preferences: 
subscribe:
subscribe:
Inspired by a recent conversation Hiromi and I were having about the Matt & Kim video for Lessons Learned, Alt Text has a new post idea. Yay for "Lessons Learned"!
Anyway in the video Matt & Kim strip down to, what appears to be, nothing in the middle of Times Square. Aside from some contention on whether they are truly naked or have some skin-colored skives on and the cops being real, we discussed if we could do that, and why or why not. I think the answer starts and ends with unconditional love. Think about it, you can be naked in front of your significant other, or your dog easy enough. That is because they each love you no matter what. If everyone loved each other unconditionally we could all be naked in front of each other without fear or shame.
Inspired by a recent conversation Hiromi and I were having about the Matt & Kim video for Lessons Learned, Alt Text has a new post idea. Yay for "Lessons Learned"!
Anyway in the video Matt & Kim strip down to, what appears to be, nothing in the middle of Times Square. Aside from some contention on whether they are truly naked or have some skin-colored skives on and the cops being real, we discussed if we could do that, and why or why not. I think the answer starts and ends with unconditional love. Think about it, you can be naked in front of your significant other, or your dog easy enough. That is because they each love you no matter what. If everyone loved each other unconditionally we could all be naked in front of each other without fear or shame.
This video made me smile, a lot. Guy #1 is dancing for the sheer joy of it. You can see it as guy #2 arrives. Two crazy guys dancing at a music festival. The tipping point to get a dance party going, as it turns out, is 3 crazy dancers. The first 3 dudes have courage and vision to see a dance party before the others. There are likely some lessons that can be drawn out of that for businesses and startups. It is good to be 1st, but the 2nd and 3rd to market are also innovators. Guy #1's are fun to watch, flail about as they may, but as Seth Godin puts it, "We need more guy #3s".
Can you feel it? The sky is a little clearer, the days a bit brighter. Alt Text is post-ier. With all the energy and attention being placed on the inauguration of Barack Obama and al of the expectations placed upon his Presidency, it is easy to see why some of my friends facetiously call him "the savior". It is is also why so many people will be disappointed. President Obama can not, nor should he, bring about all the changes people want. He haas promised to be a President to all Americans, not just the ones who voted for him. That means that all of his decisions will not be well-regarded from the progressives. They have to get used to that. But with this new President I have confidence that things will be considered and thoughtful and believe that America's best intentions will be served.
For me, today feels good. There is a return to hope and to optimism and to reason in the capitol and yes, the country today. Happy Obama Day, everyone!
A week ago I mentioned to friends that I thought Obama had to start taking back his message by creating weekly (or daily) messages with just him speaking to the American populace. I think that would cut through the clutter of all the 3rd party ads and put the candidates best face forward, so to speak. It could also allow for very timely commentary and the outlining of policy ideas. Seems like that maybe exactly what he is doing.
I don't post this to make fun of someone's public speaking mistakes and blunders, god knows we are all used to that by now. I post this to point out to people that we need a leader who has the ability to think on his/her feet, to bring reason and logic to bear on a situation that is new to him/her. That is not McCain's strong suit. At least not for the past 21 years since he turned 50!
Answer 5 questions to see if McCain will make a better President than Bush. There is an extra set of questions after that quiz that I highly recommend signing in for as well. I didn't do to well with 2 out of 5 correct answers. Clearly I am an optimist.
As an Obama supporter this is just about the best thing I have read. For people who are not sure what to make of him this blog post by the guy who founded Netscape, Marc Andreessen (who also happens to appear quite moderate) lets us in on the fact that Obama is a normal guy, who also happens to be very smart and also understands technology.
Here are some excerpts for the laziest of my readers:
Senator Obama's political opponents tend to try to paint him as some kind of lightweight, which he most definitely is not. Two, I think he's at or near the top of the scale of intelligence of anyone in political life today.You can see how smart he is in his background -- for example, lecturer in constitutional law at University of Chicago; before that, president of the Harvard Law Review.
But it's also apparent when you interact with him that you're dealing with one of the intellectually smartest national politicians in recent times, at least since Bill Clinton. He's crisp, lucid, analytical, and clearly assimilates and synthesizes a very large amount of information -- smart.
Then when asked if voters should be concerned that Obama hasn't had a lot of experience as a manager or leader, he said this:
Watch how I run my campaign -- you'll see my leadership skills in action.At the time, I wasn't sure what to make of his answer -- political campaigns are often very messy and chaotic, with a lot of turnover and flux; what conclusions could we possibly draw from one of those?
Well, as any political expert will tell you, it turns out that the Obama campaign has been one of the best organized and executed presidential campaigns in memory. Even Obama's opponents concede that his campaign has been disciplined, methodical, and effective across the full spectrum of activities required to win -- and with a minimum of the negative campaigning and attack ads that normally characterize a race like this, and with almost no staff turnover. By almost any measure, the Obama campaign has simply out-executed both the Clinton and McCain campaigns.
Finally, when asked about his foreign policy experience - on whether voters should be concerned he said this (paraphrasings of poster):
First, I'm on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where I serve with a number of Senators who are widely regarded as leading experts on foreign policy -- and I can tell you that I know as much about foreign policy at this point as most of them.Think about who I am -- my father was Kenyan; I have close relatives in a small rural village in Kenya to this day; and I spent several years of my childhood living in Jakarta, Indonesia. Think about what it's going to mean in many parts of the world -- parts of the world that we really care about -- when I show up as the President of the United States. I'll be fundamentally changing the world's perception of what the United States is all about.
One of the biggest legacies Bush Jr. leaves behind is one of distrust and dislike of Americans by other countries. Even in places where we have traditionally been viewed well, our image is tarnished. Pre-emptive wars, ignoring diplomacy, and overbearing trading rules will do that. I hadn't thought mush of it before but, Obama has a better chance than anyone to mend those relationships simply by being who he is. That is a powerful idea for me.
...and that has nothing to do with the estimated 60% of the GOP caucus voters being Evangelical born-again nutjobs. Wait, yes it does. American has about as good a chance electing someone named Huckabee as Ron Paul has of avoiding comparisons to Ross Perot. Unfortunately, as I have mentioned before, I have a similar feeling for my (and Iowa's) preferred candidate, Barack Obama.
My electability concerns regarding Obama have more to do with his race and my negative perception of the people our country than any name he could have, however. Despite the fact that most people I meet seem rather progressive, I don't think the U.S. is ready to elect either a woman or a black man at this time, for whatever reason. And that sucks. Luckily, the GOP doesn't have their act together this year so it will likely be close if they are running against Hillary or Barack.
If Democrats want to put the best candidate up in November they will choose Kucinich. If they want an attempt at making history they will nominate Clinton or Obama. If they want to win, they will put the most electable candidate, Edwards at the top of the ticket. Such is the state of our country, unfortunately.
* I don't. Though, I do admire some of the elements of "his" "Fair" Tax plan despite its fallacies.
These photos of Hyenas and their handlers/owners in NIgeria are amazing. They are part of an exhibition of the work of Pieter Hugo at Yossi Milo Gallery. Check out all these links for more.
[Via Cool Hunting]
For those who missed my post some months back over on Refactr's blog this video should be a great introduction into the concept of too much choice = less satisfaction. I truly believe we more productive, more creative, and ultimately, happier if we have to work within constraints. Unlimited choice is not ideal, despite what we have been told.
[Via SwissMiss]
Every time I watch the Jaywalking segment on the Tonight Show I attempt to convince myself that Jay actually has to ask hundreds of people his simple questions to get the few truly stupid responses he airs - that there just aren't that many dumb Americans.
Increasingly, however, it is becoming harder to make that argument to myself. My fears are starting to be corroborated by newspaper reporters and school teachers who are saying that America's youth are getting stupider.
We are, as far as urban public education is concerned, essentially at rock bottom. We are now at a point where we are essentially churning out ignorant teens who are becoming ignorant adults and society as a whole will pay dearly, very soon, and if you think the hordes of easily terrified, mindless fundamentalist evangelical Christian lemmings have been bad for the soul of this country, just wait.It's gotten so bad that, as my friend nears retirement, he says he is very seriously considering moving out of the country so as to escape what he sees will be the surefire collapse of functioning American society in the next handful of years due to the absolutely irrefutable destruction, the shocking — and nearly hopeless — dumb-ification of the American brain. It is just that bad.
I want to think that today's teenagers will merely "learn on the job" so to speak but I am not so certain. While my experience with Gen Y in the workplace is limited, it seems that some fears are well-founded. Initiative does not tend to be a strong trait while entitlement does. Couple these characteristics with a less learned mind and we could be in for some rocky times in the good 'ol U.S. OF A. It is perhaps not an overstatement that it could be these internal forces rather than anything coming at us from the outside, that brings about our demise as the last of the superpowers.
But most of all, he simply observes his students, year to year, noting all the obvious evidence of teens' decreasing abilities when confronted with even the most basic intellectual tasks, from understanding simple history to working through moderately complex ideas to even (in a couple recent examples that particularly distressed him) being able to define the words "agriculture," or even "democracy." Not a single student could do it.
This Salon recap of an Op-Ed originally published in the NY Times on Aug. 19 by seven active-duty U.S. soldiers. Two of its authors have since died and one was shot in the head and wounded. Besides being written by active duty soldiers in Iraq, the piece is also noteworthy for how it cuts to the core of the issues the campaign in that country has faced for the past five years and offers solemn conclusions for the future.
Among the "highlights" are:
- Reports that Iraq police and military details have, in many cases, been corrupted, and either allow acts of violence occur against U.S. personnel, or even actively support those actions.
- We are arming Sunni militias who, it is feared, will challenge the Shiite-dominated government for control, in the vacuum that will be the U.S. pull-out.
- Recent assessments of improved conditions in Iraq have been made by the mis-informed and do not represent reality for most Iraq's who have been living in constant chaos and fear for 5 years now.
The biggest failing of our "leaders", however, remains the fact that they looked at the invasion of Iraq and deposing of Saddam Husein's as the end state of this mission without having any plan in place for what happens next. Several costly mistakes pointed out in the article need to be reversed but the largest error, hearkens to my last post - but requires actual action:
At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. "Lucky" Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.
For whatever reason I was not motivated to post yesterday. I wanted to post, but I couldn't get myself to do it. What I wanted to do was to post a positive story about Arabs and/or Arab Americans and make that sort of a tradition on this anniversary, here at Alt Text.
When this idea was conceived I was thinking in these specific terms but wanted to change the way people thought of this day - a day now linked to a war that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or making us safer. I wasn't looking to start a meme or actively market my idea, just post some positive news.
Reading Seth Godin's site today I came across his post about how we can market our way closer to an end to terrorism. In the post Seth writes how you cannot beat terrorism with guns and prisons - those consequences do little to affect the terrorist's mind and could do even more to fuel the creation of new terrorists. After all, terrorists are just people who subscribe to a particular idea - an idea that America and the West are immoral - heathens that are bent on destroying their culture and robbing them with the resources.
For all I know, we may never be able to eliminate terrorism and animosity towards us (especially as we are sitting atop the world in terms of wealth and consumption). But what we can do is try to create another idea that can combat those to which the terrorists subscribe.
We have not been very successful invading and bombing our way to changing minds but we do know how to market our ideas. The problem right now is that somewhere along the line, our leaders decided that the time for crafting this sort of idea, had passed and they have been busy reinforcing the old ideas that terrorists have of us.
We are already at a place in time where many people are fearful of expressing racist thoughts and that may eventually give way to the idea of racism finally disappearing. In the same way, maybe some day, the idea of attacking innocents as a means of affecting change an the idea that the Western countries only want to hold down and plunder the rest of the world may seem crazy. Unfortunately, for now, there are far too many people willing to do participate in the former and far too much truth to the latter. Even powerfully crafted and marketed ideas need to eventually mirror reality.
I attended the MnDOT open house at Roseville High School last night, or I should say I walked through the job-fair like gym full of MnDOT employees. I was pleased to see that there were folks asking all sorts of questions, but disappointed that it wasn't a town hall style meeting, however, that is only because I like arguments. The format used was likely a much better way for "nice" Minnesotans to engage in dialog.
As I was walking out, a reporter stopped me and I gave him this, more or less, paraphrased statement:
"Ben Edwards, an Arden Hills resident who crossed the 35W bridge every day on his way to work in Eden Prairie, said he didn't want Minnesota "to miss an opportunity to do something special with this bridge," including a unique design and transit options. He said that his commute was no picnic before the collapse and isn't much different now, and that he'd be willing to wait for a bridge that did more than increase vehicle capacity."
You can read the full article at the Star Tribune site.
It sounds as though, there are at least some signs of compromise showing up from the Governor's camp regarding future support for light rail lines over the new bridge. It sounds a little bit like parents telling their kids that they can stop at the go-cart track "on the way back", hoping they shut up and forget about it.
I, for one, believe the $400,000 daily cost of not having the bridge is a bit of a farce. I travel this way often and my commute has not really been affected. We are very lucky that Highway 280 is there, and it's conversion to a temporary freeway has gone rather seamlessly. Pawlenty warns that allowing for future light rail lines on the bridge would increase the cost:
"It will be a fair amount of additional money" that would not be reimbursed by federal dollars"
Minnesotans have had some aversion to new taxes lately due to the nice propaganda machine that is the GOP, but if you step back and look at the planned transportation projects and the new bridge project, the big picture becomes clearer.
The anticipated Central Corridor project which will link downtown Minneapolis with downtown Saint Paul by way of the University of Minnesota campus and University Avenue includes plans to have light rail trains travel over the Washington Avenue bridge. This is a bridge I walked over many times in my days and "the U" and it will need significant work to be able to handle the additional weight of light rail trains. In fact when you compare my estimate of $150 million (out of my ass) with another $170 million to build a tunnel near Coffman Union on campus (that figure is not out of my ass but I cannot find where I read it just now) you are looking at over $300 million in additional spending on light rail. The extra half year and $100 million on this new bridge, that we have to build anyway, starts to look like a bargain for the tax payer. Don't you think that if we are really building a bridge that has a 100-year lifespan, we should spend 100 days considering our options and what we can anticipate for transportation needs for the next century?
OK, the last thing I want to address is the idea that this is just a highway bridge and it should rebuilt without thought to aesthetics. Our state could certainly use another icon, and a bridge over the countries largest river seems like a good place to start - especially when you consider that (for better, or for worse, we will soon lose the loved/hated Metrodome from the Minneapolis skyline. I don't think we need the Golden Gate Bridge or anything, but something with some character that can be identified in a photo shouldn't be too hard to ask. Hey, true visionaries can even find ways to make manhole covers things of beauty
I have tried not to post about this subject because, as my wife reminds me, it just lends credibility to the wackjobs out there but this seems like big enough news because there are actually people out there that let some old German dude in a dress make up their minds for them.
Yes, out of nowhere a voice of reason from within the religious world! The pope has said what reasonable people had concluded long ago. Namely that evolution and spirituality need not be mutually exclusive. "While there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God." He goes further. stating "that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
In addition Pope Benedict had word about the environment and our role as stewards.
"Benedict also said the human race must listen to 'the voice of the Earth' or risk destroying its very existence" and that "willfully damaging the environment is sinful."
This is the best name/acronym for a group, ever. ANTI-FASCIST. (the blurb about this Minneapolis-based group is just "below the fold" on the linked page. And this is possibly one of the *best* quotes from a government official ever:
"What the ANTI-FASCISTs don't understand is that free speech is fine as long as you don't do it in public," said a representative of Homeland Security. "We're waging a War on Terror, and freedom of speech just isn't what it used to be. Fences, tear gas, and paddy wagons are important tools for preventing terrorism. Show me a picture of protesters with access to convention delegates and the media, and I'll show you free speech that's completely out of control."
Sorry, I meant one of the saddest.
FNB politics can be tricky to write about, and to pin down, because it relies on surfacing deep-seated anxieties and archetypes that, when revealed to the light of day, appear ridiculous.
To a large extent my perceptions of public figures is based only upon how the news media (a term used very loosely here) chooses to present them. I have been too naive to realize or too stubborn to admit it, but I just have not known the extent to which political parties use back-channels and media-types to conduct swift-boat style attacks on the character of their "enemies" and just how effective such attacks have been. While I admit to being oblivious to Edwards' manhood being called into question (for the most-part), I have known about the attacks on Hillary as far back as before she was first lady. The attacks on Barrack are a little more covert, but comments by Rush Limbaugh (shown below), while appearing humorous at first, are no doubt attempting to bring up (in some people) antiquated fears of black men "stealing" "our" white women. It is outrageous!
One of Limbaugh's ongoing jabs is that white female reporters find him sexually irresistible. "Snerdley is convinced Maureen [Dowd] wants Barack Obama," he sighs. "I don't even want to go there." He depicted Time's Ana Marie Cox as helpless before Obama's overpowering sexuality, putting the following thoughts into her head: "Well, there's no question the power is crackling through his jeans!"
In the interview Butler addresses why he smashed his guitar on Saturday Night Live a couple weeks ago (it was cutting him and he hated it) and speaks about society and religion today (not to mention how much being a kid sucks). He sounds smart and thoughtful and it goes a long way to helping me forget the smashing of the guitar - plus I really love their new album Neon Bible and their show a couple years ago was among the top 2 or 3 concert experiences of my life..
Here is something he told the interviewer at the very end of the interview that strikes a chord with me because it captures a big part of why I am so angry with the way things are going in our country and in me.
When you read Martin Luther King's speeches about Vietnam, it could be today. Just change the word, and you're talking about the exact same situation. We're basically causing spiritual death in our country by doing what we're doing. At a certain point, you become morally unable to do good in the world, because the country gets so cynical and depressed, there isn't the force of will to try and change things. I definitely feel that in my generation, this kind of fatigue. And I feel that myself. You've got to fight it.
I realize that am opening myself up to many of the criticisms that are typically hurled toward progressives when speaking on this subject, but still, I persist. Even though my final conclusion on this matter may hearken to Churchill's words about democracy, or free market capitalisms is the worst form of economy, except for all the others. In fact, there may be no other option that works well in tandem with democracy, but that is fodder for another post. I have truly mixed feelings and thoughts on this matter.
What I have been thinking about recently, and what discussions on the topic inevitably come down to is human nature. There was a time when I felt very different than I do now, but as it stands, I have very little faith that the masses are capable of making rational decisions regarding their own welfare outside of what is immediately in front of them. I believe foresight is often forgotten over years of just subsisting. So it isn't that people (and I am primarily talking about the 80% of the global population that isn't in the middle or upper-classes) are stupid (although I won't discount the place ignorance plays), but more that they aren't afforded the luxury of thinking about how their decisions today will effect their lives and the lives of their families for years to come.
Continue reading "Why free markets do not work"Bush sings Sunday Bloody Sunday. This is a bit older but still brilliant. (via Brad Frederick's blog)
I know that we are squarely within the honeymoon period and past actions should speak petty loudly, but I wanted to write this before all the optimism and bipartisan dissolves. President Bush has really impressed me with the way he has handled himself after the midterm elections. There were no signs of petulance, or anger and the comments he has made have seemed very open, honest, and humble. I think the whole country appreciates the way he has responded.
Bush wasted no time in holding meetings with the new speaker of the house and the new majority leader in the senate and has publicly called for bipartisan cooperation.
My attitude about this is that there is a great opportunity for us to show the country that Republicans and Democrats are equally as patriotic and equally concerned about the future and that we can work together.
Likewise, his stated openness to "new ideas on Iraq" from the incoming democratic majority sounded sincere. And even his candidness about the timing of Rumsfeld's "resignation" has been refreshing, with him stating that they didn't want to announce such a thing in the midst of the campaigns for fear that it would not bode well for GOP candidates.
There is still a good chance that his response has been carefully crafted and is part of a large plan to make the Democrats look bad in the coming weeks when there will surely be clashes with a lame duck congress and the President trying to get some things through congress before January. Maybe Bush is really feeling that his administration can compromise. We may find out later this month but I know, I for one, will believe it when I see it. It will be a move outside of Bush's comfort zone and compromise is not something he has done in the previous six years in office. But maybe his admission that his side got "thumped" has truly brought some humility to the man.
I don't really like Bill Maher. I think he is smug, pompous, mean-spirited and generally unfunny. It may seem odd then, to have two posts quoting him in such short order, but occasionally he cuts right to the bone of an issue. Here is one such case:
The U.S. is also ranked as follows:
29th in life expectancy
48th in infant mortality
77th in overall health*
53rd in freedom of the press
55th in literacy
27th in population below the poverty line
12th in people lacking functional literacy skills (20% of all adults)
Of industrialized nations nearly all have universal health care and none doubt evolution
We are no longer inventing as we once were, and now we will be losing out on the breakthroughs of stem cell research because some people think it is is like cloning or abortion. (see our ranking in literacy)
We owe China 1 trillion dollars and we are even in debt to Mexico.
Great nations do not torture people and hold them without trial.
We are #1 in something however, cocaine consumption.
While I am on the topic of blind patriotism, I have to take a moment to admonish GM for their "This is our country" ads. They wouldn't be so bad if they didn't try to use the the 9/11 and Katrina tragedies as means to sell trucks. Note: the 3rd most "American made" car is the Toyota Camry.
* "According to the World Health Organization the United States ranks 77th in the world in terms of the impact of our spending on the health of our people. Why is the American health care system is so inefficient? How is it that we succeed in spending more than twice the money other industrialized countries spend on health care per capita and yet rank below them on overall health care statistics?" [Connecticut Green Party]
Bill Maher has a new set of talking points for the Democrats. I think they are fairly good. See the abridged versions below:
1) When they say, "Democrats will raise taxes," you say, "We have to, because some asshole spent all the money in the world cutting Paris Hilton's taxes and not killing Osama bin Laden." In just six years the national debt has doubled. You can't keep spending money you don't take in, that's not even elementary economics..."2) When they say, "The terrorists want the Democrats to win," you say, "Are you insane? George Bush has been a terrorist's wet dream, and nonpartisan commissions have confirmed that he's a recruiter's dream: theirs, not ours. And, he has exhausted our military without coming away with a win, the worst of both worlds." Bush inflames radical hatred against America and then runs on offering to protect us from it. It's like a guy throwing shit on you and then selling you relief from the flies.
3) When they say, "Cut and Run" or "Defeatocrat," you say, "Bush lost the war -- period." All this nonsense about "the violence is getting worse because they're trying to influence our election." No, it's getting worse because you drew up the postwar plans on the back of a cocktail napkin at Applebee's.
4) When they say that actual combat veterans like John Kerry are "denigrating" the troops, you say, "You're completely full of shit."
There have already been reports of malfunctions and strange electronic voting machine behavior and the threat of the systems being hacked, or worse (and more likely). I never thought it would be an issue, but I guess I was naive. Let's hope when those of us who vote using these new-fangled machines this Tuesday, we can trust that our vote actually counted. Then again, maybe we shouldn't worry.
The great presidential speeches tag cloud allowed me to quickly scan the speeches of all the presidents for keywords and gives a good idea of the theme of each speech. It is a wonderful resource.
My first conclusion from looking them over is that the first Bush, was the true compassionate conservative of the family. Compare George W's last State of the Union Address in which Terrorist, confront, strengthen, and offensive are some of the most frequently used words (he does use the word compassion as well) to his dad's Inaugural Address in which love, bless, loyal, prosperity and prosperous are used frequently (not sure what to make of the large number of uses of the word blowing).
Another interesting thing to note how both Bush's used the word bipartisan frequently early on in their terms but then its use dwindled to nearly nothing (until W's last speech where it makes a comeback)
I encourage you to play around with this thing. It is super interesting and you can even learn about the major themes all the presidents needed to address throughout history.
I know it is getting full when my dad says he is now firmly on the Barack Obamawagon*, but is anyone else worried about what GOP and other political detractors will do with Barack's surname?
* Damn, I missed coining that term by at least 2 years! But there is still only a half dozen online uses at this point.
The Republicans are falling all over themselves trying to figure out how to deal with their latest scandal.
But reading the front-page headlines and watching the breathless TV coverage five weeks before the election, one could glibly assume that the fallout from the Foley frenzy will be the tipping point that will produce a Democratic sweep in the House. Especially seeing the Republicans in full meltdown, vacillating between fetal-position defeatism and a desperate effort to find a scapegoat.
Really? This is the tipping point? What about all the things the American people now know about Bush and the the Republican congress that allowed all of this? What about...
...the National Intelligence Estimate tells us that the invasion of Iraq has created a greater worldwide terrorist threat, making us less safe.
...and Bob Woodward's 60 Minutes interview and new book, State of Denial that each outline a "ruinous mix of arrogance and naiveté" within the Bush administration - the direct cause of the Iraq mess.
...and those are just in the last week! If you go over the last six years there are so many more, but is America listening?
...but the key question here is, how much bad news can the Republicans take? Sooner rather than later the weight of the evidence should tilt the scale against Republican control of Congress. For given the way things are going for Hastert and the White House, it can't take much of a tipping point for the Democrats to get those 15 needed seats.
Here is one strategy they could use: label Foley as a Democrat as Fox "News" did during the O'Reilly Factor.
How long will the American people allow this type of crap from their "leaders"? From their press? Clinton made a strong showing but the Republicans have corruption and deviant behavior down to an art form.
I enjoy reading Thomas Friedman, at times. He has his gems and his worthless crap. His latest New York Times editorial (TimesSelect) brings both to light. Here's the good:
So here is my fervent wish: For the sake of the country, I really hope the Republicans lose the House and the Senate to the Democrats — by one seat in each chamber.It is so important that the Republicans lose, because if the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice team can get away with the grotesque incompetence they have exhibited in Iraq — a war that was not preordained to fail, but was never given a proper chance to succeed — it makes this country look like a banana republic.
If on the morning after the election these people come out smirking that their efforts to scare the public into voting again for their candidates worked, and therefore they can just stay the present course in Iraq — which is not working — it will send a terrible message about our democracy. It will tell us that the country is so divided, and so many districts gerrymandered in favor of Republicans, that performance does not matter any longer. Unless you are caught sending e-mail to a Congressional page soliciting sex, your seat is safe.
But, Friedman's weakness (and coincidentally why he is continually called on for his opinion despite being wrong most of the time*) is that he thinks we need to govern from the center and that the center is where everyone should be. I heartily disagree and believe that we need more extremist politicians (on both sides) in Washington. How can you have healthy debate and fully vetted policies when everyone is stuck in the mediocrity of the centrist. Sure final laws and decisions may reflect compromise and that is a good thing, but we won't get that from starting in the venter. We need actual leaders in Washington, with actual opinions. We don't need people watching polls and campaigning for their entire term. We need more Wellstones. We need more Hatches. We need less cowards. We need less opportunists.
* Friedman has said the tide in the war in Iraq would turn in six months so many times, people have coined the term Friedman to mean "a period of six months".
I am now officially planning my next vacation for late August 2008, preferably outside the U.S. I guess it is either that or get arrested for the first time. Hmmm, both sound tempting.
A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
This graphicical representation of where U.S. tax monies go is rendered in Flash and available in poster-sized prints. It is very nice and represents a lot of work. The larger the circle on the image, the larger the percentage of the budget is spent on that thing. My only complaint would be that some of the iconography seems to clutter it up and make it difficult to quickly see what you are looking at.
To that end, I really like the simplified view that he has created that addresses this very problem to some extent.
After the attacks on September the 11th, 2001 then New York Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, said that the losses were likely to be "more than we can bear."
Joan Walsh in a piece at Salon, as part of their 5 years after series writes about this toll and the continuing toll we pay for the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
Walsh points out that the 2,873 deaths from that infamous day have now been surpassed by the deaths of American soldiers, with almost 2,700 dying in the unrelated battleground in Iraq. When you add in almost 30,000 U.S. military casualties and a reported 46,307 dead Iraqi civilians, the full toll of this war should start to settle in and Walsh asks if this is more than the American and Iraqi people should have to bear considering the lack of focus this war has had and the erosion of the war's only success in Afghanistan - with rebels and repression reappearing there - we risk losing any ground we gained there.
She also laments the loss of "national and international unity we enjoyed after the attack":
the warmth I felt from friends and acquaintances and even strangers those first raw days, a seriousness and purpose I felt more broadly in the following weeks.
And points out many of the things that this administration has done to earn the ire of the American people:
Since that time, though, we've seen hubris beyond imagination. We've watched an unbridled executive-branch power grab, warrantless wiretaps, the curtailing of privacy rights; a pervasive smog of secrecy descended to obscure our government. Outrage about torture, rendition and secret prisons here and abroad is dismissed with a flippant "We don't torture" from the president. And all of it has been shellacked with an ugly culture of bullying in which dissent equals treason, shamelessly, five years after the attack. Last week it was Donald Rumsfeld comparing war critics to people who appeased Hitler; this week we had Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying they're the sort who would have ended the Civil War early and let the South keep its slaves. Their intimidation is meant to say that the very freedoms worth fighting for -- the right to dissent, the right to question our government -- might have to be abridged while we fight. Politically, that truly is more than we can bear.
The article loses some steam toward the end and I wish it would have stuck closer to its theme, its mantra, is the toll more than we can or should bear? Perhaps some additional focus could also be placed on what we have gained, such as more enemies.
A growing number of analysts, many of them former top government counterterrorism officials, say the notion of a "war" on terrorism is the wrong strategy.
In relying overwhelmingly on bombs and bullets, they say, the United States has alienated much of the Muslim world, driving away even moderates who might be open to Western ideas. The West has largely failed to offer a positive vision or deal with the root causes of Islamic extremism.
I have often said that people who play the lottery are paying a voluntary tax on stupidity, but without much conviction. Today, after passing my second Powerball billboard I realized that playing the lottery is very stupid. Here is my undeniable proof:
Given the chance I believe that 99.9% of people would take $20k over a 1 in 146,107,962 chance at a big jackpot of, say, $100 million.
Given the historical return of the stock market of 10.3%, a $2 a week investment in an index fund for 30 years becomes $19,974.
The Show is my most favorite thing on the web. During a show last week Zefrank likened the results of President Bush's statements to those desireable by the terrorists, themeselves. While he didn't go so far as to say he actually was a terrorist, one message board user, lachme, did, and did so with a concise elegance:
ze may not have said it, but i will -- george walker bush is a terrorist.
he uses fear and terror to manipulate people to do what he wants. his followers bomb and kill the innocent while he spouts ideologies to justify these murders. he ignores the rules of honorable warfare and considers himself above the law. he is a religious zealot who is completely intolerant of those of faiths differing from his.
he is the very definition of the word terrorist.
Create a carbon tax -- basically a tax on energy calculated based on its carbon content -- and use the new revenue to provide offsetting cuts in the income tax, the payroll tax, or both.
The whole package should be revenue neutral, meaning that it will not increase or decrease the total amount of revenue the government collects. The money will simply come from different sources.
The idea is a great one and constitutes a progressive tax that also happens to be completely "fair".
The tax burden will go up for those who use more than the average amount of carbon-based energy and down for those who use less.
In the grand scheme of global injustice (e.g., being born in a malarial village in rural Africa), that just does not strike me as terribly unfair. If you contribute more than your fair share to global warming, traffic congestion, air pollution, and propping up a repressive regime in Saudi Arabia, then you should pay more.
And if you bicycle to work from your modest, solar-powered home, then society should cut you some slack.
The only drawbacks I see are that the tax base could erode as more people reduce their carbon usage and the cost of reducing carbon usage could cause some inflation in consumer goods. I like the idea of axing the income tax altogether and instead using just a carbon tax and a sales tax (with some modifications for luxury and near-luxury items to make it less regressive). Something like this tax is the only way to get people to seriously consider reducing their use of fossil fuels. Smugness can only get us so far.
On Thursday, the House is expected to take up a Republican resolution supporting the tracking of financial transactions and condemning the publication of the existence of the program and details of how it works. The resolution says Congress "expects the cooperation of all news media organizations in protecting the lives of Americans and the capability of the government to identify, disrupt and capture terrorists by not disclosing classified intelligence programs." Democrats are proposing a variant that expresses support for the treasury program but omits the language about the news media.
I am sure that similar resolutions had been made in Communist China and Russia as well as Nazi Germany. The first step toward control of the media is "expecting cooperation". [Source of quote was the NY Times - subscription required)]
This post could be about how out of touch congress is to be trying to do what they have been doing recently. Namely, trying to repeal the estate tax, shooting down an increase in the minimum wage (when adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is 21% lower than it was in 1979.), trying to make permanent the many tax cuts they gave the rich, etc.
A couple NY Times editorials point out some of the recent Republican priorities: Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted.
While they are doing all this they also apparently do not see any problem with giving themselves another pay raise.
It could have to do with the fact that the Republicans have been returning to their wealthy roots for the better part of the last 15 years and only now are people waking up to the fact that the GOP doesn't give a damn about the middle class unless it is time for them to suck up for their votes by pandering and distracting them issues that don't matter (immigration, gay marriage, and the like).
In a recent article titled From Class War Politics (subscription required), Paul Krugman gives us some history:
Before the 1940's, the Republican Party relied financially on the support of a wealthy elite, and most Republican politicians firmly defended that elite's privileges. But the rich became a lot poorer during and after World War II, while the middle class prospered. And many Republicans accommodated themselves to the new situation, accepting the legitimacy and desirability of institutions that helped limit economic inequality, such as a strongly progressive tax system. (The top rate during the Eisenhower years was 91 percent.)
And what of distractions?
But if the real source of today's bitter partisanship is a Republican move to the right on economic issues, why have the last three elections been dominated by talk of terrorism, with a bit of religion on the side? Because a party whose economic policies favor a narrow elite needs to focus the public's attention elsewhere. And there's no better way to do that than accusing the other party of being unpatriotic and godless.
A new book, Polarized America : The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches looks to take on some of these ideas. The only problem with all of these incriminations of the right is that someone had to vote these pricks into office. And that is why the American public is ultimately to blame for allowing such a huge gap to form between the rich and the poor. Voting in the right people can go a long way towards ensuring that have a better, stronger country in years to come. That is only going to happen by raising the bottom up and making sure that the way of life for the poor is markedly improved. Anyone who thinks raising the top to higher heights will benefit society more than raising the bottom up, has some serious perspective problems - trickle-down is a lie.
There are some commentators who long for the bipartisan days of yore, and flock eagerly to any politician who looks "centrist." But there isn't any center in modern American politics. And the center won't return until we have a new New Deal, and rebuild our middle class.
Check out Jon Stewart's take on the congressional pay raise and snubbing of the working poor and what some wealthy Minnesotans have to say on the issue. Also check out FairEconomy.org and Facts about taxes that every American should know.
While I am glad that (mostly) Democrats stood up to challenge and stopped the latest affront to the nation’s poor, it is still incredible to me that so many people think our current estate tax laws are a bad thing. The best explanation for the recent success of the right-wing in the American political landscape is their ability to craft a narrative that resonates with the American people on a level that transcends issues and economics (not to mention good sense). Books like George Lakoff’s Don't Think of An Elephant are a like a beacon, exposing this truth and like a manual for how others may craft their own stories, helping them to identify with the masses.
Death by a Thousand Cuts: The Fight over Taxing Inherited Wealth by Michael J. Graetz, Ian Shapiro seems to be another such book.
Though it is in the guise of a discussion of tax law and policy, Death by a Thousand Cuts is actually a story of how an ambitious few, crafted a message that has been slowly winning people over to the wrong side of the estate tax debate. A side nearly none of the people belong on.
In his review of Death by a Thousand Cuts Davis Runciman points out several astute observations and captures the essence of the book:
The estate tax was the most progressive part of the American tax system, because it rested on the principle that the wealthy few, if they were not willing to bequeath their money to charity, should not be permitted to pass it all directly to their heirs. It had been on the statute book for nearly a hundred years, and throughout that time it had been generally assumed that there was widespread support for the idea that unearned wealth passed between the generations, creating pockets of aristocratic privilege, was not part of the American dream. Because it was a tax that so obviously took from the relatively few to relieve the burden on the very many, there seemed no possibility that a sufficiently large or durable coalition of interests could ever be formed to get rid of it. Yet during the 1990s just such a coalition came into being, and not only did it hold together, it grew to the point where the clamour for estate tax repeal seemed irresistible.
This is getting a bit long so you can...
Continue reading "That the estate tax is even being debated calls out the fantastic narrative abilities of the right and the widespread naivety of the American public"I am doing a bit of housekeeping around here so you may notice some posts that may be a little dated but which I still feel are valuable and so I am publishing them as I forage through nearly 100 draft posts over the past few months. This is one such post...
Mr. Bush proposed an array of savings in domestic programs, including big reductions or cuts in 141 programs. Critics asserted those reductions would do little to ease the deficit even as they imposed real hardship on some people, constituting pain for little gain. Gene B. Sperling, a former economic adviser to President Bill Clinton, compared it to a man who leases three fully loaded Hummers, finds it stretches his family's budget to the breaking point, and decides his family has to start buying cheaper peanut butter."They're trying to create a framework where it seems the government can't do anything dramatic on child poverty or helping people between jobs because there's too much discretionary spending," Mr. Sperling said. "And their own numbers show that's flat out wrong."
This idea has been discussed before, bleeding the bleeding heart, and it basically stated, is that you starve the social programs that liberals care about so that they have to put forth their own private efforts and resources to work in place of public funds and resources.
SOURCES: NY Times article, Washington Post article
From time to time, because I have professed to be planning not to have children, articles are forwarded to me on the subject. Then if I read them, post about them, or try to discuss them, I often get accused of attempting to justify my decision. I have written many times before about the subject and I always get mixed comments on such posts.
While support, and good-hearted discussion, is nice I, too often, come away from such exchanges truly feeling like I do have to justify my decision to people, or to be more dramatic, society at large. It (not-procreating) isn't what organisms are supposed to do (our design makes that embarrassingly obvious) but we do a lot of things we likely aren't supposed to do. But we have workarounds (or loopholes) for that now. We don't have to blindly reproduce because that is "what we are supposed to do".
An American Sociologist Association study from late last year reports findings that I have suspected (and seen proof of in the lives of friends and family) for some time: parents are not happier than adults without children. Here is the full study report (PDF). This information does little for me, but may provide, some bit of comfort for others considering the same path.
I started this post about a month back when a new Newsweek study claimed to have ranked the 1000 (or so) best high schools in the U.S. A quick review of the list piqued my curiosity as a majority of the schools were in the south and none of the top 100 were in Minnesota or Wisconsin, two states renowned for their education systems.
There are 27,468 high schools in the U.S. Only 7% of the top 100 were in what I consider the Midwest, with another 10% in the West, 31% in the East, and a whopping 51% in the South. When you look at the full list the picture gets a little less skewed but still suspicious with the Midwest containing 11%, 26% in the West, 28% in the East, and 34% in the South. In fact, only 2.7% of the top 1068 high schools were found in Minnesota or Wisconsin.
It turns out that the study employed some rather dubious metrics based upon a ratio devised by Jay Mathews that took into account the number of Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate tests taken by all students at a school in 2004 and then divided by the number of graduating seniors for each school. This measure doesn’t even come close to helping determine the quality of a High School. In fact, the only thing it suggests is which schools stress AP and IB testing.
Continue reading "Flawed study of high schools misses larger issues"
This graph shows that when the price of oil goes up, Bush's approval ratings go down following almost the exact patterns. [Robot Wisdom]
The President is looking for ways to lower gas prices.
Is there any question that these two stories are related?
Serial No. 3817131 is a photo essay by a female member of the Israeli Defense Forces about female members. While I have known for a long time that Israel makes use of conscription, or mandatory participation in the military, and that females were not exempt from such service, these photos still took me aback. When I look at them I feel as though they are depictions of models or some strange reality tv show, anything but real soldiers, trained to fight and kill. Despite these feelings, however, the fact is that they are not fakes. They really are soldiers.
I think that if there is a draft again in the U.S. it should be comprised of everyone across a certain age range and should include women. Then, I think we will finally stop and consider the merit of any actions that deploy those kids and put them in harms way. I think photos like these would go a long way towards ending war.
Also, sorry about the title for this post, I sort of dared myself to do that.
An article in yesterday's Star Tribune stirred my pot a bit and got me thinking about the cartoon degrading the Prophet Mohammed and the ensuing uproar, hand-wringing, and torching of embassies. In the article, the owner of my favorite Middle Eastern deli, Holy Land in NE Minneapolis, takes the issue to heart in much the same way much of the Muslim world did and posted the following in his establishment:
Dear Customer. The Denmark newspaper published a cartoon degrading the Prophet Mohammed. The Denmark government refuses to apologize to the Muslim world for this; therefore Holy Land management decided to join the other business leaders in the world to boycott all products made in Denmark.
In the article, Holy Land owner, Majdi Wadi claims that if some of his patrons (a diverse bunch to be sure) have an issue with his boycott, they should come talk with him. He even says if they can convince him to change his mind he will take the signs down.
I respect freedom of speech," he continued, "but I think there must be limits. I think there should be an international law to protect beliefs. It is wrong not to respect Jesus. It is wrong not to respect Buddha. And it is wrong to not respect the Prophet Mohammed.
Now I would love to go and speak with Mr. Wadi, but being Minnesotan, there is a pretty good chance that confrontation will never occur. So instead, in typical passive-aggressive (aka "Minnesota nice") fashion, I will lay out why Holy Land should reverse its policy and why I am now boycotting one of my favorite markets.
For one reason or another, I have never been much of a consumer of magazines. In many respects I am grateful for this. Time is always an issue and I can rarely get through a full magazine before the next one comes. But I also do not like the waste magazines generate. It is very visible and apparent to me as I retain stacks of magazines and then have to recycle them. That being said, there are a few magazines to which I really ought to be subscribing:
The New Yorker - I am always impressed with the content of this magazine and the esteem that it has throughout my network of friends and beyond. It hits right on most of the issues it tackles, and does so much better than the daily newspapers.
Paste - I love to find new music and film and Paste makes it easy. Not only can I read about a ton of great artists and projects that are just coming out, but I can also see and listen to them thanks the CD or DVD included with every issue. They are right on with my tastes too.
Aperture - The few times I have seen this magazine I was very impressed and since I would like to be a better photographer it would help me out.
National Geographic Traveler - Travel magazines are hard for me. I really feel like I need a good one and this one seems very good (though I am tempted to want the traditional National Geographic instead).
Make - I am curious and love to build stuff (or rip stuff apart. Is there another magazine that is better suited to those types of activities?
Wired - The only magazine on this list that I actually do get. I like it, I really do, but more and more often, I get this type of news via the osmosis known as being online.
These were all listed in the order I would like them. If anyone knows how I can get any of the following delivered free for a year let me know. Anything else missing?
A couple that didn't make the list but were very close were:Dwell, Real Simple mostly just because I don't think I would have time.
I doubt I will find many things to agree with Christopher Hitchens about but on this Islamic cartoon "scandal" he and I can agree. In a column at Slate Hitchens makes my argument much better than I could about why the fanatics in the Muslim world are hurting themselves and are even somewhat successful in their goal of affecting and changing life in the United States and other "western" countries.
The prohibition on picturing the prophet—who was only another male mammal—is apparently absolute. So is the prohibition on pork or alcohol or, in some Muslim societies, music or dancing. Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent.
We cannot, and indeed, should not, refuse to publish such a cartoon as that published first in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Our news media should not bow to extremism in any of its forms — there is sensitivity and then there is fear and cowardice.
I am not asking for the right to slaughter a pig in a synagogue or mosque or to relieve myself on a "holy" book. But I will not be told I can't eat pork, and I will not respect those who burn books on a regular basis. I, too, have strong convictions and beliefs and value the Enlightenment above any priesthood or any sacred fetish-object. It is revolting to me to breathe the same air as wafts from the exhalations of the madrasahs, or the reeking fumes of the suicide-murderers, or the sermons of Billy Graham and Joseph Ratzinger. But these same principles of mine also prevent me from wreaking random violence on the nearest church, or kidnapping a Muslim at random and holding him hostage, or violating diplomatic immunity by attacking the embassy or the envoys of even the most despotic Islamic state, or making a moronic spectacle of myself threatening blood and fire to faraway individuals who may have hurt my feelings.
Hitchens doesn't reserve his criticism for just the weak-kneed U.S. media or the over-reacting extremists but also lashed out at the Bush administration for its own trampling of the 1st Amendment and disregard for upholding its own rights in the face of such scrutiny. He closes his rant with the following remarks:
And civil society means that free expression trumps the emotions of anyone to whom free expression might be inconvenient. It is depressing to have to restate these obvious precepts, and it is positively outrageous that the administration should have discarded them at the very first sign of a fight.
There's no war on Christmas. I hate to break it to all those oppressed American Christians and their rabbi friend who wrote the following fairytale.
Well, David, that’s the dark little secret that only your Grandpa and a few others knew. These people weren’t anti-religious as much as they were anti-Christian: anti- the majority religion that made America, America. They weren’t against Allah or African gods. They hated the Christian God. Many simply despised Christians of Faith, hated them as people.
I want to make sure no one thinks I have any problem with Christmas. I love the secular celebration known, now, as Christmas. I love the secular spending spree it has become. Actually I am not crazy about the consumerism of the season (much like these guys who showed up at the Church Mall of America last week) but I admit I do get into the "spirit" of it and time I get to spend with family and friends. I am just tired of people getting on their high horse about things - this time of year especially. This writer has a few (coarse) words for those same people at - ahem, pardon my French, fuckchristmas.org
Here is an excerpt:
Christmas isn’t fucking Christian. Ok, now we’re talking.That’s right, that Yuletide cheer you’re spreading? What exactly do you think Yule is? It's the fucking Pagan celebration of solstice. And those “Christmas” traditions? They’re not just like Pagan rituals, they fucking are Pagan rituals. Way before your Jesus got all magical with the bread and fishes, the Romans were celebrating the birth of Mithra on . . . guess? Go on – guess. December fucking twenty fifth. What a weird coincidence. Practically the whole thing is ripped off from the fucking Druids and the Romans. Twelve days? Check. Exchanging gifts? Check. Mistletoe? Check.
Oh and by the way, there is still a very costly real war still going on.
Despite some conservative groups attempts to focus attention (and government resources) on the make-believe “War on Christmas", which is absolutely absurd, there still happens to be real wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan the cost of which, in both human life and dollars, continues to rise.
The White House is set to request an additional $100 billion for war-spending bringing the total spending on this war to almost $500 billion. That is half a TRILLION dollars; $500,000,000,000. Here are some ideas on how we could have better spent this money:
* Based on Department of Defense obligation data for fiscal year 2005, the daily cost of the Iraq war was $195 million, as of June 30, 2005. This amount reflects costs as they are incurred, not the total amount appropriated or available to the Department of Defense. It does not include costs for Iraq reconstruction.
Sources:
The World Gazetteer, The Hunger Site, The World Bank, The United Nations, Democrats.org
Viggo Mortensen, my new favorite actor, in an interview with The Progressive where he is asked about his views on President Bush. The entire interview is actually quite interesting and Mortensen comes across as intelligent and well informed. Something I would love to have in a leader.
"Q: Are you anti-Bush, as the pundits say?"
No, I'm not anti-Bush; I’m anti-Bush behavior. In other words, I’m against cheating, greed, cruelty, racism, imperialism, religious fundamentalism, treason, and the seemingly limitless capacity for hypocrisy shown by Bush and his Administration.
Awesome.
And I almost forgot to post this Mike Wallace link I had been meaning to post since last week. Whan asked what he wuld ask Presidnet Bush if he was given the chance to interview him, Wallace said:
What in the world prepared you to be the commander in chief of the largest superpower in the world? In your background, Mr. President, you apparently were incurious. You didn't want to travel. You knew very little about the military. . . . The governor of Texas doesn't have the kind of power that some governors have. . . . Why do you think they nominated you? . . . Do you think that has anything to do with the fact that the country is so [expletive] up?
It is disgraceful that a country that claims to be an example for other nations that are organizing and running their own budding democracies has put one person to death in the past year, much less 59! The United States is in the company of countries such as China, Iran, Vietnam, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Somalia, Tajikistan, Sudan, Syria, Jordan, and Afghanistan as countries, who in 2005 still believe it is an acceptable practice to kill its own citizens.
Even if you don't consider all the cases where innocent people have been killed or freed from death row putting people to death promotes a culture of death - a discounting of human life. The milestone our country has just passed, killing our 1000th convicted criminal since 1977, demonstrates that our government - the leaders of our nation, do not care about life. This example, allows for and gives implicit approval of such a mindset - that there are times to kill. One day I think we will look back at these times the way we look back on other times past in our history, with disbelief and amazement. I hope that's how it will be anyway, before too many more people die.
Countries who put someone to death in 2005 (# of executions)
[sources: Use of the Death Penalty Word Wide, The Death Penalty Around the Present World, Capital Punsihment in the United States, Death Penalty World Map]
Now on with the links:
"If Kevin Garnett were only 5-foot-8, pudgy and going to work on a newspaper delivery truck, I doubt if many sports journalists would fret about his future."
-Mike Royko, Buffalo News, June 30, 1995
Andrew Sullivan (of all people) puts some harsh criticisms to the Bush administration's handling of the torturing of prisoners and Bush's threat to veto (the first veto of his presidency, mind you) a bill that would limit the ability of the U.S. Armed Forces in the tactics they use to interrogate prisoners. To date there have 36 acknowledged prisoners who have died from torture.
This didn't happen in World War II because we had a President in World War II with morality...To become like them is to lose the war. I don't want to win the war on these terms. I don't want to become them.
Unbelievably Michael "Brownie" Brown has been hired as a consultant to advise FEMA on how it bungled the agencies national response to Hurricane Katrina. In the ultimate "Fuck You" to all of us who pay taxes for such salaries, we apparently think it's ok to pay the head fuckup to tell us how he fucked up - oh and here is a boatload of money for screwing us twice. (You’d think we would at least get a discount)
Oh, but wait. Brownie points the finger at everyone else, saves little blame for himself or FEMA.
Rovenge (rO-'venj), n: Politically motivated retribution. The White House sought rovenge against Joseph Wilson. [from the Defective Yeti]
The latest victim of rovenge is Elizabeth Reyes who pointed out that Rove failed to notice a tax code change that caused him to be liable for a small amount of money.
Perhaps President Bush was teased when he was young about his surname and so is inflicted with an unnatural hatred for all things green and leafy. Whatever the case, it is certain that the disregard Bush shows national parks and forests, not to mention, clean air and water takes a seat far behind corporate and industry interests.
Unfortunately, this disregard has been rampant in politics for many years, with the Clinton years, in some respects being just as bad as the current and previous Bush's. The misdeeds and blatant flaunting of corporate power and influence are outlined in bleak fashion, page after page, in the book Been Brown so Long, It Looked Like Green to Me: The Politics of Nature by Jeffrey St. Clair. Been Brown So Long... is hard to read for a number of reasons - none of which relates to the writing. Its just that it is hard to keep a train of thought going when every couple of minutes you have to stare at the pages in disbelief and its especially hard to turn pages with clenched fists.
Why does our government bow down to industry and commerce so frequently? Is it really all about money? Can people really be that shallow? News flash: Our economy would function just as well without all the corporate welfare - tax breaks, kickbacks and special privileges - businesses will figure it out. And if capitalism needs those crutches to thrive then it really isn't that great efficient system it is purported to be. Let it evolve, economies aren't explained by intelligent design.
The New Republic is a good magazine and I am glad to subscribe to it. Articles like Leon Wieseltier's Dry Your Eyes, Keep Your Heads - The Fall clearly and concisely describes the predicted effects of the Israeli pullout of the Gaza settlements in a way others have failed to even try.
Even faced with the idea of Greater Palestine, it is impossible not to rejoice in the defeat of the idea of Greater Israel. It was always a foul idea, morally and strategically. It promoted the immediate ecstasy of the few above the eventual safety of the many; it introduced the toxins of messianism and mysticism into the politics of a great modern democracy; it preferred chosenness to human rights; it subordinated laws to visions, and the Jewish state to the Jewish millennium; it worshiped soil in a primitive, almost un-Jewish way. The settlers of the West Bank and Gaza are not a Jewish vanguard, they are a Jewish sect; and in their insistence that the destiny of their state and their society should be held hostage to the fulfillment of their metaphysical and historical conceptions, they have always displayed a sectarian self-love.
I too, look to those anguished settlers' faces as they are ushered from their temporary homes, with little empathy. I understand the selfishness of their actions and how their insistence of righteousness has cost hundreds of lives and thousands more needless misunderstandings. Hopefully this is the first step towards greater understanding and ultimately peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.
In the latest issues of The New Republic, Harvard professor Niall Ferguson and economist Laurence J. Kotlikoff outline a sweeping plan that will eliminate corporate and personal income tax (as well as the payroll (FICA) tax, and the estate and gift taxes) in favor of a federal sales tax, establish a new universal healthcare system based on vouchers, and reform Social Security in by providing personal savings accounts. Sounds like a conservative’s dream, and it is if they can allow a couple more progressive provisions to make these changes more just.
Basically, these reforms are all shaped using four fundamental principles that most progressives (and indeed most Americans) will believe in:
(1) The federal fiscal system should be moderately progressive. In other words, the net effect of all federal programs taken together should be to reduce somewhat the inequalities of income that are inherent in any market-based economy, but not in such a way that economic efficiency is compromised and growth lowered.(2) There should be a system of universal health care--so that no American is denied necessary medical treatment--but the system should also be affordable.
(3) When they stop working, all Americans should be guaranteed a basic income of at least 40 percent of their pre-retirement earnings (the original goal of the Social Security system).
(4) The federal fiscal system should be based on the principle of intergenerational equity; that is to say, net lifetime taxes should take out of our children's income roughly the same proportion as they take out of our income.
These principles are adhered to, more or less, throughout three primary modifications to the tax code, Social Security System and the health care industry. I recommend to anyone that they read these plans (subscription) and attempt to poke holes in it. I would love to see a national debate framed around these ideas and to see what emerged out of that discourse. I have summarized the article below if you don’t want to read it. It is still a pretty lengthy summary should you choose to continue reading.
if anyone understands what im (sic). saying please e-mail me at this e-mail adress (sic).
does anyone here bilieve (sic) that there are aliens in other planets? who really made us is there really a god? im not saying there isnt (sic). but who made god? seriously please answer back at me
I do not think that corporations should have the same rights as actual human citizens. Further, I think we should revisit the pacts that corporations function under when granted such status from the states in which the incorporate. I am not proposing that the privilege of incorporation be granted solely to enable activities that benefit the public, such as construction of roads or canals, as was the case when corporations were first established. But wouldn't it be nice it they were at least neutral to the public's interests?
You'd think that things like disasters, or the purity of childhood, or even milk, let alone water or air, would be sacred. But no. Corporations have no built-in limits on what, who, or how much they can exploit for profit. [The Corporation]
The states used to impose certain conditions on those corporations that were granted (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:
Through lobbying and paying off politicians over the years, corporations have rendered all of these laws (and more) obsolete and have effectively put themselves above the law - even those laws that apply to you and me. If you throw a McDonald's wrapper out the window of your car (I recommend neither eating McDonald's nor littering) you could get a fine of up to $700 but America's industry throws the equivalent of millions of wrappers into our air, water and land each day without consequence. And while we all (well most of us) pay income taxes like suckers, our "corporate citizens" often pay little or no income tax1.
The main problem is that corporations are treated as real persons according to some laws but not others. Furthermore, corporations do not have the same moral obligations that people do. The only lawful obligation a corporation has is to generate profit for its shareholders. If making money way your only motivation, how would your actions change? Even the most unscrupulous of people in business have at least a few other motivations. Most corporations corporate persons, do not share this with us.
Corporate personhood is the doctrine that corporations are considered to be individual persons in the eyes of the law. Corporate personhood is the most critical social and political issue of our time. It lies at the heart of campaign finance reform, labor abuse, deterioration of communities, destruction of the environment, and more. [PersonsInc]
Some corporations are beginning to see how their corporate actions are affecting the earth (it's people, societies, and environment) and are taking steps to ensure that our kids' kids will be able to enjoy a life such as ours. Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface, Inc, the world's largest carpet manufacturer (and maker of the very cool interface flor tiles) has identified the following "7 Fronts" on which to wage a war of change:
Interface has even set up an entire website at interfacesustainability.com to outline its sustainability practices.
Since Rachel Carson's Silent Spring began to expose the abuses of the modern industrial system, there has been a growing awareness that profit at the expense of Earth--of individuals, society, and the environment--is unsustainable. - Ray Anderson, CEO, Interface, Inc.
There is far more that I could post now than I should post now, so I will end this post with a few links to some groups — actually a suprisingly large number of groups — taking up this, and related, issues. Here are a few:
1 - Even in the "over-taxed" state of Minnesota, there are plenty of large companies (3M, U.S. Bank, Target, General Mills to name a few) that legally pay less than a 5% effective tax rate by utilizing methods of tax reduction not available to "average citizens". See the story.
Here's a few bits of news and links I have been collecting the past few weeks, relating to my home state of Minnesota. Don't ever say I don't represent!
I must admit that the new design of Alt Text is a bit limiting to me, especially, when considering the way I want to post. I am trying to figure out some ways to get around it, but right now Alt Text just isn't set up for the type of linking to interesting things that I have been doing lately. Of course, I knew this while I was designing and implementing the new design but I thought that I would just expand on a link here and there and turn them into real (single) posts (rather than in bunches). Then a strange thing happened. I wanted to post more often than once per day, introducing yet another drawback of this design...it is harder to browse backwards through entries, as well. I am going to make it easier on the archive pages and so on, but I need to figure out a more global solution, and soon.
Here are some posts I have been holding back on because I wanted to have at least 3-5 for aesthetics:
"John Gibson of Fox News says that Karl Rove should be given a medal. I agree: Rove should receive a medal from the American Political Science Association for his pioneering discoveries about modern U.S. politics. The medal can, if necessary, be delivered to his prison cell.
What Rove understood, long before the rest of us, is that we're not living in the America of the past, where even partisans sometimes changed their views when faced with the facts. Instead, we're living in a country in which there is no longer such a thing as nonpolitical truth. In particular, there are now few, if any, limits to what conservative politicians can get away with: The faithful will follow the twists and turns of the party line with a loyalty that would have pleased the Comintern."
While I must admit that I am rather enjoying the imminent downfall of Karl "Palpatine" Rove*, the squirming of the White House, and the sudden toughness of the White House Press Corps, I actually found myself feeling bad for Scott McClellan during Monday's questioning of the "Plame Blame Gate" scandal.
I quickly get over that feeling, however, when I remembered that it was McClellan's choice to assume the mouthpiece duties for one of the dirtiest, most secretive presidential administration's in U.S. history.
* This is a reference from the television show American Dad (and actually the episode that won me over, Deacon Stan, Jesus Man which depicted Rove as a shadowy figure clad in a red robe and cowl, a visual allusion to the villainous Star Wars character Emperor Palpatine. Whenever his name is said a wolf howls (In much the same way that horses whinny when in Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein, Frau Blücher's name is said). When he tried to enter a church, he began to emit smoke; when he later departed the scene, he transformed into a swarm of bats. [Source: Wikipedia: Karl Rove]
Meme Watch: Plame Gate
Having cancelled my DirecTV service some months back and with the summer network schedule lull I have had a good deal of time away from the TV. Because shows like Lost, 24, and Arrested Development don't resume again until fall, there is nothing to watch, which is generally good, it being summer and all. 
This break has given me a chance to rediscover some of the great PBS programming that I have been neglecting. In addition to some excellent travel and cooking shows, and of course NOVA, there's the weekly news show: NOW - previously NOW with Bill Moyers - currently just Now.
Last week's show, NOW: The Design of Dissent was an interview with graphic designer Milton Glaser - famous for designing the I (heart) NY imagery, the buttons created for The Nation (and shown at right) and more. Amidst some political waxings, Glaser mostly discusses how graphic design can and does change people's perspectives.
That's the thing that makes you most crazy the idea of this passive acceptance of an authority. We thought we weren't that kind of people.
The show's themes correspond with a like-named exhibit at the School of Visual Arts and a similarly like-named new book by Glazer.
I think it's a rather simple-minded idea that if you examine government, those that have the least dissent are those that are most totalitarian. That is, in fact, the manifestation of dissent that defines democracy, (because) it means that there are oppositions to power that are freely expressed and that minority opinion is also considered to be worthwhile. Generally speaking, dissent comes out of a sense of fairness that something is wrong. Power is being used unfairly, and there has to be some manifestation or complaint about it.
I'll try not to quote the entire interview and instead encourage you to read the full interview transcript. I will mention however, that this is what I have always believed - that dissent does not equal disdain. On both a national level and in terms of jobs I have had, I always felt the greatest need to voice dissent, when I cared the most. It isn't worth arguing for thing A to improve, if you don't give a damn about thing A. It surprises me upon how many people this point is lost.
...a guy taking a walk.
Tonight we are going to hear President Bush make a plea to the American public to get behind the war effort in Iraq and in doing he will try to paint a rosey picture of what is happening there. He will make his case. Why does it have to be this way? Aren't our elected officials supposed to represent our will? Why is this administration trying to impose their will upon the people?
We do not need a timetable for troops to be brought home. We need a list of real reasons we are in Iraq and how it is making us safer and serving American interests. We also need to have the Iraqi government start footing the bill for our security services; either that, or kick us out. They are a legitimate government after all, time they grow up and start acting like it.
Barack Obama's commencement speech at Knox College, in addition to being one of the best speeches I have heard, could be the 2012 inaugural speech for President Obama. Wouldn't that be great?
Here is an excerpt on how the "ownership society" or social darwanism fails us as individuals and as a society:
But there is a problem. It won't work. It ignores our history. It ignores the fact that it's been government research and investment that made the railways possible and the internet possible. It's been the creation of a massive middle class, through decent wages and benefits and public schools that allowed us all to prosper. Our economic dependence depended on individual initiative. It depended on a belief in the free market; but it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, the idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we're all in it together and everybody's got a shot at opportunity. That's what's produced our unrivaled political stability.
By now you know that the Bush administration makes it a habit to bend facts to support their causes, and by now you also know that by 'bend' I actually mean they lie their asses off. So it should come as no surprise to you that before the Bush administration announced that they did not take Amnesty International seriously they used them extensively as a source of credibility when making their case for war in Iraq. Now when that same credible/not-credible source decries the practices of our forces at Guantanamo it is somehow less worthy of consideration?
"So the rule here appears to be: Amnesty is a legitimate source for human rights violations of other countries, but is an unreliable and irresponsible source for reporting on the U.S."
When groups like Amnesty International and other groups which have good intentions make comments like this article comparing Guantánamo to the Gulag it just gives fodder for the many people who would like to discredit them and makes them a little more irrelevant for future debates.
The New Republic does a nice job comparing the actual Soviet work camps of the Gulag and the detainment camps at Guantánamo Bay. It goes a long way towards correcting inaccuracies and also a fair job in showing Amnesty International to be out of touch.
By the sound of it, the words chosen, the blustering posturing you would think the recent quarrelling over judicial nominees amounts to something important. Republican lawmakers have threatened to use the "nuclear option" as it has absurdly been dubbed - the idea that the parliamentary procedure known as the filibuster essentially be banned from certain proceedings. They want to do this not because they believe the practice is poor politics but rather that it suits them now. After all there were no cries from the right to ban the filibuster when congressional republicans were blocking Clinton nominees (65 blocked in all) via the use of such measures.
"When the Democrats think that all the President has to do is to kick up some appointments to the Federal judiciary and that we're just gonna take 'em whole hog and pop 'em right out...well, that's not my intent." Trent Lott - R [The Bulletin's Frontrunner, 1/21/97]
Now, after the Democrats have passed over 200 of Bush's judicial nominees Republicans are making it very clear their interests in working with and for the other half of the country. Nowhere is the Republican's desires for absolute power more evident than in their quest to push through these last 10 nominees.
Most reasonable people when presented with conflict attempt to find ways to work through the problem. Perhaps te Republicans should be content that 95% of their nominations have passed and consider nominating other more moderate candidates for the last 10 slots. Instead, it would seem, Republicans want to stack the courts with judges who will actively look to change laws and culture from the bench. I thought I heard some folks complaining about that type of practice a while back...can't quite remember who it was...
In a speech from the house floor on April 25, 2005, Senator Barbara Boxer eloquently states the following:
"We have confirmed 205 of George W. Bush's nominees to the courts. we have stopped ten. Okay, let me say it again: 205 have gotten through and we have stopped 10.Now, do the math, and I will say to you: in your life, if you get 95% of what you want, wouldn't you go around with a smile on your face? I would. If I got 95% of what I want from the Senate, I'd be so happy. If I got 95% of what I wanted from my family, if they saw it my way 95% of the time, I'd be happy. Especially when they were teenagers. I'd be really happy. But, you know what? If I was arrogant and I wanted everything and I thought I knew best all the time and I wanted to grab all the power, I would be sulking.
So these folks over here, who got 95% of what they want -- 205 judges and then ten that we thought were out of the mainstream -- and, by the way, wow, are they out of the mainstream? They are unhappy, and now they're going to change the rules in the middle of the game.
For 200 years of our Constitution, we have been able to speak and express ourselves. And I've got to tell you, this is dangerous to our democracy when one party wants it all. When one party wants to stop minority rights, that is dangerous, and that's where we're at."
To alter Eisenhower's famous words a bit: The efforts and resources expended, from time to trees - every word uttered or written or posted to a blog - by the media about the Michael Jackson trial, is in a final sense, a theft from those causes who should have attention paid to them, environmental concerns, hunger, and true injustices that matter to humanity.
I am so sick and tired of this administration and their culture of secrecy and elitism. I am sick of them blaming "overzealous staffers" for every political maneuver and misstep in which they get caught. But what I am sick of most is the people who allowed this to happen and voted for this man and his handlers after all the things they have done to take away their rights, take away their money, and otherwise hurt them. To take a line from Napoleon Dynamite: "Frickin' idiot(s)!"
In his article in The New Republic yesterday, Jonathan Cohn asserts that both the Democrats and the Nation as a whole would be better served if we were to eliminate (or at least greatly diminish) the role of the filibuster during congressional hearings and floor votes.
He points to errors in a new Flash animation in the mode of the old School House Rock cartoons, where Phil A. Buster tries to tell us that some lawmakers want to remove him (an important check on the system) so that they can have "one party rule".
While there may be factual inaccuracies in the animated piece, I think Cohn misses the point and doesn’t provide perspective on the uses of the filibuster throughout history. By focusing his energies on just the most recent use of this practice - the Democrats trying to block judicial nominees - he unfairly paints this issue as a right versus left dispute rather than a radical versus moderate one.
In many circles I am sure that I am considered radical. I do have particular stances on the environment and foreign policy that, perhaps, deserve that label. On the role of government, however I believe I am quite moderate. I believe strongly in civil liberties and don’t think the government should get into too many social issues. Keep our roads in good shape, provide some measure of defense, and look out for the health and safety of its citizens. That is about it. I don’t believe legislators should be actively looking to make changes to laws unless directed specifically from its citizens (not its corporations). To be brief, I believe in the virtues of a system designed to move slowly. The two parties, the three branches, and yes, the filibuster all serve to slow down legislation and cause change to happen more slowly.
Mr. Cohn makes the following observation in his article:
"…since the 1970s, there have been hundreds, plus many more "silent" filibusters in the form of threats that simply prevented legislation from coming to the floor. As a practical matter, the Senate now passes most major laws only when 60 of its members agree."
And this is a bad thing? Shouldn’t every law be passed with a clear majority such as this? Shouldn’t making laws be about building consensus and compromise so that more people are content with the final result? Or is government now a winner take all and screw the rest proposition?
Cohn comes very close to the truth of how the filibuster helps the U.S. and its citizens. In fact, he actually makes the point quiet elegantly before deciding to muddle through a haphazard indictment of it by saying it has "gummed up the works". Here is what he writes, precisely illustrating my point (emphasis mine):
"Although, in recent years, Democrats have deployed the filibuster to block the Republican agenda, historically conservatives (like Strom Thurmond) were the ones most likely to use the filibuster over issues like civil rights legislation...Of course, the filibuster isn't so much hostile to any one ideology as it is to whichever party happens to propose the most radical changes in public policy, which is why it worked against Democrats before the Bush era and has worked against Republicans in the years since. But, while the whole point of the U.S. government is to thwart "tyranny of the majority," the filibuster has arguably gummed up the works too much, making shifts in public policy so rare that voters have grown increasingly angry at the apparent unresponsiveness of government…"
Really? Is this why voters are so angry? Huh.
One of the saddest things about the recent school shooting here in Minnesota is that many people (myself included) aren't surprised by it. There isn't a sense of shock or even calls for reform. What can we do? What has to happen for events such as these to be shocking again?
I have heard interviews with local residents claiming that they felt safe going into the school because of the guards and metal detectors at the doors. That makes people feel safe? This is how we are fixing the problem? Does anyone think that metal detectors and guards are going to stop acts like this? People who do are fooling themselves with quick-fix, knee-jerk reactions that do nothing to cure the causes of such acts.
While the media outlets all focus on Nazis, video games, blogging, violent videos, and mean faces, the root causes of this and other such actions are greatly under-investigated. Some have written that Weise had been taking the anti-depressant Prozac but seem interested only in taking shots at the drug with such stories. Maybe it is too soon, but what I have yet to see is an earnest attempt to discuss a major problem our society has: ever weakening social networks, a diminishing sense of community, and lack of feelings of responsibility for the well-being our fellow citizens.
I don't mean to sound like a hippy here, but I think that we wouldn't be seeing as much violence in schools (or elsewhere) if there were more loving of thy neighbor. Today we spend more time away from our communities than ever before. We commute to work alone, pick up lunch at a drive-thru and eat at our desks, go home to a home just like everyone else, filled with all the same things, yet we go there and spend time alone with only our immediate families.
It is somewhat ironic that this tragedy occurred on a native tribal reservation as this would be a place where, in theory, the sense of community is stronger. But it shows just how troubling life can become for a young kid who has lost his most important connections (both his parents) and the community fails to support him (in the form of allowing him to be bullied and teased unremittingly).
Things like these events didn't always happen. They couldn't - people were too involved in each other’s lives to allow the type of isolation and despair that young, Jeff Weise experienced. And while I do not pretend to think the failings of contemporary communities are the only forces at work in events such as these, I do believe these failings play a very important role that is under-reported.
Reference:
I cannot believe this:
"a little-known provision of No Child Left Behind, the controversial landmark education legislation passed in 2001. The provision, under Section 9528 of the law, requires districts that receive federal funding to share students' names, addresses and phone numbers with military recruiters."
ASSociated Press
With speculation rampant that Bono may assume leadership of the World Bank some other high profile musicians are also gathering interest as potential heads of other organizations. Here is a rundown:
In 2006, months before Secretary General Kofi Annan steps down, it is expected that Sting will be elected to head the United Nations. Sting's background and his affinity for eastern philosophies have given him a leg up on other potential American candidates including Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, and 50 Cent. When asked whether he believed his experience with The Police sets him apart as a candidate to lead the U.N Security Council, Sting replied "I have stood here before inside the pouring rain. With the world turning circles, running 'round my brain. I guess I always thought that you could end this reign. But it's my destiny to be the king of pain.”
Bush plans to appoint a new Fish and Wildlife Director later this month. Hoping to push his controversial forestry policies Bush claimed that only multi-platinum recording artist Usher is being considered. When reached for comment, Usher had only this to say "Let it burn, let it burn. Gotta let it burn."
A heated debate has been ensuing in the past few weeks between supporters of Moby and those of Seal as to who may best lead the leading animal rights advocacy group, PETA. Those who support Moby point to his years of tireless environmental and vegan activism, while those who would have Seal selected point to his name and say "Duh!?."
Now that a 9-year old presidential hopeful is stumping across the country for Social Security reform along with his idol G.W. it strikes me (and others) that the Bush administration has reached the point where most Americans are tuning it out. To regain its past glory the administration has recruited a cute little kid ala The Brady Bunch (Oliver), Diff’rent Strokes (Sam), and Scooby Doo (Scrappy).
Honestly, maybe a child is the best spokesperson for the President's Social Security "reform"* plan. He certainly demonstrates the same lack of understanding of the issues as those he represents.
For instance, he probably doesn't know that both the Social Security trustees (4 of the 6 trustees were appointed by Bush) and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predict that the system can function exactly as it has for the past 50 years until at least 2042 (The CBO says 2052). "By either measure Social Security is more fiscally sound today than it has been throughout most of its 69-year history." [Center for Economic and Policy Research - Facts PDF]
He also probably should learn that even after "2042 (or 2052), enough new money will be coming in to pay between 73-80 percent of promised benefits. Even with this reduction, new retirees will still receive more money, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than today’s beneficiaries." (emphasis mine) [Washington Post Op/Ed]
He is most certainly unaware that most seniors claim that rising Medicare and Medicaid costs and reduced coverage actually cause them much more hardship than any potential reductions in Social Security and many have urged the President to focus his attentions on those programs.
Please see the extended text of this entry for more facts. Or read this PDF: What is Social Security?
* denotes a word that is misused as the President doesn't really want to reform Social Security but rather destroy it, as its very existence is an affront on the ideals of Darwinist Capitalism.
This is quickly turning into a much longer, more involved, post/rant so if you want to read more feel free...
Continue reading "Has the Bush administration jumped the shark?"Here in Minnesota we have a governor named Tim Pawlenty, or as some - both affectionately and not - call him, TPaw. And TPaw, like many politicians has made his career by making pledges to special interest groups. In TPaw's case the special interest group that controls him is the Taxpayer's League of Minnesota. You see TPaw took an oath not to raise taxes. Some would say that is how he won the election. And TPaw has stuck to his word not to raise taxes.
This story is not unique and not particularly interesting until you know a little about the current state of affairs. It may be fine not to raise taxes at the state level and to force government cutbacks and (hopefully) eliminate some waste and pork, however, much of the tax burden has simply shifted to the local level in Minnesota, with property taxes at record levels Minnesotan's are simply paying more out in taxes.
Even this semantic adherence to his pledge wasn't enough to really earn my ire, as TPaw has seemed like a reasonable guy on other topics (including his commitment to public transit improvements).
There is now, however, a movement spearheaded by the governor to get a larger share of revenue from native run casinos (or else he would bring in others to essentially undercut their business). Isn't a larger share of the profits of casinos another tax? Does the governor only care about taxes on white people? I think it is very wrong of TPaw to try this tactic, as he knows there is very little to lose in terms of political capital. Minnesotans believe for the most part, I think, that Native American's are well off now due to the casinos and that they have received unfair protections under the law. That seems pretty damn ironic to me.
President Bush, putting aside his campaign to portray Social Security as a disastrous failure and a looming catastrophe, has decided to ignore reality once again and attempt to gain support for another "created crisis" - those damn trial lawyers and all their frivolous lawsuits, getting multi-million dollar settlements for their stupid clients, driving the cost of healthcare up a doctors away from medicine for good.
Sounds good, right? Lets get those damn lawyers! We all hate those insurance scammers and people who are too stupid to be in public suing because they spill coffee in their laps or let their RV slip out of gear when not in at the wheel. These people need to be stopped! These people and their nuisance lawsuits cost all of us millions of dollars in increased insurance premiums and causes many doctors to practice “defensive medicine” or simply stop altogether.
Yup, it sure sounds bad. Too bad it is all complete bullshit.
There actually are not that many frivolous lawsuits filed. And there are far fewer that actually make it into court or take up too much time and resources. Far from the "out of control" system that Bush attempts to depict, the judicial system actually does quite a good job of weeding out the truly meritless cases and does so without much cost via a few key checks set up well before such cases get into a courtroom. Two such checks are the summary judgment that allows a judge can dismiss outright a case with no merit and directed verdicts and JNOV’s which are two mechanisms that judges have available to prevent juries from awarding damages when they should not, and to reduce jury verdicts that are clearly excessive.
Furthermore, doctors are not leaving their practices, Check it out for your self in states all across America - in most cases claims paid and jury awards have gone down and the number of doctors (even OB/GYNs has remained constant or even gone up.
The real culprit in all of this? The insurance companies who won’t pay claims, dictate terms to doctors and, insist upon double digit price hikes each year.
Be aware of the insurance companies (and their Republican cronies) when they keep perpetuating these myths about frivolous lawsuits and realize that it has been going on for decades. We understandably buy into this newly framed idea because it makes sense to us. And as it is repeated until it becomes our truth. But we must fight this idea.
The real victims or “tort reform” then are the victims of negligence and outright sinister behavior by big corporations. Let me give you one example of how myth can become a reality that we all “know”:
Stella Liebeck vs. McDonalds (aka the infamous coffee spilling incident): The facts:
In 1992 72 year old Stella Liebeck ordered and received a Styrofoam cup of coffee heated to a temperature of between 180 and 190 degrees from McDonalds.
The coffee spilled on her legs causing 3rd degree burns on her thighs and genitals and causing her to be hospitalized for 8 days at which time she underwent skin grafts and other medical procedures.
Liebeck sought to settle her claim for $20,000 from McDonalds to cover her medical expenses, but McDonalds refused was not fit for human consumption.
McDonalds was aware of 700 prior cases of its customers being burned by their coffee and their own quality assurance manager had testified that its coffee, held at that temperature. Liquids at the temperatures provided will cause 3rd degree burns in between 2 and 7 seconds. Reducing the temperature to between 155 and 160 (the temperature that McDonalds finally switched to) degrees increases this burn time to closer to 60 seconds.
Throughout the trial McDonalds executives and witnesses displayed a callousness and disregard for the health and safety of its customers that many jurors found to be a deciding factor in the case.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. (later reduced to $160,000) and $2.7 million in punitive damages, which was set to equal about two days of McDonald's coffee sales. The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000
Does that story sound like the one you have been led to believe happened? Do you think that a corporation the knowingly and willfully disregards the safety of its customers deserves the punitive damages such a case can bring.
If you don’t who do you really care about protecting with tort reform?
Other sources:
I've got a word or two
To say about the things that you do
You're telling all those lies
About the good things that we can have
If we close our eyes
Do what you want to do
And go where you're going to
Think for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with you
I left you far behind
The ruins of the life that you had in mind
And though you still can't see
I know your mind's made up
You're gonna cause more misery
Do what you want to do
And go where you're going to
Think for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with you
Although your mind's opaque
Try thinking more if just for your own sake
The future still looks good
And you've got time to rectify
All the things that you should
Do what you want to do
And go where you're going to
Think for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with you
Do what you want to do
And go where you're going to
Think for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with you
Think for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with you
- The Beatles Think For Yourself
Part of the reason I feel so bad about our current President and the state of the country is simple. While I have often disagreed with past Presidents and even thought that they were not effective leaders, I always knew that these men were much smarter than me and more equipped to make decisions like those faced by that highest of offices.
Unfortunately (for us all) I honestly and sincerely believe that I am smarter than George W. Bush and that I could make better decisions than he has and would be a more effective leader for the American people.
That last statement is perhaps the saddest political commentary I have read in my entire life.
And now Tom Tomorrow presents This Modern World courtesy of Salon.
I don't care much for Jeopardy and care even less for the whole Ken Jennings media saga and ensuing media infatuation. I was getting pretty bored with Jason's posts on the matter and was glad it was coming to an end. This new deal with Sony, however, is ridiculous. Jason hasn't posted many details but for Sony to threaten an individual for posting news on his personal site just because they know that 9 times out of 10 they will give in, is evil.
Matt Haughey said it well:
I'm not buying any more WEGAs, ever. Sony's new TVs are just 42 inches of shame!"
See more commentary on this at Anil's site.
What we (webloggers, etc.) need is a "legal co-op" of sorts that we could join and utilize the services of when needed, maybe if this group was strong enough big corporations would think twice before utilizing the schoolyard bully method of conflict resolution.
I was looking around for the transcript or audio and if I wasn't so lazy I would find it and post it here. In the words of Sean Connery (as portrayed on SNL) Suck it, Trebeck Sony!
All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre -- the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H.L. Mencken
(Baltimore Evening Sun on July 26, 1920)
This quote and more from Mencken can be found in the book: On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe.
We need to recognize the problems that have occured with voting machines and make them better. This process begins with an investigation into the issues that have occured over the last two presidential elections. MoveOn is sponsoring a drive for this type of investigation.
* In Broward County, Florida, electronic voting machines counted
backwards: as more people voted, the official vote count went down.
* In one Columbus, Ohio suburb, election officials have acknowledged
that electronic voting machines credited Bush with winning 4,258
votes, even though only 638 people voted there.
Regardless of the results of this election there are a few things that I am going to be working towards in the coming years in terms of reforming the campaign and electing process in our Democracy/Republic. Here are the primary focuses:
Perhaps the largest hurdle in these suggested reforms, the two-parties do not want this because it will end their dominance over the system. But average Americans, those of us who aren't red or blue but have complicated stances on many issues, require more parties participating in the process. Some who live in countries where there are more parties will sometimes say that nothing gets done because no one has a majority — in the spirit of our founding fathers and especially Ben Franklin, I say suck it up — build consensus or compromise, such is life.
How does it work? Easy Take your top 5 candidate choices (or 3 or whatever) and rank them by preference. Don't like John Kerry but fear another four years of Bush country? Simply rank your candidates — no need to vote out of fear, don't against, vote for. That was the runoff part, now comes the instant, all the votes are tallied once (computer voting is more or less essential to this process) the top two vote getters (or however many) are culled out and the remaining are dropped off. Then the preferences for those top two are tallied and voila, we have a winner.
Eliminate Fundraising
That is, candidates must only use government (see tax) dollars in their campaign efforts. The bad news is that we as citizens cannot choose who our money goes to. The good news is that much less money will be spent on campaigns (see 'Ban Ads' below) and there will be far less wasted efforts (see 'Time Limits' below).
This will eliminate all private fundraising efforts and reduce the current requirement that our candidates be wealthy. Additionally it reduces the am mount of power political donors have, because there are no more political donors. Note that this would also ban 527 and similar groups from raising money to fund campaign efforts.
The only inherent problem with this idea is that it will be hard to determine a "cutoff" for which candidates get public funds and which do not but I am sure that with runoff voting it will be easier for 3rd parties to raise awareness and vote totals to a threshold that could be set for public funding (which we currently have in place in some form).
Ban Political Ads
Imagine no attack ads, I wonder if you can... that's right all political ads would be banned (attack or not). In their place would be 5 minute informational presentations outlining key elements of various candidates’ platforms (produced and presented by a non-partisan group, perhaps governmental) as well as televised public debates (see Weekly Debates below). The time for the debates (which I propose would be once weekly for 8 weeks preceding elections) and platform presentations would be donated by the major networks and they would carry them without interruption.
But what about freedom of speech?! You can still talk about the candidates to your heart’s content, the only restriction is that you can’t put it in an ad and play it on TV or Radio.
Mandatory, Weekly Debates
Without ads, the American people can learn about their potential leaders via debates. There needs to be more debates (1 per week for 8 weeks for Presidential candidates) and there needs to be tough moderators and open formats. If someone tries to give a canned answer, the moderator can call them on it and either force them to address the question thoughtfully or make them look foolish in the process. There needs to be more debates so that people can “get to know” the people running, not just the sound bites that are written for them. Finally the debates must be mandatory. If a candidate feels that they cannot get in front of the public and engage in healthy discourse then they are unfit for office and will be ineligible for the office.
If there are more than 2-5 candidates that meet the voter support thresholds (which there may be) then some mechanism for varying the participants of the debates should be determined, potentially with some sort of rotation — the system isn’t perfect but we can work on it.
Limits for Time Spent Campaigning
Campaigns are incredibly wasteful and in my opinion essentially rob the public of both financial and intellectual resources. Campaigns should be limited to be no more than 8 to 12 weeks in duration for all candidates, incumbents and challengers alike. This (in conjunction with eliminating fundraising (see above) will free our elected officials up to do the work we asked them to do, govern — no more 2 years of government and 2 years of campaigns. We have important issues that need to be addressed and we don’t need any more distraction or drains on resources than we already have.
Reform the Electoral College
Wait for it….that’s right, everyone’s favorite red-headed stepchild the Electoral College most likely needs to be altered or eliminated. I am not sure which route to take as it does serve a couple purposes that have some merit. If all of the above suggestions were implemented there would, perhaps be little need for electorates to cast our votes for us. As it stands now the Electoral College serves to drive people from the polls I believe and also allows entire regions of the country to be ignored during campaigns. Absolving it completely might result in the same behavior only in different areas. I do like the idea of an additional check on the system, however. Perhaps (though only marginally better than elimination) would be to promote that states to split their electoral votes based on the popular vote in their state. This keeps in place the check on the system (where Electorates could ignore the populace in some strange circumstance) but does little to nothing to address the fact that the most populace regions of the country would then get the most attention.
That’s it — maybe this will provide a jumping off point for in-depth looks at these issues in the future. And maybe after the elections I can start thinking about another type of reform, media reform. Ugh.
I find myself amused (but also sad) that most of the conservatives in our county plan on voting for Bush. This is despite the fact, that, by their very nature (indeed its within the definition), conservatives want things to remain more or less status quo, but the Bush administration is making widespread changes that are fundamentally changing our country.
What's more is they are doing it covertly. By duping moral and upstanding American into thinking that they are the party that stands for values, the Republicans are in the midst of a 3 decade long campaign to repeal almost all of the social programs put into place in the 20th century while at the same time bringing the country closer to the pattern of wealth distribution of the nineteenth century. Do we really need to reduce the taxes that corporations and the wealthiest Americans pay? Who do you suppose makes up the difference?
By and large the conservative movement in America has been widely successful. Despite the fact that, when polled, more Americans share a progressive view on most issues, it would seem that people are more than willing to throw their support towards Bush, et. al. because of perceived social concerns. Here is an example:
- What's the matter With Kansas
This means that there are people voting Republican in order to get even with Wall Street. They have people voting completely the opposite, and happily I might add, from their best interest because of a perceived gap in values.
The problem is, however, that they have it wrong. Bush has consistently shown that he is neither good for most American's best interests or the country as a whole.
This is my last attempt to sway any of the swayable. This site has become mostly about venting in the past few months. I have seen what is happening and I cannot stand silently by. Tomorrow I will post about the changes I feel are crucial to the health of our democracy in terms of election reform and after that, I look forward to waking up Wednesday morning to a renewed sense of hope for our country.
Well it looks as though there may not be a major October surprise after all. If there were to be one I would expect it to come out in today's news cycle. The only surprises so far have seemed to break for Kerry rather than Bush.
So far we have had the following:
The only one that may help Bush could be the surfacing of a videotape of an American member of Al Qaeda warning of upcoming attacks on American soil and that Americans are guilty...
Maybe we would be a bit less guilty if we all get together and vote the lot of them out of office on Tuesday. Of course, the terrorist isn't going to be happy with Kerry, but at least the rest of the law-abiding world will be.
The $138 billion that we have spent on the Iraqi war (so far) could have done the following things:
Oh and guess what? That was your $138 billion and it is also being spent in your name.
I had a post written regarding an email (spam) I received asking me (and other bloggers) to discredit a number of documents that make Bush look bad. Here is what I started to write:
It would seem that bloggers are now a big part of a strategy to disseminate misinformation.
Some of the statements ("Bush and Cheney have excellent judgment and would never get behind the wheel while drunk.") they were making were ridiculous but then again much of this administration and those who support them has and have been ridiculous as well.
When I got to this one I had to investigate further:
First I looked at the home page — it looked normal. Then I looked at the "Patriot Pledge page and knew that it wasn't quite right. A quick search or two of the whois databases returned the following:
YesBushCan.com is registered to Support and Commitment, Inc. which had the following email addresses listed: info@cheneybush.com and info@georgewbush.org. The CheneyBush.com site is deceptive and I can't really tell that it is a parody - it is too subtle. The subtly is gone at the GeorgeWBush.org site and after looking up these site registrants I found that the trail led back to John Wooden of Chickenhead Productions and WhiteHouse.org fame and which is connected with the new movie The Yes Men in some way. (which incidentally is a movie that I was close to seeing last night but instead saw The Motorcycle Diaries - which I will review tomorrow)
So, YesBushCan.com and the Bush documents have been put out there by someone who really doesn't like President Bush. Why the subterfuge? Why put it out there like this? Does he think that some folks won't pick up on this (like I almost didn't) and inadvertently post these document on their blogs, which in turn will be picked up by "legitimate" media outlets? What gives? By the way, some folks are a bit quicker than me.
How can the anti-Kerry propaganda piece "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" be broadcast on 62 stations in the nation without providing equal time for a pro-Kerry or anti-Bush piece? Answer: because the rich can do whatever the fuck they want.
Despite efforts by the Kerry campaign and several film makers offers (Michael Moore has offered Fahrenheit 911 as have the producers of Going Upriver) to give their films for free to Sinclair Broadcasting (yes this is the same Sinclair that ordered its ABC affiliates not to air a "Nightline" program that included a reading of the names of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq and whose executives have donated at least $58,000 to the Bush-Cheney campaign or the Republican National Committee for the 2004 election).
It seems like TV executives can stand up to pressure when it comes from the left but now thanks to fear of “legal entanglements” Farenheit 911 won’t be shown on pay-per-view as planned!
Overall I think the NY Times does a good job on its critique of the Bush and Kerry bumper stickers and branding, however I must take exception to a couple points they make:
1. There is no mention of the idea that by adding the text "A Stronger America" may counter-balance some of the other assertions that the font treatments etc convey a weaker stance.
2. I disagree that the flag represented on the Bush sticker is superior to the Kerry flag. Neither are great but the Bush flag isn't even the real U.S. flag as it distorts the star portion to run the entire height of the flag.
3. Lastly, perhaps I am looking for the Kerry stickers more, but I feel the Kerry stickers with the serif font are easier to read from a distance - an important point unless we want everyone to tailgate in order to read the messages.
The "W" sticker that resembles the travel stickers you see on cars that have been to Europe are particularly effective as they stand out amidst the clutter of regular rectangle bumper stickers. I just need to find me some clear stickers with a red line through them.
Cam has posted an in-depth evolution of his work on the Wes Clark brand identity.
* The term October Surprise has historical significance but some suggest there is something that may come out of the Bush camp in a last ditch attempt to dramatically change voter opinion.
George W. Bush
speaking in Wilkes-Barre, PA, 10/6/04
This post is liberally paraphrased from a nice post at Watch Blog.
These middle-class tax cuts - widely acknowledged as having the most impact on stimulating the economy - make up less than 25% of President Bush's total tax cuts package.
In other words, 75% of the tax cuts could be tossed, and middle- and lower-class Americans would not notice the difference.
Kerry's plan rolls back the "only for the Rich tax cuts" and adds the following middle class tax cuts:
* College Opportunity Tax Credit. A tax credit on up to $4,000 of tuition.
* Childcare Tax Credit. A tax credit of up to $1,000 to help families pay childcare expenses.
* Health care tax credits. $177 billion of tax credits to make health care more affordable, including a tax credit of up to 50 percent for small business health insurance premiums.
Some people say that letting those tax-cuts-for-the-rich lapse would hurt entrepreneurs. Almost no entrepreneurs make more than $200,000/yr. Most entrepreneurs reinvest profits in their company at the expense of "executive" salaries.
A note about the estate tax: it only affects about 4,000 Americans or 0.000014% of the population. Please don't let that become an issue.
First off let me start by saying that I haven't listened to any of the "spin" going on about the debate last night and that I have watched it twice. A disclaimer is in order perhaps for the first viewing — I watched it with Michael Moore and 8000 some odd progressives at the progressive University of Minnesota campus in the great progressive state of Minnesota. No wonder I felt Bush got beat handedly, again.
Here are some observations:
- Kerry made a few mistakes, mostly mistakes of omission as he continues to miss opportunities to really drive points home in unequivocal terms. One such mistake was when Bush brought up the "global test" idea out of context and misunderstood as he has been doing for the past week. Rather than coming out defensive on such a statement all Kerry had to do was to reframe the discussion into what Bush being against the "global test" means to the world. The Bush administration's arrogance and unilateralism is a great danger to the U.S.
In the Fog of War, Robert McNamara says the following:
Bush:
I don't think this president has ever reexamined his reasoning and that brings me to observation number two...
- Can you believe that the President could not state a single specific mistake that he has made? He mentioned some vague reference to appointments he may not have made and then said that history will judge him on Iraq — never admitting any culpability in any wrong decision he may have made about. Hey W. wasn't the question "list 3 mistakes?"
- Throughout the debate I remembered thinking that the questions were all a bit biased in a way that highlighted Bush's weaknesses but then came the realization that it was simply that Bush is weak in every area.
- Bush appeared defensive and also like he was trying very, very hard not to make any faces at all. His prearranged joke ("That answer almost made me want to scowl.") and periodic barbs aimed at Kerry came across as petty and humorless rather than self-deprecating as perhaps was planned.
- How does Bush know that we have captured or killed 75% of Al Qaeda? Did he poll them or something?
- Did Bush really say "Unmanned Veee-hicle"?
- It looked as though the Bush team did take something away from the movie "The Fog of War". In it Robert McNamara stated the following as a rule he made for himself:
- 1% of the population got more money in tax cuts than the bottom 80%. Wow.
- Did you catch the strut W. was in after he made his point about Kerry putting a trial lawyer on the ticket? He even tried to stare Kerry down.
For some funny observations of the first two debates and I suspect this one soon , I would recommend the defective yeti.
A: THE PRESIDENT: Right, no -- Bob, it's a good question. I don't know -- I haven't reached a final conclusion yet because the inspectors -- inspection teams aren't back yet. I do know that Saddam Hussein had the capacity to make weapons. I do know he's a dangerous person. I know he used weapons against his own people and against the neighborhood. But we'll wait until Charlie gets back with the final report, and then I'll be glad to report.
[Questions and answer from June 2003; Source: This Modern World]
The facts were stretched and manipulated on both sides during the first and only vice-presidential debate. Here are a few of the highlights from the side I want to lose - President Vice-President Cheney mislead in the following ways:
And Cheney and Edwards have met before... a couple times.
Unfortunately even some of the "fact checking" articles at some news sites are getting the facts wrong. Take this from MSNBC:
What this "analysis does not understand or state is that the millionaire by the pool does not make all his money via income from a paycheck as does the common worker or soldier. The millionaire’s income comes in large part from dividend on investments which are taxed at a far lesser extent - 9% or below. In many cases this results in the injustice of our taxation system where someone making $60,000 a year gets taxed at a 30% rate where someone bringing in millions in dividends and capitol gains pays a much lesser %.
That's all I want to say for now but be sure to follow the Vice-President's instructions and go to, FactCheck.com. :)
As many have said about the debates, John Kerry not only "won on points" as if such a thing mattered a great deal, but also came off as the more "presidential" in many ways.
These substantial, unscripted exchanges are helpful, not as theater, but as a demonstration of what resources each candidate possesses that would enable him to respond in real time to the challenges of world events - which are always unscripted."
Ron L. Meyers
New York, Oct. 1, 2004
Letter to the editor in the NY Times
The notion of a president who cannot "think on his feet" and deal with situations as they arise is a very scary one. To downplay Bush's performance (and conversely Kerry's dominance) as simply a plain-spoken guy versus a polished, eloquent speaker with all style and no substance is to do a great disservice to the capacities that John Kerry has as a leader and thinker, and to the American public, who may occasionally need to be reminded about the type of job we ask the President to do.
On Friday morning Bush came out, guns blazin' with several new talking points and rebuttals carefully prepared for him by the folks who wish they could debate Senator Kerry. I for one wish they could too.
America needs a president who can think in the moment. America needs a leader who has good judgment and an ability to rise above pettiness and petulance. On Thursday night America got the chance to see clearly which man fits those descriptions. Let's hope they were paying attention.
After watching the debates tonight turn off the TV and take an opportunity to vote in some of the online polls about who won and who lost and how each candidate came across.
Here are a few:
* ABC News
* CBS News
* CNN
* Fox News
* MSNBC
* USA Today
Don't buy into the spin the both sides will start putting on the event - Make up your own mind. Don't let this happen again.
WatchBlog - I came across this great site when I was having an instant message debate with a conservative friend. I would have loved to thought of this.
Citing an arcane ruling that requires voter registration cards be printed on 80 pound stock paper, the governor of Ohio is threatening to void registrations submitted on a lighter weight paper, demanding they re-apply. There is no time to reapply and thousands of voters could be left off the rolls.
Sign the petition to allow democracy to work and help end the voter suppression the Republicans are counting on to win.
Whenever conservatives bring up the unfairness of progressive taxes think to yourself how fair it is that the top 10% of the U.S. population holds nearly 70% of all its wealth. Do those 10% do 70% of the production of that wealth? Are they that much better than the rest of the populace?
If %'s are not your thing, here's another way to look at it:
Assume there are 100 people who have $100 to split up. It turns out, that in the U.S. the $100 winds up being divided as follows:
1 person gets $38.10
4 people get $5.32 each
5 people get $2.30 each
10 people get $1.25 each
20 people get $0.60 each
20 people get $0.23 each
40 people get $0.005 (1/2 cent each)
The 80 people getting less than a dollar might be a bit annoyed at the person getting $38.10.
Most programs can be paid for without raising taxes on the middle or lower classes - in fact the taxes raised on the top 10% wouldn't even have to be that big to make a big difference. Who are Bush's policies favoring?
SOURCES: Levy Economics Institute: November, 2003), Citizens for Tax Justice, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering, high ranking Nazi, founder of the Gestapo, at the Nuremberg trials
Basic living conditions are also deteriorating.
More Stories:
- TIME Magazine, Aug. 20, 1990
I would never have thought to question the claim that Flight 77 (a 757) was the plan that hit the Pentagon. But now it would seem some are and there are clearly some details that have yet to be established as many video accounts and reports have not been released, even now. This Flash movie outlines the (conspiracy) theory.
This timeline gives a detailed accounting of the events leading up to the crash (or supposed crash) of flight 77. Here are some excerpts:
and
Maybe it’s naivety, stupidity, or a lingering sense of invulnerability from my youth but I must say, that I have never feared terrorism in the U.S. — pre or post Sept. 11.
Bush/Cheney would point to this fact, no doubt, as an endorsement of their anti-terrorism policies and actions to stem these types of attacks on our soil — and maybe they are right.
Does this mean that I think the world, and the U.S. are safer with Bush in the Whitehouse? No. Here's why.
Much of what any given U.S. President does, any given U.S. President would do. That is to say that Gore would have taken virtually all of the measures that Bush has in fighting the "War on TerrorTM" as would have Clinton, as would have Bush I, Reagan, etc. 80% of the things a president does, any president would do — things such as deploying troops to seek and destroy Al Qaeda operatives, expanding free trade, sending aid to foreign countries, and taking steps to fix institutions such as Medicare, and Social Security. But then there is that tricky 20% of things where each president differs.
In the case of George W. Bush, it is with this 20% that most people in the country take issue. This 20% includes such things as repealing environmental laws so that businesses can pollute more, forcing legislation that reduces our 1st amendment rights, tax cuts that save middle income Americans $200-$300 and wealthy Americans (top 2%) hundreds of thousands, and of course, pushing for a preemptive war on a country that had not show aggression towards us or any other nation and basing it upon false (and I believe contrived) circumstances.
It is this 20% of the actions of the president that, in fact, make us less safe in the world. Reelecting George W. Bush would send a message to the world that we, the citizens of the U.S, condone this 20%. It would paint us all with the same brush, and instead of showing the world that we made a mistake (or at least slightly less than half of us did) — instead it would show that the average U.S. citizen agrees with these decisions, we agree with the policies of this president — that we are just like him. Instead of making us safer, instead of denouncing the aggressive, irresponsible, and foolish actions of our “leader”, we would be saying to everyone:
“You can hate us all now.”
The suppression of the black vote is well documented from the 2000 election especially in Florida. Tactics such as disinformation (pamphlets were distributed stating that the election was on Wed. the 5th of Nov rather than Tue. the 4th), using false authority and made-up rules (people were told they did not have proper documentation when they did or were told they were on "a list" of convicted felons even though they had never committed a crime), and physical detainment (roadblocks in predominately black neighborhoods preventing people from getting to the polls and stalling people outside of polling places until after the deadlines had passed)
You would have thought the Republicans would have learned their lesson. But I guess that lesson was do anything possible to ensure your own success. What else should we expect, really? Well "they" are at it again:
Want to stop these affronts to democracy? Send a letter to the GOP.
This is one of the coolest uses of wireless technology I have seen.
Here are some of the sayings I want to see on the streets of new York:
Re-Defeat Bush
War is Not Pro-Life
Buck Fush
No one died when Clinton lied.
Save a tree, remove a Bush
Bush: Like a Rock .... only dumber.
The only bush I trust is my own.
We're all wearing the blue dress now.
If you can read this, you're not the president.
The new MoveOn "switch ads" ala Apple depict real Republicans who have decided not to support another term for President Bush.
Here is an article from the new Yorker that discusses these ads.
- Alan Keyes, 2000
When asked last week how he felt about running for Senate in a state he had never lived in, he responded:
Well at least he has his principles.
I urge you, no matter what party you hold allegience with, to sign the ACT Petition to the FCC urging them to "require proof of fact before airing political advertisements."
While you are there check out Will Farrell (Quicktime file).
Outfoxed is a new documentary on how the Fox News Channel openly tries to subvert the agenda of the Democratic party and consistently attempts to shape a positive public opinion of republicans.
While I believe that many of the nation's media outlets have, to one extent or another, been witting or unwitting accomplices to the unprecedented (in American politics) propaganda machine that is the Bush administration, Fox has clearly been the front runner in not only bias reporting but actual campaigning for Bush and against Kerry.
I generally have tried to listen only to political players who for one reason or another were relevant. My assessment to date has been that the Reverend Al Sharpton was about as irrelevant as they come. After his speech at the Democratic national Convention on Wednesday night however, I am inclined to give the man a bit more credit. unfortunately, as reported elsewhere, the rest of the news media didn't even bother to listen to his speech.
Here is an excerpt from that speech regarding a song dedicated to the memory of the victims of of the September 11th attacks synchronized over 990 other stations:
As you know, we lost Ray a few weeks ago, but I sat there that morning and listened to Ray sing through those speakers, Oh beautiful for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain, for purple mountains' majesty across the fruited plain.
And it occurred to me as I heard Ray singing, that Ray wasn't singing about what he knew, because Ray had been blind since he was a child. He hadn't seen many purple mountains. He hadn't seen many fruited plains. He was singing about what he believed to be.
Mr. President, we love America, not because all of us have seen the beauty all the time.
But we believed if we kept on working, if we kept on marching, if we kept on voting, if we kept on believing, we would make America beautiful for everybody.
Starting in November, let's make America beautiful again."
Text of a speech by Al Sharpton, delivered at the Democratic National Convention Wednesday night, as transcribed by e-Media, Inc.
Please consider signing this petition to continue the ban on assault weapons.
The national Assault Weapons Ban automatically expires at the end of the summer. Congress must renew this ban or military-style assault weapons will be back on the street and available for sale in our neighborhoods. Don't let this happen!
I have had this post brewing for two to three months now and if I don't let it out now, in this forum, I am likely to blowup at some inappropriate time down the line. I am going to come right out and say ask it:
Are there two bigger hypocrites anywhere on earth than the current President and Vice-President of the United States?
Let's review some of the past and current messages coming from perhaps the most negative of any modern presidential campaign, the Bush/Cheney duo. But before we do I will give a synopsis because this is going to get pretty long (so please read the extended entry text for the full details and wrath of my patriotism).
The gist? Bush and Co have decided to attack Kerry/Edwards on several fronts during the course of this campaign that simply do not make sense. By all means discuss the issues and the perceived weaknesses of Kerry and Edwards. Don't however base your attacks on issues and matters on which you are even more culpable and vulnerable than the person you are attacking! I am presenting three case studies relating to this idea:
Here is an excerpt from a recent piece of (postal) mail I recently received:
Exploding federal spending...the biggest deficits in U.S. history...bloated new "entitlement" programs, all aimed at pandering to voting blocs!
Ever-tightening federal control over education.
Continuing loss of American jobs by outsourcing them overseas.
...This new magazine also puts the spotlight on interventionist, "neocon" foreign policies like the U.S. occupation of Iraq — disastrous policies that are the hallmark of George W. Bush's presidency."
What is this new, leftist, rag that slams Bush and his policies repeatedly during the past year? None other than The American Conservative of course.
For some reason I get a lot of conservative propaganda delivered to my home — usually asking for my money or my support. Usually they are laughable in their arrogance and their transparency, asking for money giving only the reason that Bush must be reelected for "us" to prosper. Usually I throw them out as soon as I see them — except for that one I sent back to Bush simply because he was kind enough to send a postage paid envelope along. Don't worry I wrote him a nice note.
Anyway it would seem that Bush is under attack from both the far right and far left. More interesting however, is that I found myself agreeing with much of what I was reading in this The American Conservative letter — which was clearly not aimed at me but rather to someone who considers themselves *real conservatives* (in fact they stated this many times with phrases like: "Do you have a queasy feeling tat something is horribly wrong with American conservatism today? Like our ship has gone *way* off course?".
Perhaps I, like most Americans I would venture to guess, do not fit neatly within one particular political party in terms of my set of social and political beliefs. I feel that I value the following attributes of a government, or restated, I would want my government to do the following:
1. Protect my inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as well as ensure that all peoples are treated equally and fairly within a framework of laws and rules. This can be done via legislative initiatives, enforcement of laws, military provision, and judicial oversight.
2. Seek to aid and protect the above rights not only for its own citizens but also for any man, woman, or child on the earth whenever possible.
3. Regulate and aid in the construction, operation, and maintenance of the infrastructure of the country, including transportation, sewage, power, and information networks.
4. Make sure that every citizen has access to quality, affordable educational opportunities and medical services.
5. Account for all expenditures of the government and tie each to one of the 4 governmental tasks above. Then equitably and fairly pass the burden of costs for such programs and services on to its citizens.
This list is deceptively simple. Don't be fooled. While I think that the government’s basic “to do list” is simple. The devil is in the details, however and there are some very important points to clarify.
Continue reading "So Far, So Near?"This morning (yesterday I guess) as I made my rounds on the web and came to Jason's site I was once again amazed at the amount of time that boy spends on his site. Now gainful employment has its perks, but the ability to post dozens of links and make several planned out posts has got to take a serious chunk out of your day. I would bet Jason spends 3-4 hours of time in his site or on other sites finding links for his site each day.
I may be wrong. Maybe Jason is some kind of webloggin' idiot-savant.
If he does spend that kind of time, however, we really ought to find a way for him to earn some cash. I started thinking about the idea of selling ad space as some weblogs are now doing but the idea seems to make me ill, plus it really clutters up an interface. Then there is the selling of the wares. Jason could sell T-Shirts and mugs, perhaps Silkscreen can become shareware?
Then it came to me — product placement. Maybe Jason could write about his walk home and how he got a craving for a Chalupa from Taco Bell. Perhaps he could tell the world that he just bought a new Trek mountain bike. Each time he would make one of these posts, even if the product is only mentioned in passing, Jason could make some dough. So why not take a little cash on the down-low for a quick word about a sponsor's product?
In fact, I suspect that this is already the case in the "blog community". I find it interesting that 95+% of the personal computing market consists of PC users, yet, I challenge you to find a non-Mac user on Jason's link list. Most of my friends in the web design/development industry have "switched" to Mac after being PC zealots.
Maybe this is not a coincidence? Maybe it is part of a grander, more sinister plot by Apple to "infiltrate" well-visited weblogs and buy their support with shiny new titanium iBooks and iPods — an elaborate campaign that uses the influence of culture creators at the grassroots level.
I have just returned from watching Fahrenheit 9/11 and I must ask every American to see this film. It would be civically negligent to not see it. I particularly encourage anyone who is uncertain as to who they are voting for as well as anyone who plans on voting for George W. Bush, because it is likely that you, too may not know for whom you would be voting.
Not seeing this film before you vote is like not knowing if your parachute is strapped to your back before jumping from a plane — it would be irresponsible, dangerous, and above all, extremely stupid.
You may not find the way the facts presented in Fahrenheit 9/11 provide a fair portrayal of President Bush and Moore freely admits that he does have an opinion — that Bush is a bad president and worse leader for our nation — and would like to see the American people show him the door on election day, however, Moore's opinions can readily be separated from fact in the film and the facts still remain true for all the world to check and recheck (as Moore and his team have done).
Related:
The Pledge of Democratic Allegiance
New York Times is first major news outlet to admit to inaccurate and lazy reporting after 9/11.
Rather than focus on Bush's accomplishments (don't laugh) the Bush team has decided to go overwhelmingly negative in its campaign with more than 3/4's of their ads being attacks on Kerry.
That would be ok I guess if what they were alleging was true but... check out this story.
On Tuesday, President Bush (news - web sites)'s campaign began airing an ad saying Kerry would scrap wiretaps that are needed to hunt terrorists.
The same day, the Bush campaign charged in a memo sent to reporters and through surrogates that Kerry wants to raise the gasoline tax by 50 cents.
On Wednesday and Thursday, as Kerry campaigned in Seattle, he was greeted by another Bush ad alleging that Kerry now opposes education changes that he supported in 2001.
The charges were all tough, serious -- and wrong, or at least highly misleading. Kerry did not question the war on terrorism, has proposed repealing tax cuts only for those earning more than $200,000, supports wiretaps, has not endorsed a 50-cent gasoline tax increase in 10 years, and continues to support the education changes, albeit with modifications.
It would seem that the Bush philosophy is to sling the mud regardless of truthfulness. At this point is there anything to suggest we should expect anything different from the man? I long for the days when Presidents only lied about blowjobs.
In the latest from the Mess 'O Potamia (courtesy of The Daily Show and Jon Stewart), the U.S. is not allowing soldiers to leave the military once their volunteer term is up. This action constitutes yet another breach of trust between the U.S. government and the all-volunteer armed forces.
I say we round up all the "chickenhawks" who shirked their own volunteer military responsibilities, suit them up and send them over. At least Bush has practice looking the part.
The new PBS Nova Special: World in the Balance is a fascinating look at population trends and the underlying cultural issues causing them.
Some interesting gleanings:
"By 2035, the ratio will be roughly 2.5 to 1. The low ratio of taxpayers to retirees will have significant economic consequences. In the 1960s, when many entitlement programs were established, the ratio was closer to 7 to 1."
"In his book Gray Dawn, Peterson calculates the payroll tax rate would need to be 31.9 percent to cover public pensions and health benefits—a crushing burden on future American workers. But it would be even more severe in Japan and Italy, where the tax rates would need to be 53.2 and 71.5 percent, respectively."
"The locus of global growth and dynamism will shift to the emerging markets, countries like China and India. For the United States, this creates a series of huge challenges. How do we bring along these countries, which by necessity must be our principal allies as we go forward, to create world stability? How do we transform them from the defensive mindset of the Third World to a more expansive role of taking responsibility for global events? Because we're certainly going to need them."
Related and interesting links:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of it laborers, the genius of its scientists and the hopes of its children" — President Dwight D. Eisenhower, April 16, 1953
According to the Brookings Institute:
We (the U.S.) currently spend some $35 billion to operate and maintain our nuclear force... That amounts to 14 percent of all appropriated funds for national defense, even excluding things like the unknown portion of the Navy's costs for strategic antisubmarine warfare.
From a (not so) recent speech:
The FY 2003 defense budget for national defense requests $396 billion — which is an increase of $48 billion, or 14 percent, over the FY 2002 budget.
The proposed increase of $48 billion alone is more than the total military budgets of every other nation in the world.
The President's Fiscal Year FY 2005 budget further accelerates the emphasis towards Pentagon spending and hardware and away from homeland security, intelligence, law enforcement, health & education, and infrastructure. Total discretionary spending on labor health and education across the federal government, for example, would increase less than 1% compared to the 7.1% increase in Pentagon spending, to $401.7 billion, not counting the continuing cost of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Find out more at Sensible Priorities.
A lot has been said about the "selective intelligence" reporting done by the Bush administration and, as it now appears, the CIA, but little has been said recently about the fundamental shift in doctrine to a preemptive policy for use of force.
I'll admit that when I first heard about Bush's comments regarding preemptive strikes I was appalled. After I let it sink in and tried to remove my feelings for Bush from the matter, I began to realize that a policy of using force globally without imminent threat to American's or American interests could be justified. Perhaps it would be better if it were a general policy that was not deployed selectively, but across the board in all countries equally, but what if we did act militarily and stepped in on behalf of any peoples who are being systematically killed or forced into terrible situations?
Could we not use our power in those cases, to try to right wrongs of the world — even if there is no oil or huge markets for our goods in the regions where we step in? I think we could but the implications for our standing in the global community would be great (meaning large not necessarily good).
What if we disregarded certain sovereign "rights" of other countries and claimed that an affront upon any person's natural rights (life, liberty, reproductive freedom, etc.) was an affront upon us all and therefore in the best interests of the world to be stopped. Could we be such a force in the world? Should we? What would the implications be? Would be be hated even more? Maybe we should work on healing our trust issues between our people and government before we set out on such a mission?
I had been preparing to write a post claiming that John Kerry would not be the president come January 2005. This was primarily due to the notion that he isn't charismatic enough, he is from New England, and doesn't seem to inspire the fervor that I think would be needed to oust Bush from the white house this November.
When I was planning that post, I had hoped that either Edwards or Clark would pick up steam and get the nomination. Today's post however is not about that. It is about who the Vice President will be as it seems clear now that Edwards and Clark are only in the race to see who will be picked as Kerry's running mate.
They are both from the South. Kerry/Clark would make a formidable team as far as national defense goes. Edwards would give Kerry those intangibles that are some important yet, so hard to figure. If I was a betting man, I would say Kerry/ Edwards will be the combo, though I have heard speculation that Kerry might choose Clinton as VP - Hillary. I doubt that strategy would work, however.
What about Dean you say? I just don't think the other candidates can stand the man. Do you think the followers would just as easily get behind a ticket with Dean as the second fiddle? I am not so sure it would. It should be interesting however. I am not getting my hopes up, but recent polls suggest Kerry would beat Bush if the election were held today.
...it's just only working for those who show up.
Right now those who show up are those who can afford the cover charge. Big Business, Big Media, Big Labor, etc. What we really have is a democracy with less than 1000 or so participants all of which wield incredible power purchased with the donations to the campaigns that they feel will give them the most return on their investment.
Daily there are stories of companies benefiting from laws passed or contracts given out to contributors and key supporters of politicians. I tend to harp on the Republicans for this — and they do have more wealthy friends — but really this issue cuts across party lines. Sure there are the Halliburton's and the CBS's but there are so many more examples every day.
Given a limited amount of resources how can the average person compete with the requests (demands) of these giant stakeholder? The answer? They can't. Politics in America is all too often about who can promise the most to the majority of Americans and then get by with giving them the least. Perhaps if you can't beat them you just have to become one of them?
Let's pretend that we live in a true democracy for a moment and realize what that really means.
In a democracy it isn't about who is right or wrong but rather who most people agree with or not. Ideally each individual would represent his or her own desires, needs, and values and attempt to better their own situation through social and political means.
In a society as just described, I would, most likely not vote how I do now. I would, because it would better serve me — in my economic situation, to vote Republican. And Republican's would never be champions of the death penalty and abortion and government regulations regarding trade, industry, copyright, etc. But something got screwed up along the way (or was never created quite right to begin with) when each member of society doesn't voice their own opinion and fight for laws and rights that apply to them.
Many Democrats (big D) and quite a few Republicans actually "take up the cause" of those who don't, won't, can't, take it on themselves. This wasn't the way it was intended. How can we resolve this problem that is as old as democracy itself? How can we get to a point when each person feels that they can and should (and must?) voice their beliefs so that they are counted?
Tomorrow's Entry: We have a true democracy at work — it's just only working for those who show up.
I don't even know where to begin with my frustrations with "Big Media" and "Big Business"! It isn't right to ban an ad because it takes issue with a political Person or party. I have been so frustrated after hearing this news and it is all boiling over and I am alternating between rage and despair.
I am not sure what it will do, especially since no one who reads this site is over 60 and therefore won't watch CBS anyway, but you should tell them they have no right to use our airwaves in this way via this petition.
CBS will also claim that this decision isn't an indication of political bias...CBS overwhelmingly favored Republicans in its political giving, and the company spent millions courting the White House to stop FCC reform.
Despite somewhat encouraging remarks from Bush in The Price of Loyalty by the former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind, which recounts the experience of Paul O’Neill, George W. Bush’s first Treasury Secretary, like the following:
it is passages like the following that really trouble me:
MoveOn's finalist in the Bush in 30 seconds contest have been decided upon. My favorite made it (right at the top - Child's Pay) but there are some other very good ads as well.
This draft post is actually a running list that I would keep moving each month so I would remember some issues and links to post about for that month. It would seem I stopped moving it late last June but some of these items are much older than that. New comments are found in ()
Affirmative Action - still needed
House (presumably mine)
War - Means to a Noble End? (could be but not likely very often)
Food? (was I questioning the need for food? was I simply hungry?)
----------
www.kuro5hin.org (must have wanted to link to this site as it is pretty good)
Very pessimistic view of the advertising industry
(one that I was inclined to believe a few quarters ago - though things look to be picking up)
----------
New Zealand's Mixed Member Proportional electoral system
The evolution of democracy. (The lionk above spurred me to want to start a thread about th evolution of democracy but ralized I would nee dto research much more. This idea however resonates with a recent desire of mine to read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States. I am both amazed and appalled at myself for never having done so — though I am most assuradly not alone. Oh yeah, and I was still very bitter about W "winning" the election)
------
blogs to add to the list:
-----
SCiNet · The World Trade System
Miniplants (Mini-plants could be built in mobile containers and shipped anywhere in the world — especially to developing countries. "The mini-plant system is designed in such a way that all the production machinery is fixed on the platform of the container, with all wiring, piping, and installation parts" built in.)
------
http://www.frontoff.host.sk/adrift/index.php (so long ago had I meant to post about this blog that the domain has changed)
--------
Mark had a really great post yesterday and I wanted to make sure to point to it as it is exactly how I feel about many of the positions I am in in life.
Some definitions (also previously posted by Mark) serve to illustrate why I choose the political slant I usually do:
conservative
conservatism
liberal
liberalism
Definitions via dictionary.com
I tend to believe that everything can be better. In my personal life, on the sports teams that I follow, at my workplace, and in society at large, I feel that it is my duty to point out flaws and try to bring about change where change is needed. Sometimes this is labeled troublemaking, or whining. I wouldn't do it if I didn't care, however, I would simply pick another team to root for, change jobs, or move to another country. But because I care about those things in my life, and my country, I must point out its flaws and strive to improve them.
At the Bush in 30 Seconds site you can to vote in the MoveOn.org Voter Fund's political ad contest. The winning commercial will be televised during the week of the President's State of the Union Address this January.
There has been well over a thousand ads submitted. Some are very bad, then there are the copy cat ads like priceless and such, but a few are very good.
Some focus on this quote by Nazi Herman Goehring:
It works the same in any country. He's right. It's that easy. That's what the Bush regime banks on. The distinction between the election campaigns and war, between democracy and oligarchy seems to be closing fast.
I think the best ads focus on just one issue. Here are a few of my favorites:
One thing that really bothered me about the media's handling of the capture of Saddam Hussein was how when it was so graciously announced that "We got 'im" (grammar interpreted) was the reaction of the press corps that were at hand. They cheered. I guess nobody told them that journalists are supposed to be impartial and simply report the news.
Was I glad to see Saddam captured? Sure, but then I don't shape the opinions of the world — hell I can't even get my family to read Alt Text.
First Al Gore declines a Bush/Gore rematch vowing not to run in 2004 — not wanting to lose to Bush twice, then Gore has decided to endorse a candidate that has very little chance to beat Bush in the 2004 election, ensuring an easier time for himself in 2008. Nice commitment to your party and your country.
Sure Dean has a grassroots movement but if any idealistic liberals out there feel Dean has a chance in hell to beat Bush and his corporate $ponsored campaign, they'll surely get a wakeup call in the form of 4 more years of Bush II. Dean has great Internet support, that's nice but when it comes to voting he doesn't have the mass to get people to the polls and overthrow the powers that be. He is too outspoken about the war and that will kill him, the economy is coming back and that will kill him, Bush s going to try to claim victory on Medicare reform (which is a joke - unless reform means making it easier for drug companies and HMO's to make money) which will kill him, and he simply does not have the personal attributes (charisma, looks, stature etc. — the intangibles) to be elected to the highest office in the U.S.
I personally hope something happens in the coming weeks and months to unseat Dean as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. I don't think it will happen — in fact, in a perfect world, it shouldn't happen, but in the world of U.S. politics it is far too often that I find myself voting against one person rather than for another. Unfortunate really.
Can we really stand for the news media to keep bowing to the current (or any) administration? It is ridiculous that a "news" organization like Time would remove an essay by George W. Bush Senior just because it may look bad for his son. In the essay Bush outlines several reasons for not removing Saddam from power. Do they think people can't make up their minds about the differences between Iraq and the world in 1991 and today? Apparently not.
Minnesota Public Radio is launching an "unprecedented examination into the health of American democracy" with its Whose Democracy Is It? feature. The Whose Votes Counts subfeature by American Radio Works is particularly well done.
For years I have felt that I am somehow different. I wished I could just be like everyone else as that would make my life sooooo much easier. Over the past couple years I have been slowly telling friends and even some coworkers - only to hear comments from people ranging from incredulous disbelief to smug admonitions that I would soon change my mind - somehow suggesting that this is some sort of phase I am going through.
Over the same time period I have been slowly seeking out people to form my support network - other people and couples who have decided not to have children.
Some people may feel that I have somehow overstated the level of public (and private) scrutiny and discomfort people in my situation have to deal with. Some may attempt to diminish the impact of my situation – stating that I have a choice like everyone else – I don’t have to live a *childless* life – My wife and I need only do what comes “naturally.” Unfortunately for us, the instincts so many claim to have – both paternal and maternal – seem incredibly weak in us. We are constantly questioning ourselves – maybe something *is* wrong with us – aren’t we *supposed* to do this?
My defense mechanisms kick in at this point, and I usually brandish such armaments as “people simply don’t know what else to do with their lives” or “people aren’t strong enough, or unselfish enough to do what we are doing”. Regrettably, these aspersions, while fun to cast, rarely make me feel any better about my lot and do absolutely nothing to guide me as to how exactly a life without children will be.
My wife and I agree that we have an actual taste of what it might be like to be gay in a society that sees homosexuality as an abnomality (or worse). We know what it is like to lose friends after we acknowledge that kids are not in our future. We know how it feels to contemplate faking it and living a “normal life” just to fit in. We understand the stigma that can be attached to people with our same lifestyle – one of selfishness, coldness or even downright unwholesomeness. Mother’s don’t understand it – won’t accept it. Friends distance themselves, instead finding the favor of others who are more “like them”. And people in general simply do not understand why two otherwise typical people would do something that defies nature itself.
I want everybody to recognize that I do not make this comparison to be flip, or sensationalistic (ok so there is a touch of that) but rather to illustrate the depths of the alienation and frustration my wife and I have felt since we arrived at the conclusion that bearing and raising children isn’t for us some 6 years ago. Maybe if I can do my small part to convey the profound affect others can have on the lives of people like us, it can get better.
A new MIT project called Open Government Information Awareness is off to a fast start in its mission to aggregate information about the U.S. government and it's "going on" - to help "citizens understand the complexities of their government."
I plan on keeping tabs on this site to see how it works out. It would great to "turn the tables" on government and keep tabs on them - and if it can all be done while my lazy ass sits at a computer, all the better.
[Source: CNN]
American's like sleaze. This is evident by the succsess of shows like Jerry Springer, the countless dating reality shows, and Rush Limbaugh. But apparently American's are also less willing to accept lying and cheating when it comes to sleazy/sexy subjects than for those that actually matter. Theseideas are explored in this Boston Globe article.
My friend Mark has some great commentary about the recent accusations by our administration of "Revisionist History"
Does the administration really think that the American public is stupid enough to believe this rhetoric...oh wait.
On a related note: none other than G. W. Bush himself is going to be in Fridley, MN this afternoon. Fridley also happens to be about 1/2 mile away from my current location. Maybe he'll have some rhetoric for me too!
Most permanent amusement parks (as opposed to traveling fairs and circus') have their share of games of chance and skill (or a little of both) as well as a full roster of folks ensuring that you don't go zipping out of the Zipper or Whirling out of the Tilt-a-Whirl. What they do not have however is carnies - carnival workers - at least not the toothless, rough around the edges types you find at events like county fairs. These workers of the permanent parks tend to be a bit more cleaned up, often bordering on professional. I guess, with all the traveling from city to city, carnies take on a certain lifestyle - low maintenance, simpler perhaps, maybe much more like the lives of people in, say, the middle ages.
The FCC stands up for the consumer this time as courts uphold the FCC's long-delayed rule forcing wireless telephone companies to let thier customers keep their phone numbers when they change carriers.
In a move that will likely diminish competition and foster the kinds of things we have seen with Saturday Night Live being censored by it's parent company, General Electric, for being too "mean to it", the FCC has approved, by a 3-2 vote the lessening of the restrictions that are currently on companies that hold TV broadcasting, magazine, newspaper and other media.
Some of the unlikely opponents of the move have been, The National Rifle Association, and media moguls Rupert Murdock and Ted Turner who said this in a recent Washing Post article:
"If these rules had been in place in 1970, it would have been virtually impossible for me to start Turner Broadcasting or, 10 years later, to launch CNN."
[Source: BBC News]
More regulation, not less, is being called for by Fox Television and its head, Barry Diller
[BBC News]
There are a couple great sites that have a ton of information on this action and related news. Here are a few of the better ones:
After all we are allowing these broadcasters the rights to use our airwaves. That's right, as citizen's we own the airwaves and allow these huge conglomerates to profit from our generosity. What do we get in exchange? Fine programming like Fame, For Love or Money, Paradise Hotel, and Celebrity Mole Hawaii
Here are some other rights listed in a Declaration of Digital Democracy.
Of course we have all seen it happening, cell phones are changing us and its more than just the way we communicate. Example: I saw 3 people (all in a row) in the LA airport using the bathroom urinals while talking on their phones.
Another interesting example:
South Americans, where punctuality wasn't a big deal in a pre-wireless world, are with cells more punctual and increasingly less tolerant of lateness.
[via Marc Escobosa]
For the 7th straight year, Minnesota has been named the "Most Livable State" according to Morgan Quitno Press, by ranking such factors as Public High School Graduation Rate, Normal Daily Mean Temperature, Divorce Rate, and Deficient Bridges as a Percent of Total Bridges among some 39 other factors. Poor Mississippi has been named the least livable state for the same period of time.
Other rankings done by Morgan Quitno include: Healthiest States, Most Dangerous/Safest States, and Smartest States (2002)
Today's Salon article, 3rd in their To Breed or Not to Breed series, focuses primarily on the urge or yeaning for children that many would be parents profess to face. I have to put into question the prevalence of such feelings as internal desires rather than external pressures. Don't get me wrong. I am sure there are plenty of people who feel a strong maternal or paternal instinct, but I am just not buying that it is as strong as they claim, or that they are not confusing their feelings of what is "supposed" to be the next step, or what "the reason for life" is, with a feeling of wanting children.
Also: yesterday's article.
Salon is running a series of articles, continuing until Mother's Day that all deal with an issue that is close to home for me: to breed or not to breed (their words not mine). The first of these articles, today's, Married Without Children is a good introduction for those who may be unaware of the pressures placed upon those couples who remain childless by choice as well as a pointed reminder of what is faced, by those who go through it every day.
I never knew this site existed: ChildFree.net
I really feel like American society is going backwards. First my state (Minnesota) passes a conceal and carry gun law last week prompting visions of the wild west with gun-totin' vigilantes wandering the streets, and now there's a whites-only prom.
I have never felt worse about the state of the Union.
Mark has taken the time to make a post I have been meaning to get to and it ties in well with some other thoughts I have been having as well.
Edwardo has been thinking along these lines too.
I plan to make some comments shortly, but I am pretty busy at work all of a sudden. Plus I still have to file my taxes today.
A quick look at the UPN 29's Interactive Troop Wall shows a Sergeant Thomas Dolber.
This is the very same Sgt Dolber that Clinton Deployed to Iraq back in january of 1999 as part of the Very Special Forces.
Bush invokes the Power of Grayskull, yelling "I have the Power!" from rooftops at Camp David...or he simply said he has God on his side despite nearly all U.S. churches' (inlcuding his own) opposition to the war.
[Source: The Rational Enquirer]
A small Minnesota town makes news for it ignorance and promotion of hate and intolerance. Local residents want to take down a French Flag that has flown there for years, because, as one resident put it:
[Source: MPR]
Besides Fox's 24 (which can be flawed at times) and HBO's Sopranos, Six Feet Under (also on HBO) has got to be up there are one of the top shows currently airing. I am renting the first season from NetFlix and I have been most impressed. Now 10 episodes in, what has impressed me most is the subject matter that is being handled on the show. If you have grown up outside of the United States you may not be familiar with how suppressed any talk of death and dying is in this country. Americans, by and large, simply do not discuss dying. The first episode of the series tackles this issue head on in a great way – and since that episode I have been hooked. I had been to more funerals at the end of the first four hours of the series than I had throughout the last 27 years of my life. I think it is health to have a dialog about death here – and what better means of communication for us, fat, lazy Americans, than TeeVee – its like therapy with a remote.
Back Story: Our (Minnesota's) newly elected governor failed to learn from the mistakes of past politicians and made a campaign promise of no new taxes. Unfortunately our state faces the largest budget deficit in its history and because Gov. Pawlenty rejects any proposal that raise taxes at the state level, out of hand, the local cities and townships are forced to raise property taxes. Net effect? More taxes.
I hope that Gov. Pawlenty decides to back this new tax proposal proposing a tax increase of $1 per pack of cigarettes - sorry Jesse, but I like this tax that will bring the taxes per pack in Minnesota from $0.48 per pack to $1.48. Even if he does go along with this bill he will be sure to show it is a tax shift and not an increase. I hate politicians.
In the latest Salon comic, Can you spot the double taxation? Ruben Bolling illustrates how many times the government actually does get a cut of our income - and there was not a mention of the sales tax either.
I am not sure why double taxation gets me so bent out of shape. Is it out of character? That depends what kind of box you want to put me in. Maybe its just that I feel bad for all those poor Bostonians dumping all that tea into the harbor for naught. Would they be rolling over in their graves now if they could see how we are taxed?
So what to do? How about the elimination on taxes for corporations, dividend taxes, and sales taxes (except on gas & "sin" taxes which can be described as usage fees and luxury taxes which cannot be described as anything but socialist) and then installing a highly progressive income tax schedule that taxes the poor little, if at all, and taxes the rich much, much more. And all those trickle-down Republicans were right with me up until the words luxury tax above. What were they thinking? Is this an unfair system? Why should success be "penalized"? We'll because typically when people are "successful" it is because they have capitalized on others efforts as well as their own and because when they are successful they typically use far more than their share of the earth's resources. Instead of complaining then, they should just chalk up the extra taxation as paying for the resources they are taking from others throughout the globe.
For self-proclaimed "realists", the line between idealism and naivety is often very blurry. I can usually recognize when my idealistic viewpoints may border on being naive - then again, sometimes I cannot - but I am hopeful that my view of the future of our world will eventually bear out – that we can someday all live in peace, united under common goals and like freedoms.
Am I wrong to think that the United Nations, in principal, is the closest step we have ever taken as a society towards moving towards that goal? Am I wrong to have a believe that when the U.S. and U.K. troops topple Saddam's regime that the Iraqi people will be better off? Do the ends justify the means? If so where do the ends end? I could probably convince myself that if only the U.S. could topple the regimes and dictatorships around the world - the ones who oppress their people and retard freedom, that maybe the world would be better - be closer to ideal. Expect a counterpoint tomorrow.
America is obviously the most powerful nation on earth both in terms of its military might and it ability to spread its ideas around like so much sand on a beach. The U.S. is also, it cannot be questioned, one of the most generous nations having given hundreds of billions of dollars in non-loan aid to numerous nations around the globe.
In today's Salon.com piece: See no evil Edward W. Lempinen makes a case for a War with Iraq that those of us to the left of center can live with.
The article related how Saddam's regime is responsible for the deaths of what could be as many as a million people and points to this Amnesty International report on the methods and scope of torture, as used by Saddam. I fear however that the case made on Salon today may be a little too welcoming to those opposed to the war. It seems like a nice "out". In my case, perhaps I have let my disdain for the current Bush administration cloud my opinion on the matter - an as a result I have felt pretty conflicted. After all wouldn't life be better without Saddam in charge of his own country? It certainly would almost have to be for the 25 million Iraqi people. Where does it end then? Does it ever end? Can the U.S. systematically replace oppression and intolerance with hope and freedom? At least that would be a movement I could get behind.
This, and more advice can be found here.
Robin Cook, Leader of the House of Commons (that's in the U.K. folks) resigned yesterday in protest of the impending war that no one but the U.K. and U.S. seem to think is necessary. It was apparently a very rousing speech as you can hear here. You may also read the transcript here.
[from PlasticBag]
A quote about Bush, not Saddam from Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri.
This is getting something like 3 signatures a minute. My only question? What is Brand America? Is it simply any American Brand? Is it even possible to live without buying anything from an American company? I mean, do we even have access to foreign toilet paper?
As it turns out Minnesota actually has 2 senators. Sure we have the one who is currently pondering whether or not to go back on his campaign promise to oppose any drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (other broken promises), but we also have one who is a little naive when it comes to the current state of politics on Capitol Hill. It seems that not all his Democratic collegues want to give up their week off to debate the upcoming war with Iraq.
"Absolute silence. No one said a thing," Dayton recalled at his Capitol Hill office Tuesday. After about 10 seconds or so, he said, another senator changed the subject.
For Dayton, the incident was emblematic of what he sees as a failure of Congress to meet its constitutional responsibilities. "My view is the Constitution requires us to issue a declaration of war" if Iraq is to be attacked, he said.
Earlier in the week Dayton wrote this open letter in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. And while there may be some historical inaccuracies (like stating that we have never before considered the option of a preemptive strike) there is certainly evidence that his heart is in the right place.
Now if we could just get him to be a bit more of a vocal, visible, vigilant leader. Sort of like someone else we knew.
Several t-shirts worn by middle/high school students have been banned in recent weeks, the latest coming with a 10-day suspension of the student wearing it.
School officials state that the suspension is justified to protect the student who opened himself up to attack from other students as well as to limit distraction and disturbance in the classroom. I don't think that summarily dismissing the first amendment rights of free speech is the right way to "protect him". I wonder what the consequence would have been if a student had been wearing a red, white, and blue t-shirt with a message like "Get Osama" on it? I doubt that scenario would have resulted in a suspension. It would seem that our right to express ourselves are limited by what popular opinion deems acceptable.
The Ready.gov site has some helpful hint for keeping us Americans safe. Here are a some hints for dealing with chemical threats, for example.
Idlewords has come up with their own version of the Ready site. I think they both have their merits.
I was sent this article a while back. Its from an intelligence firm called Stratfor. It has a slant, but don't we all. I thought that this very practical look at the post war Middle East was informative.
Desert Storm was about restoring the status quo ante. The 2003 war with Iraq will be about redefining the status quo in the region. Geopolitically, it will leave countries like Syria and Saudi Arabia completely surrounded by U.S. military forces and Iran partially surrounded. It is therefore no surprise that the regional powers, regardless of their hostility to Saddam Hussein, oppose the war: They do not want to live in a post-war world in which their own power is diluted. Nor is it a surprise, after last week's events in Europe indicating that war is coming, that the regional powers -- and particularly Saudi Arabia -- are now redefining their private and public positions to the war. If the United States cannot be stopped from redefining the region, an accommodation will have to be reached.
Since I cannot find the original article online and it is rather lengthy, I have included the full text of the article below.
Continue reading "The Region After Iraq"
U.S. is to blame for the N. Korean situation according to N. Korean government radio. I think N. Korea longs to be considered a power in the world and is using the current "distraction" in Iraq as an opportune time to make waves. However, the waves they have been making lately are tidal waves and should not be ignored. I simply do not understand the hardline stance taken against one "threat" who is seeking to aquire weapons of mass destructionTM and the complete lack of interest in a "rougue nation" who is currently developing missle capabilities for the launch of its current nuclear weapons. Did I miss a memo? Bush has to address this issue and stop being the bully - picking on the small, fat kid. I think the recent language of the N. Korean propaganda shows a clear diplomatic problem is present and growing - a bigger kid just showed up at the party:
Some crazy Canadians are rooting out evil. Not that I disagree.
[from if then else]
Here's a solution for the middle east conflict between Israelis and Palestinians: Create a Palestinian state, mark the areas around Bethlehem and a few other shared "holy places" as neutral. Charge a small admission fee to these holy places (perhaps it is progressive based upon what you can pay) and take the proceeds to pay for security and police forces around the entire region. Or Disney could run the neutral area like a theme park. Holyland?
