave. But, in order to (re)establish our position in the world as a nation that is not evil, it’s necessary to demonstrate to the world and also to ourselves that the US does not stand for the kind of international crime that we as a nation have perpetrated against Iraq in the last five years and that we are not so stupid as to believe the lies on lies on lies that the Bushies have showered on us as explanations for US foreign policy. If we fail to at least try those in the Executive Branch and even Congress who dragged us into Iraq on a stack on false evidence then we admit no wrongdoing. If we are to admit no wrongdoing, we as a nation share the guilt of arrogance, contempt for human life and justice; we share the guilt for perpetrating an illegal war against a sovereign nation under false pretenses. Some might think such matters of justice are trivial, but I say, if we don’t have and use the authority to dispense justice in our own land, then we better keep out of Somalia (As if! They don’t have any oil.) or any future Iraq, Kuwait, Yugoslavia or Germany. Justice is not just for the weak. And, we must prove our justice is worthy here at home before it is exported.

It is absolutely critical that we dispense justice to ourselves. This is necessary for the purposes of setting a standard for accountability for our elected leaders/ representatives, absolving the American people of the criminal actions taken by few and supported by no more than half, demonstrating a standard for moral authority in a democratic nation that’s worthy of emulation, and last but not least: disarming those who would use our latest misdeeds as fuel for their hatred of the US. Actually, this is what I thought we should have done after 911. Of course we should have gone into Afghanistan and demonstrated our will and ability to retaliate for the attacks, but the most expedient way to deal with the terrorists, based on why they claimed to be attacking the US, would have been to say, “You’re right. Our bad. We’ll try to avoid doing undermining Middle Eastern governments and replacing their chosen leaders with West-friendly dictators in the future.” Tough on us, we’d have to admit we’re not always right, admit that we do have a program for subverting governments that don’t do what we want, and maybe even mean it when we say we’ll stop overthrowing the governments of other sovereign nations (well, except Venezuela, maybe).

Think of all the billions...or is it a Trillion…that have been squandered on securing our oil supply, when we could have spent that money (perhaps less) creating a whole new energy and transportation infrastructure. Instead, we blew it running a global war on an idea—an idea that may have some pretty good justification. Instead, we’ve done nothing but illustrate just how justified their actions were, and the growth of Al-Queda since 2003 is the obvious result.

Anyway, that’s why I think we need to prosecute the fuckheads in Washington who’ve been running amok these last seven years. The tie to domestic propaganda is double. The use of domestic propaganda—and this was biased misinformation, not positive in any way (except to Halliburton and Blackwater)—was a crucial piece of the Executive’s program to mislead the US into an illegal war. And, the continuation of domestic propaganda is a moral and legal parallel to the failure to prosecute the culprits responsible for the Iraq fiasco.

Granted, as optimistic as my idealism leads me to be, my pessimistic/ realistic side tells me that we won’t leave Iraq. We’ll be there for another hundred years. Bush and Cheney will never see justice. They’ll continue to profit directly and indirectly from their actions in the White House, and their cronies will have the money and the political machinery to continue to misguide our country right down the tubes for generations to come.

Hope, fear, change, hate, redemption, self-loathing and other vote-getters

2008-05-08T04:22:00.000-07:00

“All forms of dedication, devotion, and self surrender are in essence a desperate clinging to something which might give worth and meaning to our futile, spoiled lives”.
—Eric Hoffer, TheTrue Believer

Politicians almost universally find themselves in the role of trying to form or ride on the wave of mass movements. This is necessary because fervent political support is key to their success, and in order to generate this support they must form a message or an idea that people can cling to. More importantly, this message must promise to fulfill some need for change—better for the politician and movement that this change be in an imagined reality than in the subject’s reality. This is true, because if the promised change can actually be fulfilled the mass movement ends. It is better to make wild, abstract and idealistic promises than suggestions about how real living conditions might be improved.

Initially this really turned me off from Obama, since he and Hilrod both harped on the “Change” bandwagon. Ya’ll get this? They tested buzzwords in focus groups and found people responded positively when the word change was used. Then they used “change” as much as possible, building massive support while more qualified candidates fell to the wayside. Only Edwards, whose one-note song, “oppression of the working-class” was equally disappointing, had significant support within the Democratic party. But, now Obama stands-out in sharp contrast to McCain and Hilrod as the one guy with a nuanced an objective understanding of the issues facing our nation. Regardless of how much he chants “change” and “hope,” he addresses each new attack on him as well as the real issues of the day with a depth of thought that suggests he thinks Americans are more than a bunch of idiots.

The other two candidates provide no objective solutions to any problems—only short-sighted, vote-getting, non-starter policy ideas, and more importantly prey on fear, derision, distraction and anything that will fool someone who wants to be fooled.

I think the following quote says a lot about the anti-elitist phenomenon that is responsible for our current douche-bag president and that Hilrod has recently decided to use against Obama. By inverse, it suggests Obama’s confidence indicates he is not particularly vulnerable to the draw of mass movements. How refreshing it is that he has chosen thus far to not prey on the fears and self-doubts of voters.

“The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause.”
—Eric Hoffer, TheTrue Believer

Idunno anyone who buys this crap, so why does it ooze out of the mass media?

2008-04-29T18:55:00.000-07:00

Only in the era PB (that's post-Bush) would it be possible to propagate the idea that the Democratic party is racist because of its historical relationship with the KKK and southern white racists. If you say "Whaaaa?," just google "democrats KKK." Anyone with a handful of braincells ought to be able to filter out this little nugget of B.S. or embrace it. It's a tool for the guys who embrace it to manipulate the people without a handful of braincells. It's a great tool for misinformation, because it's true...or it was...a hundred years ago. The fact that it would take more than five seconds to explain that on one of those I-can-holler-louder-than-you "news" shows makes it virtually irrefutable.

The original democratic party was formed in opposition to the Federalists who you might describe as power-hungry elitists. It embraced the working class and was the preferred party of southern farmers and rural folks. These divisions--northern, urban, upper class vs. southern, rural, working class--have remained stable through various name changes and became intensified as the yankees allied with blacks in opposition to southern whites. The Republican Party succeeded the Federalists and the Whigs as the torchbearer of the urban elites, but was making inroads in the rural south on economic and religious issues. When the Democratic party split over the racial issues (specifically the KKK) in the nineteen twenties, the two parties began a gradual realignment whereby the two parties virtually traded voter bases. Most of this realignment was related to religious and morality issues. Of course the KKK was composed of protestant Christians who now fell into the Republican camp based on morality issues. Now, thanks to Democratic support for civil rights in the '50s, today we have a predominantly Republican South--composed of the descendants of the Democrats of pre-civil rights era.

It's been a while since I've heard anything about this, but it's just another example of how Americans are stupid. And, it still bugs me that, even though I really don't seek this crap out, somehow the media delivers it to me. Do they expect me to buy this crap? Or, maybe they're just trying to keep me and everyone else from paying attention to what's really going on.

''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' ---anonymous Bush Advisor

To call him "my" Senator would be a misnomer

2008-04-28T20:48:00.000-07:00

Last week I signed a petition on Freepress.net about the DOD/military industry-backed "experts" being hired by the media. Or, would it be more appropriate to say they are backing the DOD/military industry? Either way, the petition basically and in much more gentle terms than I would have chosen asked that congress investigate whether anything illegal had taken place. The following is Senator (gag) DeMint's response. First he says these "experts" aren't being paid by the DOD, so the DOD has done nothing improper. Longstoryshort, they're credentialed folks with ulterior motives identified and filtered to the media by the DOD, so this maybe technically true. He then says, provided that yadda yadda, the DOD "should be given opportunities to explain its side of the debate," which sounds an awful lot like an admission to me. Finally, Senator (ugh) Demint writes that they have suspended the program...even though it is really there to serve our best interest. Thanks, Jimmy! FU too.

"The Framers knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny"--Hugo Black

Dear Mr. Liebert,

Thank you for contacting me regarding a recent New York Times article on the Pentagon's efforts to communicate the successes of the Global War on Terror to the American people. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

As you may know, some journalists have accused the Department of Defense (DOD) of using military analysts to spread positive messages regarding the plans and progress in Iraq. However, these analysts are employed by the media outlets they consult and not DOD. Provided regulations are followed and journalists can ask tough questions of senior leaders and get answers, DOD should be given opportunities to explain its side of the debate on the Global War on Terror.

You may be pleased to know, DOD has temporarily suspended its outreach to military retirees who serve as analysts for media outlets in order to review the program and ensure it does not violate DOD policy. This program is intended to supply media outlets with information and access, in addition to the numerous journalists currently imbedded with military units operating in combat zones.

Thank you again for sharing your concerns with me. Please feel free to contact me again in the future with anything important to you in the future. It is an honor to serve you and the people of South Carolina.

Sincerely,
Jim DeMint
United States Senator

Speechless.

2008-04-28T14:01:00.000-07:00

Open Letters to George W. Bush from his ardent admirer,Belacqua Jones: wherethefuckami?

Common Sense

2008-04-27T10:08:00.000-07:00

Before anyone beats me to it, I'm claiming the name The Common Sense Party of the United States and forming said party as a union of Americans who reject the idiotic notions, misinformation, disinformation, secrecy, ulterior motives, and exploitation of ignorant Americans that pervades politics in the US and embrace rationality as a guiding principle.

The first principle that must be embraced here is that in the US the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have been turned on their heads. Plainly speaking, the US was founded on liberal principles pertaining to both civil and economic rights. So, Americans who embrace civil rights, are by definition conservative Americans. And, those people who would sacrifice their civil rights are not conservative, but rather thay are fundamentally anti-American radicals. They're just too stupid to to recognize this fact. The formation of the existing constitution, adopted a decade after initial efforts to confederate the original colonies, was a product in part of the weakness of the original confederation regarding taxing authority and provision for defense. So, it is as well contradictory to be anti-tax and conservative. Those claiming to be both are...you got it--stupid. To denounce "tax and spend liberals" is stupid on more levels than just the fact that it is the role of the federal government to spend money to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." It stupid because if you spend without an income (taxes) you accumulate debt. If you do too much of this you will be overcome by interest which must be paid on the debt and will not be able to ever pay off your debt. And, then you're fuct.

And, this country has indeed become so fuct by the clowns running the show, that we need to reaffirm common sense as a national quiding principle.

Are You Fucking Serious?

2008-04-25T18:04:00.000-07:00

CNN Headline News brings you a one hour special on the "End of Days." Would you fucking idiot fundamentalists please just go kill yourselves!? Now!!!!

I was just thinking about the fact that it really had been a daily occurrence lately that I had these Americans-are-so-stupid moments, but I've been a bit lost--maybe sidetracked on the fundamental misinformedness of the American populace about political and economic ideas. I did find and article in the New Statesman about destructive US intervention in Latin America where there was an interesting comment posted. I agreed with the guy about the journalistic weaknesses of the article, but the guy was clearly arguing from the fallacious position that socialism ("communism" actually) has been proven not to work and capitalism has proven superior. And, I wrote a bit about that.

But, then Glenn Beck, who thanks to the infotainment revolution gets to call himself a journalist, gives us a "news" program about the realization of Bible prophesies and the imminent armageddon. And, this is something that I need not even elaborate on. I mean, this is just so stupid on so many levels, I don't even want to start elaborating on it. The fact that this idiocy is cloaked as "news" should preclude further discussion of anything but the role of media in society. So, there; you have Glenn Beck to thank for keeping me from writing about socialism. Loudmouthed, fake-grey-aired dumbass. Oh, my Void! GB is quoting Ezekiel. The world hath shit a great terd and that terd is Glenn Beck; where's the toilet paper?

jfshoifferjd

2008-04-24T04:57:00.000-07:00

I gotta remember to do my edits in an external document. I realized paragraph 1 yesterday was incomplete, added quite a bit and then lost the whole edit when I tried to save. Bleaaaah. I don't need practice typing that bad.

More on socialism

2008-04-23T04:43:00.000-07:00

US Senator and self proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders on the Colbert Report April 21.

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=166722

I don't agree with this guy altogether, but I think it's valuable to show Americans that socialists exist in this country, that they are patriots, and that their values are quite mainstream.

It's a tad surprising to me that I agree that we need some redistribution of wealth moreso than I agree that it's a "right" or that everyone "deserves" "free" health care and college. It's surprising only because I usually don't put the two socialist principles into connected thoughts. Frankly, it's up to society to decide what rights we have and what is due to all of us collectively and individually. Human rights are defined by the value systems of the most abundant or most powerful people, not by nature or gods. So, I think it's a bit silly or maybe just (perhaps necessarily) simplistic to say we have a right to or deserve health care or education or ... food. I personally do not believe every American has a right to food just because they were born in this country. Clearly, looking around the globe there are plenty of countries where neither nature nor gods saw fit to provide food for the people, so when we say one of those folks deserves at least a bowl of rice, it's our value system we're expressing. If rice were limited (may not be a hypothetical for long) so that there simply wasn't an extra bowl of rice to send to Sudan, we would be expressing a very different idea of who deserved what. The domestic agricultural engineer would be much more deserving of an extra bowl of rice than the starving family, for example.

The redistribution of wealth idea is something different. It seems to me like a lot of working class folk are more protective of the wealth of the wealthy than the wealthy are themselves. And, it seems to me that this arises out of the fantasy of the common man that one day he might be wealthy and when that happens he doesn't want the government taking disproportionate advantage of him. He is allying himself with, identifying with, emulating insofar as he can the wealthy and successful and thereby elevating himself (in his own mind). I respect the creativity, drive, and ingenuity of the economically successful, but I still want some of their money. More correctly, I want it back. Ninety dollars per month for cable. (Actually, it's almost a hundred per month now. They jack the price up with every new bill. They won't begin to consider pay per channel. They won't provide just internet for just half the price. They gouge every chance they get.) Go in for an auto inspection and have them extort you by saying you need an entire brake rebuild and won't pass you until you get it. Pay twenty bucks for a CD that costs fifteen cents to make. Corporate bailouts. Enron. Yadda yadda. The wealthy got wealthy by taking money from all of us rightly or wrongly. The wealthy, or rather anyone making 200K per year or more have no worries. So, tax them. It's not exploiting their wealth; it's taking money they made off the masses and giving a little bit of it back, in the form of a higher quality of life (meaning health care or education, shelter or food), to the people they took the money from in the first place. When the government fails to redistribute wealth from the rich and ultrarich they fail to live up to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence (Excerpt below). there is a limited amount of wealth in the world and that means for one man to be rich another must be poor. Policies that protect and cultivate the wealth of the ultrarich do so at the expense of the many many people. And, those many many people have the right and the duty to correct the situation for the health and happiness of us all. And, then we have the Fifth Amendment...just joking.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Nationalized health care may be socialism, but so what?

2008-04-22T05:20:00.000-07:00

Over and over again (a bit more in this election cycle than usual) I hear pundits say "Nationalized health care? That's socialism." And, socialism has no place in our capitalist and democratic society.

Well, anyone who is against nationalized health care because it is socialism is either a lobbyist for the health insurance industry, a pundit who's been paid by a lobbyist for the insurance industry, or they're just plain stupid...or ignorant I should say.

I don’t debate for a second that there is certainly at least an element of socialism in a federally controlled health care structure, but maybe less than you might think. Right now, health care is basically unaffordable without insurance, so individuals must take a considerable chunk of their paycheck and put it towards insurance that pays for his/her health care if he/she falls ill or suffers an injury. And, hopefully he/she won’t need it because that co-pay can be enough to cover a meal or two per day for a week—not trivial. Some one could save for health care and just sit on a wad of cash for this occasion, but it you’d have to have ten million dollars before you could just get rid of health insurance altogether. This is because maintenance care isn’t terribly expensive, you have to carry the insurance for the unpredictable events in you life, like an auto accident, cancer, debilitating disease or injury, care for which might cost you upwards of half a million dollars.

The way this makes me feel, I cannot describe without offensive language and imagery, so I’ll just say that the individual is being taken advantage of in our current system. You see this system gets expensive—rapidly so as care becomes more intensive—because insurance companies are skimming at every level. When you buy insurance, you are making a bet that you will get sick. They, acting as your bookie, are making the counter bet that you won’t get sick or that you won’t get so sick that they have to pay out more money than you have paid them. The rates are based on the cost of health care and the percentages of historical health care requirements for people in your demographic group. In other words the insurance company has calculated the odds and is making a very well thought-out wager that is virtually guaranteed to yield a profit. You are in Vegas and they are the house. It’s not just you, the doctors need malpractice insurance and the hospital needs liability insurance (in case they remove the wrong kidney or give you the wrong medication and end-up needing to pay for your health care for the rest of your life). Just like home costs go up when the builder needs to pay more for gas to transport building materials, the insurance costs of the doctors and the hospitals get passed on to the consumer. Through this system, a cut is taken repeatedly by insurance companies. That’s less money that goes to your health care providers, less money in your pocket, and hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of insurance companies. Anyone who argues that this system is needed to ensure that we have high quality care is trying to mislead you, or they are—you got it—stupid.

I did some back-or-the-envelope math to see what kind of gross annual profit health insurance companies must bring in and it was something like 10 billion nationally. That buys a lot of lobbyists—enough to make sure that nationalized health care arrives in the form of federally subsidized health insurance rather than a replacement of the corporate health insurance system. Ten billion dollars could also buy a lot of doctor visits. Imagine if you just paid you health insurance out of your paycheck like usual, but the company you work for didn’t have to contribute. You payment went strait to the same account to which everyone else’s health care payment went. Out of this big pot of money doctors are paid, hospitals and other facilities take a cut from this account according to how many people they treat or by how expensive it is to maintain the facility. I won’t pretend to know exactly how this could be made to work, but it would inherently be cheaper than the insurance based system. We’d have to be careful to avoid any administrative structure that might allow for politicization of budget management. It would be all too easy, particularly will their lobbyist minions in place in DC, for the masters of the current insurance based system to take control of any new system that is implemented. Some people will try to funnel extra money to their hospital or their medical specialty. Some people will try to usurp the monies in the form of administrative salaries, because they are so wonderfully qualified—and connected. So, we’d have to be careful, but this is health care paid for by the people for the people. Granted some people might need to get jobs if they intend to contribute to and benefit from the system, but the entitlement mentality is a topic for another day. The point is that this isn’t a paternal government spoon-feeding health care to Americans; it is people paying for their own healthcare, without having to pay a bookie a commission.

The fact that this does require a central, communal fund, and that one of the intentions must be to provide health care even to those without jobs who don’t contribute to the system (if you’re getting excited, this includes children, so simmer down) does smell like socialism, but for me, I’d rather be socialist than continue getting screwed by capitalist insurance companies. Most western, democratic countries have adopted some degree of socialism, because in some situations it is more efficient and provides for a better quality of life for more people than capitalism. Health care is one of these situations. To invoke American anti-socialist sentiments and the images of totalitarian rulers we associate with socialism as an argument against nationalized health care is to show just how unarguable anti-nationalization is.

For beginners

2008-04-19T03:19:00.000-07:00

I have seventy minutes to get to the dock, so this'll be brief. I have been struck so often lately by the shallowness of news coverage, the fact that the "news" purveyors get away with such shoddy shallow analysis, and the gullible society that not only lets them (or is it "Them") get away with it but assimilates so much of this nonsense that they appear to be a bunch of idiots.

Fifty five minutes to get to the dock. For example, (John Stewart pointed this out. I'm not copying him--just giving a redundancy warning) some lady videos a question for a presidential debate and it is selected to air on national TV; it is Mr. Obama, "do you believe in the American flag?" If he answers her question literally, he comes off as a condescending elitist. I mean, if you believe that the physical universe that we perceive around us is real then, yes, American flags do indeed exist. That's not her point of course, what she actually wants to know is really more profound. She wants to know if he believes it is a sacred symbol of our American democracy.

OK. Now, I have an issue. Is this lady a Catholic or a Protestant. I ask because I want to know just how stupid she is. Isn't one of the protests of the Protest-ants that Catholicism promotes the worship of physical idols and icons rather than the holy "spirit"? Are we all on the same page here? So she's replaced America, which is a small physical empire ruled by a surprisingly brief set of principles laid out in the constitution (give or take all the laws), with a symbol. I think her misperception of this American symbol is pervasive. As a symbol of the principles we hold dear, one of which is some degree of freedom of expression, we should be able to raise it up the pole, wear it, carry it into battle, burn it, drape a coffin with it, or wipe our respective asses with it. It is a SYMBOL of the US, not a physical embodiment of the US. The flag exists as an expendable representation of the things we hold dear. Certainly we would never carry our constitution, our mothers or even an apple pie into battle because we wouldn't want any harm to come to them. Enough.

Obama's response should have been more direct. This lady's idolatry is an affront to the principles we hold dear. It is a diversion from the business of democracy and the values of America. He doesn't wear a lapel pin because it is a symbolic distraction from the physical reality of America in all its good an evil glory. Isn't there some rule against that in the Judeochristian tradition that she ought to be familiar with.