“It Is What It Is”: Why So Few Americans Follow Soccer

Whenever the subject of soccer comes up – usually around World Cup time – one is sure to be treated to a Snark Parade on all sides.  Some Americans brusquely dismiss the game as frustrating, slow-paced and boring to watch, while Europeans and others counter that Americans are too [insert your favorite cosmopolitan putdown here] to appreciate the game’s virtues: unless there’s lots of scoring  and/or violence, they insist, Americans can’t fix their attention on a game.  The one thing I can’t recall having read about the matter is the most obvious: the good old US & A has long been saturated with a variety of sports and just doesn’t find it a worthwhile proposition to get passionate about another one.  We already have baseball, football, basketball, tennis, and golf (along with a few others – auto racing, horse racing, etc.), each with lots of participants and followers.  Soccer is more popular than it used to be, but it isn’t now and, as far as I can opine, probably won’t become as mainstream as the others. 

And this is where the unflattering (if unfair) characterization of the game as boring comes into play: soccer might catch on better in a saturated field of games if it were more fast-paced and less grounded in the perpetual spectacle of watching each team frustrate the other’s efforts.  It’s a hard sell, in other words – not something you’d expect to catch on like wildfire with people who already have lots of faster-paced options to which their sensibilities are attuned.  My own attempts to watch a few soccer games are probably typical of American attitudes: I appreciated the athletic skill involved in the matches, but just couldn’t get into them enough to make a habit of following the sport.  I prefer basketball and baseball when I’m in the mood to watch a game, which isn’t often – I usually just watch the playoffs and finals of those two sports.

Europeans and others outside the USA grow up watching and playing soccer – I get the sense that it’s their main game and that they don’t have as many major sports as we do.  The Brits have rugby and tennis, but mostly they’re soccer fanatics, right?  It’s probably similar with a lot of other countries: for them, soccer is the sport.  So of course Euros and Africans and Latin Americans are going to develop a feeling for the finer points of the game, and will perhaps draw a life lesson from the showcasing of frustration built into a typical 0-0 or 1-0 match where we Americanos only see paint drying or milk turning sour.  We don’t have the intimate, youth-up connection to soccer that they do, so it makes sense that we don’t appreciate it and don’t see why we should bother learning to appreciate it, either.  The game isn’t deeply rooted in our consciousness, and I doubt that its popularity with recent immigrants and their kids is enough of a phenomenon to tip the scales in its favor nationwide.  It will probably always seem somewhat of an implant here, and any national interest occasional.  Perhaps over decades that will change -- one cannot know for certain, of course.

In sum, there’s no need for all the snark on either side: the game is a fine one, and it’s neither inferior nor superior to American sports; people outside the USA aren’t fools for following it with a passion, and Americans aren’t grands imbéciles for not much caring about it.  The whole situation, as participants in those ridiculous post-game press conferences say when they have nothing to say, “is what it is.”

The Constitution comes to Chicago

"Liberal anti-gun groups are already fuming" says Raw Story's report of the Supreme Court's decision that the Second Amendment constitutes a restraint on State and local government's ability to abridge the right to keep and bear arms.

"People will die because of this decision" says Washington, DC's Violence Policy Center, but the question is really about how many died because of the blanket ban on hand gun ownership, isn't it? Perhaps since suicide is the leading cause of handgun death, some will choose Beretta over barbiturates or the window or driving the wrong way on the expressway.

"It is a victory only for the gun lobby and America's fading firearms industry. The inevitable tide of frivolous pro-gun litigation destined to follow will force cities, counties, and states to expend scarce resources to defend longstanding, effective public safety laws. The gun lobby and gunmakers are seeking nothing less than the complete dismantling of our nation’s gun laws in a cynical effort to try and stem the long-term drop in gun ownership and save the dwindling gun industry."

I don't know about the authoritarians we keep insisting on calling "liberals," but I'm starting to give off some steam here myself. If there is in fact a long term drop in gun ownership, it's a surprise to me, seeing as there are lines outside of gun shops and sales of guns and ammunition are booming. Prices of ammunition are soaring. If the domestic arms industry is suffering, the lawsuits by cities like Chicago are certainly part of it and the ability of foreign makers to sell more cheaply has hurt every American industry.

If these long standing blanket handgun bans have made the few cities that enacted them safer, it's never shown up in any statistics that I've seen. In fact as gun laws have liberalized nationwide, gun related crimes have decreased.

Yes, I've seen the posters, heard the slogans, listened to the blather: show me the numbers. I suggest that just as there was a lot of sound and fury and learned diatribes about the bloodbath that would follow the demise of the National Speed Limit, the facts contradicted that idiot's tale quickly and continue to do so. Facts however, are the enemy of zealots; whether they're anti scary-thing activists or the profiteers who perpetuate the War on Drugs that never worked and which has been responsible for the majority of violent murders.

Show me the effectiveness of the Chicago or Washington DC handgun bans. Show me that these cities have been any safer than cities without them. Tell me I'm part of a gun lobby, tell me I'm trying to dismantle gun laws -- it may convince the choir you preach to, but you certainly are stretching the truth with the intent to deceive. Nothing less than dismantling all gun laws? Hell no, I don't want minors to own guns. I don't want to remove most of the restrictions on where you can carry them, where you can display them openly how you can transport them and certainly not on where and when you can use them. Call me cynical, but in the years since you told me someone was going to "shoot the Avon Lady " if we allowed someone to shoot an armed home invader, invasions have decreased and the Avon lady is still alive and well. It's all been a pack of lies you told to generate revenue and get votes -- and sorry, if you're attacking my freedom, you're sure as hell not a Liberal and if you disagree, you don't speak English very well either. Call me cynical, but it's you willing to ignore the constitution for your own ends, not me.

" We know the facts prove the opposite and that areas of the country with the highest concentration of gun ownership also have the highest rates of gun death"

34,000 gun deaths? What about the fact that 83% of the gun deaths in households containing guns are suicides. Why aren't you mentioning that most of the 'people who will die' if Chicagoans can keep a gun at home are just as likely to have died otherwise. Why is that a danger to me or you? Perhaps the incomplete facts support the argument, but the complete facts suggest that banning rope or prescription pain killers or alcohol or windows that open or razor blades will be as stupid an exercise and of course none of those can protect your life, now can they?

Since the handgun ban never had any effect on the gangsters who use handguns in crimes, except to make burglars a bit bolder, restoration of rights to home defense just isn't going to create that bloodbath, but proof of failure has always been seen as evidence for success and a demand for continuation of policy by authoritarians.

LIFE

Sunday Octopus Edition

(Click on image to enlarge)

Ron Paul and my rights

Non pudet, quia pudendum est;
prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est;
certum est, quia impossibile.*

I really want to like Ron Paul. There have been times when I felt we needed Ron Paul, even if only to keep the others honest. I concur wholeheartedly with many of his ideas about leaving people alone in their homes and private lives; about transparency in financial matters. I share the loathing of surveillance, of being forced to carry papers. I agree about the wars that are useful only to increase government power over domestic affairs. I agree about the importance of the Bill of Rights that neither Party seems to care much about -- and so on, but I am constantly reminded that I really don't know how he can say what he says, nor can I understand his motivations without postulating entities sufficient to send Occam running down the street screaming.

Two years ago he told us that

"Congress refuses to allow reasonable, environmentally sensitive, offshore drilling."

They did, of course allow drilling, but they allowed unreasonable, unsafe and reckless drilling, free of unbiased oversight, which according to Libertarian doctrine should have magically resulted in safe and reasonable results: they allowed the drillers to tell us what was safe enough and what was too expensive to do. They allowed the rig operators to determine what the lives of the workers were worth relative to profits and they allowed them not to give a damn that my grandchildren may never see a clean beach in Florida or eat Gulf shrimp.

It wasn't reasonable, environmentally sensitive drilling that got us into the current mess, now was it? It could have been all that if the laws had been enforced. The blowout might have been prevented if the people in charge of oversight hadn't been on the oil train and had done their jobs; if the regulations themselves hadn't been written by oil men and largely in secret -- if government hadn't been made to look the other way because of a philosophy teaching that government should look the other way. Eleven good men, many of whom saw this coming, would still be alive had we had some very basic oversight -- if we didn't have people insisting that the people who profit write the rules and the people with everything to lose keep silent or be called Communists.

Yet Dr. Paul says it was because of too much government that BP cheated and lied and people died -- that vast tracts of land and sea were destroyed, important industries were ruined, property made worthless -- and old fashioned as it may sound, I think contradictions in logic and fact weaken an argument. Is it a contradiction that oversight in an industry that has the capability of doing unprecedented damage is "too much government" while giving tax breaks and incentives to companies making tens of billions in profits is not?

Yes, it is a contradiction! Are we really so afraid of Communism that we're willing to accept what is by definition, giving state supported irresponsibility to state supported industries while calling it "limited government?" Or is it that the rather insignificant benefit of allowing a foreign corporation to pump American oil and sell it abroad in amounts that really don't matter either in terms of conservation or the price of crude, is a consummation so devoutly to be demanded that risking the end of the world is not worth talking about?

"We still need oil, and a lot of good jobs depend on oil production,"

he advises us. But do we need that oil, from there and do we need it so much we'll gamble our country's future on it, people's lives and livelihoods on grabbing a tiny bit more of it. We should be held hostage so that foreign corporations who pay hardly any taxes yet have a bigger vote than you do can add to their already obscene profits: so that they can play while we pay -- and pay forever.

It's a bad argument, a very, very bad argument, even coming from someone not smart enough to see that -- and Paul certainly is smart enough, so why is adding an insignificant amount to the current supply of oil so desperately important? Why are oil jobs more important than the countless other jobs destroyed by oil spills? Are today's fishing jobs, logging jobs, more important than making sure that there are fish and trees next week? Libertarianism would seem to say so. Libertarianism would seem to promise that passenger pigeons will return now that they were hunted to extinction, that we'd still have the American Bison and the Bald Eagle if we'd been allowed to shoot as many as we liked, but you know -- it's not true.

Look, I don't think I'm channeling Marx when I say that we don't have crime simply because we have too many police, that Enron destroyed lives and fortunes because the Government looked at their books; that people wouldn't rob banks if banks had no guards and robbery weren't illegal. I don't think it's communism to have a government say: no dammit, you can't build a fireworks factory next to that school and if you build it anywhere, you'll install sprinklers and put up no smoking signs, but that's just what people calling themselves libertarians are saying.

I don't understand and I'm quite sure I don't understand because it's not to be understood, it's to be believed. The pieces of the puzzle don't need to fit, the ideas don't need to work. In fact they have a history which proves it so. It's the logic of emotion; the argument from anger and the special pleadings of selfish solipsism: I don't care what happens to my country if oil is a penny a barrel cheaper for two weeks. I don't care if it's a Ponzi scheme because I'm making money. I don't care if I poison the river, my property rights are my property rights. I don't care if your grandmother can't ride my bus -- it's my bus and my right. I don't know if I'm more disturbed by the fact that I don't understand or by the fear that I do understand.

*There is no shame because it is shameful;
it is wholly credible, because it is unsound;
it is certain, because impossible.

(with apologies to Turtullian)

MEET CHARLIE

This poor, skinny little creature stumbled out of the woods and into my life several days ago. He spent two days at the vet’s (I have had so many strays, my vet and I are on a first name basis!) who determined that he doesn’t have any terminal illness. But he did have several ticks embedded around his head, ears impacted with ear mites, hook worms and lung worms. And, as you can see from the photos, Charlie is also severely malnourished.

We have estimated his age at about 8-9 months and suspect Charlie is the victim of casual cruelty, having mostly likely been dumped in the woods or left behind when his people moved out of some house nearby. While he looks pretty pitiful still, this is a great improvement from that first day.

I named him after Charlie from the Willy Wonka movie; two tow headed boys who didn’t have much going for them but still remained sweet and hopeful. Charlie the cat wants only to be with others, cuddled and petted although it is difficult to pet him much for all the exposed bony prominences.

Whoever did this will not pay the price for such cruelty under the newly minted NC Susie’s Law, named after this poor pup who was tortured and burned by her owner. His lenient sentence of probation sparked such outrage, Susie became the poster pup for the law to offer stiffer sentences for this kind of evil. Susie has patches of bare scarred skin and most of her ears are gone but she has new owners who say she remains a sweet, loving animal. You have to ask yourself WTF is wrong with someone that they would do this to a helpless animal?

Charlie on the other hand would not be seen as tortured but merely abandoned. I would cut his former owners some slack except for the fact that there are at least two animal shelters and several veterinary offices in the area where they could have put him in a box with holes and left him on the doorstep.

I have long been of an opinion that with our advanced technology too many people live that shouldn’t. So we have these pus bags walking on the same earth and breathing the same air.

Lock them up in a deep dark hole and throw away the key, please!

Loonies, Moonies and Republicans - oh my!

I remember reading Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon many years ago. It's about an old Soviet apparatchik fallen from grace and thrown into one of Stalin's prisons to await some miserable and sordid fate in the Lublyanka cellars. It came to mind because there's a mention in it of group photos of the Old Guard, the early, idealistic, committed Communists out to make a better world and how one by one, the official photos on the office wall were replaced by newer ones with certain people missing, certain others added.

It was long before digital photography and before it made it so easy for unscrupulous, devious, dishonest, America hating, indecent propagandists to produce photos of John Kerry and Jane Fonda, for instance, or Barack Obama saluting improperly -- and do it far better than old Ivan in the back room could with a razor and some glue. It is far too easy for the kind of trolls who work for right wing rags owned by foreign born lunatics like the Washington Times to produce photos of Elena Kagan in a black Turban so as to insinuate perhaps, and without any sense of journalistic integrity, that she's a terrorist supporter as well as a probably homosexual cross dresser and part of an "ominous plot" to insinuate Sharia Law into this country.

It's far too easy for an American public so insanely desperate, so grossly, childishly irresponsible that they will get into bed with the Moonies just to have one more idiotic piece of dung to fling at the opposition. It's so easy for a public who never reads to miss the parallels between what they do and what the people they claim to hate did. It's so easy for an infantile America to dismiss someone for having Communist cooties because they simply haven't the brains to do much more and certainly can't be expected to discuss her actual qualifications and record.

It's so hard for a person who likes to see people get their just desserts when those people are the country he so wishes to be proud of.

ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS OF THE PLANET

Octopus Edition

Credit Tom Tomorrow.
Click on image to enlarge.

It's Not Personal, Sir

Back in March, in a post entitled "Into The Fog", I requested, "...if any of you can think of a convincing argument in favor of continuing the war in Afghanistan...something other than the reason most of the kids who are there give, which is 'to look out for my buddies here'...by all means, fill me in." Today, I just finished the Rolling Stone  article by Michael Hastings.  You know, the one that will likely cost General McChrystal both his job and his spot in history; hereafter, he'll be known as the general who actually believed that a friendly Rolling Stone journalist would be one of the guys, first, and a journalist, second.  I wasn't buying our chances in Afghanistan in March, before our commanding generals buckled so publicly under the strain, and I'm not buying them now, either...for the same reasons.


We will leave Afghanistan because we can't afford to fight that war no matter how many good reasons we find.  It's the economy, sir.  It isn't personal.


 In my opinion, Michael Hastings should not have published that article; that might make me look hopelessly old school, but I don't care; Hastings had to have understood that journalists who are given personal access to war commanders still have some modicum of responsibility to national interests.  Nor, of course, should McChrystal have given Michael Hastings access to his inner circle; that was the failure of judgment that puts all the general's other, possibly better, decisions in a different light.  Once that access was granted, I don't think McChrystal, who's known for his swagger and his hard-ass humor, should have been so trusting of Hasting's judgment--or so lacking in self-restraint or restraint of his staff--because journalism has its priorities; they are well-known and they are not personal.


My husband, who's had some exposure to military hubris, thinks the general must have been really pissed at somebody, that he must have known what he was doing.  I don't have that much faith in hubris.  McChrystal's a four-star; he's got exactly one commanding officer, whether he agrees with that commander or not...whether he agrees with the commander's choice of vice commander or not.  That's the chain of command.  Is this a war, or isn't it?  This isn't about Stanley McChrystal, although he's the guy who now needs to fall on his sword.  It isn't personal. 


While I don't agree with Hasting's choices of what to include and what to exclude from his story, "The Runaway General, " (odd choice of words), I have to agree with his concluding paragraph.

After nine years of war, the Taliban simply remains too strongly entrenched for the U.S. military to openly attack. The very people that COIN seeks to win over – the Afghan people – do not want us there. Our supposed ally, President Karzai, used his influence to delay the offensive, and the massive influx of aid championed by McChrystal is likely only to make things worse. "Throwing money at the problem exacerbates the problem," says Andrew Wilder, an expert at Tufts University who has studied the effect of aid in southern Afghanistan. "A tsunami of cash fuels corruption, delegitimizes the government and creates an environment where we're picking winners and losers" – a process that fuels resentment and hostility among the civilian population. So far, counterinsurgency has succeeded only in creating a never-ending demand for the primary product supplied by the military: perpetual war. There is a reason that President Obama studiously avoids using the word "victory" when he talks about Afghanistan. Winning, it would seem, is not really possible. Not even with Stanley McChrystal in charge. 

And not even when he's not.

Stanley McChrystal made the mistake of getting personal with the people he disagreed with in front of a journalist who owed him no allegiance. That's the kind of mistake that you and I might make weekly, which is why they don't hand those stars out to just anybody--which is why we expect more from any four-star general. However it goes when the general meets his CinC, it will be about the mission, the war, and the nation's capabilities.  It will absolutely not be personal.

Judge rules against deep water drilling moratorium

Why does this not surprise me?

Today a federal judge in New Orleans blocked a six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling that the Obama administration had ordered after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

In a 22-page ruling, Judge Martin L. C. Feldman of Federal District Court issued a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of a May 28 order halting all floating offshore drilling projects in more than 500 feet of water and preventing the government from issuing new permits for such projects.

Citing the economic harm to businesses and workers in the gulf caused by the moratorium, Judge Feldman — a 1983 appointee of President Ronald Reagan — wrote that the Obama administration had failed to justify the need for the sweeping suspension, which he characterized as “generic, indeed punitive.”

He wrote that “the blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger.”

The White House immediately responded by saying that it would appeal the decision.

Good. But what hope is there with the current and seemingly currupt Supreme Court?

The Obama administration had argued that a six-month suspension of deepwater drilling was necessary so that the government could complete its investigation of the Deepwater Horizon accident, and make sure that other drilling operations on the outer continental shelf were safe.

But the order was challenged by a coalition of businesses that provide services and equipment to offshore drilling platforms. The companies sued, asking the judge to declare the moratorium to be invalid and arguing that there was no evidence that existing operations were unsafe.

If I remember correctly, there was no evidence the Deepwater Horizon drill was unsafe either - until it exploded killing 11 workers and  spewing anywhere from 67 million to 127 million gallons of oil into the Gulf.

I'm sure businesses that rely on oil companies to stay afloat are deeply concerned about the welfare of the residents, wildlife and environment in the area. Do I hear the echo of BP in the background?

The State of Louisiana filed a brief supporting the lawsuit, arguing that the moratorium would damage its economy.

I can appreciate the concern of Gulf Coast residents for their livelihood and I wouldn't want to be in their shoes - not for a day, not for a minute. But sometimes short-term sacrifices have to be made to ensure that the future will provide a safer and more secure life style.

Catherine Wannamaker, a lawyer for environmental groups that intervened in the case and supported the moratorium, called the ruling "a step in the wrong direction."

"We think it overlooks the ongoing harm in the Gulf, the devastation it has had on people's lives," she said. "The harm at issue with the Deepwater Horizon spill is bigger than just the Louisiana economy. It affects all of the Gulf."

UPDATE FROM MOTHER JONES: According to the most recently available financial disclosure form for US District Court Judge Martin Feldman, he had holdings of up to $15,000 in Transocean in 2008. He has also recently owned stock in offshore drilling or oilfield service providers Halliburton, Prospect Energy, Hercules Offshore, Parker Drilling Co., and ATP Oil & Gas

Comparative speeches 101

Nonsense and dribble is expected from the right and they deliver on cue. Such pettiness and snarkiness coming from the left is disheartening, disturbing and quite possibly unjustified.

Around the Blogosphere, in articles and comments, President Obama was criticized by progressives for merely giving a pep talk and for not offering a plan to develop alternative energy sources. This speech was about the oil spill; it was not about recycling or growing our own food.

If he were Abraham Lincoln or Franklin D. Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy, he would have done this or said that, an echo heard throughout cyberspace.

Truth is, most of us have romantic and fanciful notions about the great speeches of Abe, FDR and JFK. We have memorized and recited passages  in school and we have seen the same snippets over and over on David Letterman. But what most of us haven't heard or read are the entire speeches.

Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865

The last paragraph is what many of us had to memorize in school:

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and for his orphans, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and a lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

Lincoln offered no plans on how to end the Civil War. The speech was described as "theologically intense." In fact, Lincoln mentioned God six times in this very short speech - four paragraphs in all.

Full text.

Franklin D. Roosevelt's Declaration of War, December 8, 1941

In FDR's brief Declaration of War against Japan, most likely it is the first paragraph that people remember the most.

"Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan."

Roosevelt did not elaborate on how we were going to win the war, or urge people to buy war bonds or plant Victory Gardens. That would come later. His speech was only slightly longer than Lincoln's. But what he did say in the next to last paragraph was:

"With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. So help us God."

God: 1

Full text.

John F. Kennedy, Bay of Pigs Invasion, April 20, 1961

I think it's safe to say that the most famous quote from any of Kennedy's speeches was from his inauguration. The words moved the entire nation - well, at least the Democrats and probably a lot of young people.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

God: 3

Kennedy presented his Bay of Pigs address before the American Society of Newspaper Editors. It is described as a motivational or inspirational speech.

He outlined three lessons that should have been learned from recent events: 1) the forces of communism are not to be underestimated, in Cuba or anywhere else in the world; 2) this Nation, in concert with all the free nations of this hemisphere, must take an ever closer and more realistic look at the menace of external Communist intervention and domination in Cuba; 3) we face a relentless struggle in every corner of the globe that goes far beyond the clash of armies or even nuclear armaments. (His words.)

God: 0

Full text.

John F. Kennedy, Cuban Missile Crisis, October 22, 1962

Kennedy's Cuban Missile Crisis speech was a work of art as were most of his speeches. I think it is safe to say that he had a rare gift - and better writers than any president has had before or since.

Just as Roosevelt accused Japan of planning the attack on Pearl Harbor for a long time and lying about it all that while, Kennedy accused the Soviets of planning and preparing a series of offensive missile sites on the island of Cuba and lying.

The president detailed seven major steps: 1)  put a strict quarantine on all offensive military equipment under shipment to Cuba; 2) continue and increase close surveillance of Cuba and its military buildup; 3) to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States; 4) reinforce our base at Guantanamo; 5) call for an immediate meeting of the Organization] of Consultation under the Organization of American States; 6) call for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council; 7) to call upon Chairman Khrushchev to halt and eliminate this clandestine, reckless, and provocative threat to world peace.

At the end, Kennedy said:

The path we have chosen for the present is full of hazards, as all paths are; but it is the one most consistent with our character and courage as a nation and our commitments around the world. The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender or submission.

Our goal is not the victory of might, but the vindication of right; not peace at the expense of freedom, but both peace and freedom, here in this hemisphere, and, we hope, around the world. God willing, that goal will be achieved.

God: 1

Full text.

Barack Obama, Gulf Oil Spill, June 15, 2010

I will be the first to say that this wasn't Obama's finest hour - or fifteen minutes. His speech did not measure up to Kennedy's on the Cuban Missile Crisis but it was better than FDR's Declaration of War and even Lincoln's second Inaugural address.

Our country is an old hand at war but this spill is the worst environmental crisis we've ever faced. I'm not sure there's anyone in the White House, or the science and engineering fields, who really knows what to do. Being an arm chair engineer is always easier than being on the team trying to figure out how to get this monster under control. I doubt if the president ever took an engineering course in his life.

I wonder if people truly understand that, "Because there has never been a leak of this size at this depth, stopping it has tested the limits of human technology."

Obama offered a battle plan consisting of three stages: 1) clean up; 2) recovery and restoration of the Gulf Coast region; 3) ensure that a disaster like this does not happen again - "I have established a National Commission to understand the causes of this disaster and offer recommendations on what additional safety and environmental standards we need to put in place."

I wonder if people remembered this statement the next day:
Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent, third party.

God: 3 

Full text.

1970s: Helen Reddy - I Am Woman

Women have come a long way, Baby. Since the 1970s when Reddy wrote I Am Woman, my sisters have made huge strides in the political and corporate arenas. Yet many battles continue - the fight for equal pay and reproductive rights, the fight to be treated as the victim in rape and spouse abuse. Minority women have an even larger battle.

Women are still fighting the characterization of our sex as mere pieces of meat. Whole magazines feature illustrations of nude or semi-nude women. TV and billboard ads feature women in suggestive poses with pouty lips and curvaceous bodies.

Maybe this is to be expected in the world of advertising and magazines. After all, boys of all ages will be boys and I suppose playing out their sexual fantasies by looking at girlie pictures should be expected.

But I'm having a hard time accepting this - especially on normally progressive blogs published by supposedly intelligent men who usually write well about the issues of today. Girlie pictures are insulting to most women. You have the right to post such crap. We have the right to change channels - perhaps feeling some disappointment that in this day and age, in this year of 2010, all men seem to be created equal in the world of the meat market.

THE MSM's GUT BRAIN AND OTHER ATROCITIES THAT PASS FOR NEWS ANALYSES

I read Neil Postman's "Entertaining Ourselves to Death" years ago and recommend it to anyone seeking to understand the shallow and the absurd that passes for political punditry on cable and network teevee.

Brian Johnson and Bliss Green write for the blog Postmanisms and have posted a thoughtful and at the same time depressing analysis of how the MSM have shamelessly abandoned any pretense of doing their job of elucidating for the American people the complex issues surrounding the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Instead, we've been given front-row seats to a circus of idiots trying to outdo themselves in irrelevancy and inanity, from Chris Matthews of MSNBC whining about having to hear, more than once, that President Obama's Energy Secretary, Dr. Steven Chu, has a Nobel Prize in physics, to the foolish clowns at FOX News repeating GOP talking points, calling BP's $20 billion fund to compensate those who were financially injured by the spill--calling it a "shakedown."


But I'll let these two talented writers explain it in their own words:


"The phylogeny of Immediacy, Nowness, Hysteria, and Contingent Finality came together this week in a mere 24-hour news cycle (more like 12 hours of real time) that saw President Obama described first as wishy-washy, bland, and listless, and then as a bully enforcer demanding corporate accountability, which would make him the most relaxed “bully” in history. Doris Kearns Goodwin, a respected popular historian, practices the craft of history in situ, because her expertise fools you into thinking her snap judgments have depth. Newsweek‘s Howard Fineman is upset that the President–like an eighteenth-century poet–didn’t have the “fingertip feel,” because after all the President is only a performer, like a reality-show contestant, and his “appearance” is therefore more significant than talking about what he is doing, is not doing, could be doing, or cannot do (i.e. swim down to the well and sit on it, as some critics seem to want). Chris Matthews is bothered that President Obama mentions Secretary of Energy Dr. Steven Chu’s Nobel Prize cred because, well, Chris, in his official TV role of “feeling” for the “ordinary American” believes that that fictional category of person feels condescended to when someone who might actually know more than they do renders a thoughtful opinion.


The staff here at Postmanisms don’t, like the “staff” at TMZ, “hang out” in “cubicles” “casually talking” about stuff they “just happened to see.” Would that our Instant Now media felt any obligation to think before speaking. An analyst’s gutbrain, the educated-person’s version of Beavis and Butt-head mocking videos on MTV, is the only thing TV wants. Let’s face it: serious thought is no fun to watch, and most viewers have been well-trained by the medium to have no patience for extended argument or analysis. At least Roger Ebert always had a longish essay of thoughtful critique behind his thumbs-up/-down. The daily reduction of serious issues (i.e. that a terminal addiction to oil is the only reason the Gulf is going to die) to matters of perception and style (a reflection of the shallowness of the medium itself) turns the entire TV-reported world into the equivalent of TMZ: the world exists only to be paraded in front of us and judged, minute by minute, each judgment final, until the next minute."

Watch this.

The Devil and the Oil Spill

Fox and Palin.

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my groaning?

Yes, we have people out in the street screaming about tax increases that never were and while Federal income taxes are lower than they've been in 50 years. We have Fox giving air time to the airhead who has taken time out from chanting "drill baby drill" like an over-aged cheerleader for the oil cartel to chastise President Obama for not doing what he in fact is doing and for not knowing how to do what it was BP's responsibility to know how to do and to be able to do. I wonder if she took time to take a shower and change clothes before switching from 'hands off the oil industry' to 'we need government intervention and oversight.'

"Well then what the federal government should have done was accept the assistance of foreign countries, of entrepreneurial Americans that have had the solutions that they wanted presented."

Well, of course that's what the administration is doing. Looking for assistance from countries where drilling is subject to much more oversight and where Fox ranteth not. Perhaps it's time to ask that "gotcha" question once again. So what newspapers and magazines do you read Mrs. Palin? Oh, I see -- you watch Fox.

Of course there was a 4 week delay in waiving the federal Merchant Marine Act of 1920, which mandates that all goods shipped between U.S. ports be transported in U.S.-built, U.S. owned and U.S. manned ships.Of course there was a long delay during which BP didn't tell us how bad it was and that they couldn't have it stopped in short order, but face it, the Grand Old Bastards have so much fun and profit with their daily game of pin the tail on the President, they're even criticizing the pants he wears when talking about the oil spill, unlike the Commander guy with his costumes.

Does it really matter whether the president has apparently made sure that we won't have to pay for this disaster by having BP set aside 20 billion in escrow? No, even that is proof of perfidy, since it will somehow hurt the Louisiana economy and it basically is a socialist plan to redistribute wealth says the irrepressible Bachmann. Win or lose, we lose, if you ask the New Right.

But it appears that God wants no part of this sound and fury and we're going to have to fix it ourselves. If only we only had to battle the Devil and the oil spill here and not the legions of lying idiots.

Republic of Arizona

"Madness is something rare in individuals- but in groups, parties, peoples, ages it is the rule."

-Nietzsche-

The people who wrote the US constitution never intended to give citizenship to "aliens" says John Kavanagh, a state representative from Arizona. Yes, of course he's a Republican. He apparently has some cryptic powers allowing him to know just what Jefferson and Madison were thinking about allowing folks to become citizens that isn't reflected in the Constitution, or perhaps it's just another line of Republican bullshit, seeing as we didn't have the kind of immigration laws in the mid 18th century we instituted in the early 20th century. The fact is that the constitution, for from being anti-alien, doesn't really mention immigration requirements or quotas at all.

I don't think Alexander Hamilton, for instance, had to get a green card to become our first Secretary of the Treasury, a bona fide Founding Father, signer of the Constitution, economist, and political philosopher; Aide-de-camp to General George Washington during the Revolutionary War and a leader of nationalist forces calling for a new Constitution. He was a Caribbean immigrant, you know and illegitimate to boot. He just came here for an education, liked the place and stayed and prospered, as so many modern illegals do.

Kavanaugh says the proposed Arizona law denying citizenship to children born here to parents with expired or non existent visas isn't unconstitutional. He's wrong, of course, but whether it is or isn't, the establishment of requirements for citizenship, or for legal presence in the US is a power not granted to Arizona, to establish or to enforce. Article 1, Section 8 reserves the power To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, to the Congress of the United States alone and that one would think, should be that.

Like many politicians, Kavanaugh is good at answering a question that wasn't asked and pretending to have won the contest. Like many self-styled Libertarians, he talks about the constitution and the rule of law a lot, but what he and his ilk seem to want is the power to do as they please to anyone they please without paying any attention to that much abused and often inconvenient document or the nation for which it stands.

Is Libertarianism one of those things, like Christianity and altruism and "pure" capitalism, that are wonderful to contemplate, but don't exist or can't exist in practice? Perhaps some day I'll find one that isn't just using the pose to advance some private motives. Perhaps not.

Fear and loathing in Oklahoma

The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming! Some day, anyway -- it could happen, and Oklahoma isn't OK with it. I mean, we really need to trash our secular constitution and make judicial decisions rely on a few selected Jewish commandments palatable to Christian godbothers, but we are simply not going to sleep at night unless we make it illegal for Judges to be swayed by other, illegal religions like Islam; not in Oklahoma.

No, Okies need to "Save our State" and have proposed an amendment to the State constitution making it illegal for judges to reference Sharia or any other international law and as 0.8% of Oklahomans are Muslim, we can't waste any more time in saving the state from the bearded menace. What is needed is a "pre-emptive strike" says State Representative Rex Duncan (Republican of course.) "Court decisions ought to be based on federal law, or state law" says he.

Of course I agree that they should. yet Federal law just might have a problem with the legislature interfering with judicial decisions and process. Beyond that, I think Federal and State laws should be free of any dependence on Christian doctrines as well, but we're talking about Oklahoma here and we're talking about Republicans everywhere and how can we expect even a modest amount of moral or logical consistency?

On Big And Big; The President Speaks From The Oval Office

This afternoon, as we usually do when we're in San Diego, we picked up our little grandson, age 3, at pre-school.  We always have a snack ready to give him as soon as he's buckled into his carseat; today it was grapes--his favorite.  I sit in the backseat with him while my husband drives, and our backseat sessions usually involve learning for him and for me; he learns about what big people think is important and I learn about what's really important.

Today, he was enchanted by a tiny grape among the bigger, juicy ones.  He's learning the language so fast, we can see improvement daily, so I used the opportunity to emphasize new words for small: tiny, little bitty, smaller than.  We also worked on the brand-new concept of middle-sized and categorized each grape accordingly.  I knew this lesson would be a hit, because for about a week or so he's been announcing, after every meal and snack, "I'm getting big and big!  As we worked on comparative sizes, I realized he'd been trying to say that, by eating well, he was getting something that adds big and big--he was saying that he's getting bigger.  When I echoed that term back to him, he nodded firmly...yep, that was what he'd meant all along.  


After liberry books ("you bemember, Gigi: strawberry, blueberry, liberry?"), after making a big tent from quilts and cushions in the living room (illuminated by a slashlight), after his Mommy came to pick him up, my husband and I watched on my laptop as the President spoke from the Oval Office on the Gulf oil spill crisis.  

The speech was, as usual, perfectly delivered and, as usual, we almost entirely approved of it.  We approved of the order in which he brought out his points of emphasis.  We approved of his insistence on third party handling of the funds BP must advance.  We very much approved of the way he clearly stated what we've all been thinking, what's been making us all a little sick with anxiety since we realized that the spill wasn't being contained: this spill has got to be the signal event that breaks our last ounce of denial on climate change and the addiction to fossil fuel that has caused it.  


This is it, America.  There's not another moment to be wasted on denial, fear, and ignorance.  There's not a thought to be spared for the foolishness of leaving this up to someone else, someone more powerful, someone more connected, someone other than me.  I can't pretend for one more minute that things will be okay for my grandson's future..."somehow."  Time's up.


The President reached in and touched us all, conservative and liberal, on our proudest flesh: he invoked our pride in the way we pulled together to win World War II and to put men on the moon.  He said we've got that history to draw on as we try to believe we can  break our oil addiction, rescue our country and our planet,  and recover our beautiful Gulf.  He was stirring and he was right.

Afterward, my husband said that this is bigger than the moon landing, because that only involved a small segment of our population and only one major administrative entity, NASA...although we all certainly enjoyed the glory.  This effort, he pointed out, will take every single one of us.

I would argue that this is bigger than the necessity of winning World War II; there was always hope that mankind could ultimately overcome the worst evil we'd yet encountered as long as mankind, itself, could survive.  This time, that survival is in question.  The President's speech came as close to naming the unnameable as a President should at this juncture.  I knew what he meant, didn't you?

This is bigger than the moon, bigger than the war.  This is big AND big.

VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA

Most of you know that I can’t dwell too long on depressing, negative subjects without trying to find a balance and so I bring you this bit of brightness that recently caught my attention HERE.

“1.6 million more Americans volunteered in 2009 and spent 100 million more hours helping their communities last year.”

That brings the total number of volunteers in 2009 to 63.4 million. This is the biggest increase in a single year since 2003. These numbers only include those volunteers involved in formal organizations and not those who give in other ways.

"People are turning toward problems, rather than away from them,… people want to be part of the solution. They want to make a difference."

This is the kind of example we SHOULD be setting for others and the lesson we should be teaching America’s children; that Americans work together in times of need to give each other a hand up. That we SEE each other and recognize the human being looking back.

If you want to look for volunteer opportunities, here is the link to Volunteer.Org to get you started. A little time, a lot of time, organizations will be happy to get whatever you can give and you'll be part of a group that is over 63 million strong.

That's power!

Spy in the Sky

You expect the smaller government gospel in Texas and Texans will tell you that the damned government should stay out of private matters like dragging gay men to death behind pickup trucks, instituting safety standards for drilling rigs and demanding proper accounting practices from Bush beloved companies like Enron, but there's an alternate logic in Texas; one that has no problem with the government spying on us with unmanned drones. Following us down the road recording our movements and our speed and our destinations, peeking into our back yards. The largest of these things are as big as airliners and the smallest, I'm told, can fly right into your window. Some are remotely operated, some are almost autonomous. They can see in the dark, they know when you're sleeping; they know when you're awake -- well, maybe not, but they know if you've been good or bad.

Of course there's support for patrolling the borders with these machines, which are much cheaper to operate and aren't dangerous to the operators, but they pose a collision hazard to civil aviation and the FAA, pushed by manufacturers, fear-mongering politicians and the government, has been trying to balance the need for aviation safety with the lust for more government surveillance. Texas officials, including Gov. Rick Perry, Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, and Rep. Henry Cuellar, are so hot to employ drones on the border and who knows where else that they're trying to twist the President's arm. Cornyn, for instance is blocking a Senate confirmation vote on Michael Huerta, Obama's nominee for the No. 2 FAA job, until he gets his way.

Of course there are legitimate uses for drones, but there are legitimate dangers, not all of which concern collisions and the urge to deploy more eyes in the sky; the insistence that we can and must trust the government with another spy tool seems to make liars out of the people making careers out of telling us we can't trust anyone but them.

THE EPITOME OF CRAZY

I thought inciting the violent overthrow of the U.S. government was tantamount to treason. Why isn't this man under arrest for sedition?

Below the surface

Sometimes I meet the nicest people, kind, outgoing, articulate and with many shared interests. A Saturday afternoon barbecue, a manicured garden, a convivial crowd of fellow boaters; many with experiences I can only envy, of cruising the beautiful and exotic parts of the globe.

I mention a planned sail to the Leeward Islands and a stop in beautiful Dominica with it's mountains and waterfalls and hot springs and black sand beaches like the Hawaii of long ago. "Maybe I'll never come back," I say.

"Maybe we'll all have to go elsewhere" says she, "before those Liberals ruin the country with all that debt and, you know before that Obama destroys capitalism."

There's that sick, sinking feeling again; the realization that beneath the tranquil surface, there's a dangerous reef to rip your bottom out. I should have known; but facing the isolation one feels when surrounded by people passionately inimical to your every thought and steadfastly obstinate in resisting any facts or any argument that might diminish the comfort of their cherished anger, makes one too desperate to believe someone might not have been infected with that alien zombie virus. Damn it, I let my guard down again.

"I can't watch the news any more, it's all Liberal" she says. Perhaps she doesn't, but she's listening to someone. Someone is not telling her that the debt began so soar in terrifying fashion when George entered the white house; has soared under every Republican president since Ford or reminding her that the tax cuts that were supposed to increase government revenues didn't and that were supposed to create new jobs created no private sector jobs whatever while government jobs and government coasts soared. Someone isn't telling her that our senseless military endeavor that appears now to have been embarked upon for profit has already cost more that World War II and continues to burn through billions. That kind of debt doesn't count, only debt that might help Americans who aren't already in the club. No -- best not to listen to the Liberals on the TV news.

"It's true that 24 hour coverage leads to a format that's mostly speculation and opinion and it's true that at least one network simply lies and invents and misquotes and twists facts, " I said. Her brow began to furrow. "That's why I try to read as many sources as I can. "I read three or four to a dozen newspapers most every morning," I say. " I listen to everything from Al Jazeera to Haaretz on line." I can see the suspicion growing, the bestial voice in her head growling liberal.

I'd ask her to define liberal, but I know she's define it as its opposite. I know she has no awareness of current events, history or anything outside the Yacht Club Republican cocktail-hour school of economics and social criticism. I know there's no point in flexing a consciousness that's been ossified in one position for 75 years, so I do what I always have to do and smile and say:

"Oh, don't worry, it's a strong country and I'm sure we'll survive," even though I'm far from certain.

Dear CinC USA

Dear Commander in Chief,

You've got a tough week ahead of you.  Ignore the polls; ignore the press.  Listen to your own instincts, your own heart.  Be yourself.  Talk to your trusted advisors.  Convene the people with information and ask for their input, as you have in the past.  Talk it over with Michelle.  Pray, if that's what you usually do.  Then, do it your way.

Respectfully,
Nance

Something's Funny Here

'Nuff Sorry, Already:  I watched this clip on MSNBC today while riding the recumbent bike at the YMCA.  Think there's something funny about South Carolina politics?   It struck me as ha-ha funny; after the way SC has sacrificed any claim it ever had on the nation's respect (and Lindsey Graham DOES try), how could anybody still act surprised by the state's politics?  We've become quite possibly the ONLY comic relief in the national news these days.



Folks, just in case you hadn't put this together yet, the Palmetto State could rival Hamid Karzai's government for corruption.  I've apologized quite adequately to those of you who live in real states, so that's it; that's all the sorry I'm sayin'.  Hereafter, anyone who points out that SC has some funky things going on politically will have to apologize to me for being as dull witted as ol' Alvin, here.  I just hope they paid him a fair graft; unemployment has been over 16% in Manning, SC.

ARIZONA DRACONIA - PART 2

Not long ago I answered the question from a relative about how bad things must be in Arizona to compel them to enact their new draconian immigration laws. The post can be found HERE.

What I found in researching that post, using statistics from the State of Arizona is that while hate crimes against blacks, hispanics, gays and Jews was on the rise, crime in the state was declining as shown on these graphs:

A recent article HERE gave me the idea of revisiting Arizona's claims of ornerous immigration problems. Amazingly, not only has Arizona's immigrant population, both legal and illegal been steadily declining but with the impending enactment of the new law, Hispanics are leaving Arizona in large numbers:

"Arizona’s immigrant population, which is more than 90 percent Mexican, has already been leveling off for two years now, due to the recession."

"Arizona’s hard-hitting immigration law is driving Hispanics out of the state weeks before the controversial law goes into effect."

School enrollment is down and businesses who had Hispanic patrons are reporting losses of revenues. Looks like the new law will not only free up a few low paying jobs but may have some unintended negative consequences.

So, once again, I ask the question; what DID prompt the Draconian measures enacted by the Arizona governor and legislature?

(Paw Tip to my favorite cephalopod for the great graphs!)

Today’s IOKIYAR

Wow seems like just this week the right wing was in a tizzy over Helen Thomas saying she thought the Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine.” Thomas paid for her insensitivity swiftly and severely: she lost her job, was dumped by her speakers’ bureau, and basically had her long, groundbreaking, 60+ year legacy in the media destroyed in a matter of days.

Anyhoo, with that little controversy fresh in everyone’s minds you’d naturally think the right wing would be offended by this blatant racism from Cato Institute scholar Michael Cannon:

Responding to a tragic story about a New Orleans area sheriff asking federal authorities to investigate reports that undocumented workers are involved in the oil spill clean up, Cannon tweeted that undocumented workers “are very absorbent.” View a screen shot below:

Yes, it was clearly meant as a joke which failed horribly. But beyond the blatant racism, it is especially insensitive when one considers the highly charged atmosphere Hispanics face right now, thanks to Arizona’s immigration law. But not to Dave Weigel of the Washington Post, who rallies to Cannon’s defense:

You have to put on blinders to miss the fact that Cannon is joking about what he sees as craziness in Louisiana.

Umm, really? So it’s a slam on those crazy Louisiana people? How do you figure? And if you DO figure, how do you figure that’s any better?

Look, I realize conservatives are missing whatever thread of DNA it is that includes a funny bone, which explains lame “comedians” like Dennis Miller and Victoria Jackson (in all fairness, I find Victoria Jackson hilarious, however that is because I am laughing at her, not with her). So a Cato Institute scholar Tweeting a joke which lands with a massive thud is as predictable as the sun rising in the east.

That fellow conservatives like Dave Weigel would rally to his defense is also, sadly, predictable. This is the same columnist who rushed to defend Rand Paul, not once but twice. Just as conservatives lack a sense of humor, they also seem to lack any sensitivity where issues of race and tolerance are concerned. And this, too, is no surprise, since so much of the conservative movement is an obvious backlash against "political correctness." It is, at its core, a movement born out of a desire to be intolerant and not be called an asshole.

Well, nice try Dave but no prize for you. This was obviously not a joke made at the expense of those “crazy Cajuns” or whatever you are trying to pretend here. It was a joke made at the expense of Hispanics who, I’m sorry to say, have received a good bit of this offensive stereotyping disguised as humor of late.

Check out the Ohio radio station which thought it would be soooo funny to have a contest where you can “spend a day hunting illegals” in Phoenix. Ha ha absofucking hilarious. Yeah those illegals, they put their lives at risk and break the law and all that just cuz, they’re funny that way, must be all the tequila and hot sun, ha ha. I mean, forget about the grinding poverty that forces people to leave their homes and families to come here in search of a better life in the first place. Forget the American economic policy so addicted to the crack pipe that is cheap labor that businesses happily ignore the law and provide jobs for these folks, sometimes even hire contractors to cross the border recruit this cheap labor. But hey, these immigrants are illegal and what part of illegal don’t we DFH’s understand? Yeah I get it.

You know, it just seems there’s no racist comment that could come from a conservative that won’t push the Dave Weigels of the country way out on a limb to defend them. It’s always, always, always OK if you are a Republican.

We Are the Government; So if Government Sucks...

I've read several posts in the past few weeks about the BP disaster and inevitably, they address the issue of blame. The catchall statement is that we are all guilty for BP's swath of environmental destruction because of our dependency on oil.

I understand the rejection of the mantle of guilt by those who have favored environmental policies and who have never supported deregulation of the oil drilling industry, but I have been disturbed by the trend to disavow any responsibility and blame it all on the failings of government. The litany goes something like this: the government has failed to promote the development of economically priced electric cars, or other environmentally sound vehicles; I would buy such a car if it were available at a reasonable price.

I have been intrigued for decades by this tendency to speak of government as if it were some autonomous beast, making decisions to control our existence. We are the government. We may not always get the people that we choose into office but nonetheless we are responsible for government. We decide how much we want to be involved and overall, we do a pretty sorry job of it. Voting is a precious right that more of us choose not to exercise in any given election than those of us who do. Campaigning is hard work and takes a massive number of volunteers, but most of us have never worked on a local or national campaign for any candidate. Every citizen has a right to lobby elected officials but most of us have never lobbied state or federal elected officials on any issue. However, we are far too willing to insist that big bad government is the source of all societal ills. The right insists that it is too much government that is the problem, and the left expresses that the government fails to take the lead in promoting the common good.

Are all of us guilty for the oil spill? I don't think so but do we share the responsibility? Oh yes. We share a collective responsibility for the common good; it is our refusal to step up to the plate and accept this responsibility that leaves us constantly bemoaning the failures of government. We can't fix anything because it's not our fault; it's the government's fault, " I drive a small car that gets good mileage so I'm not responsible for our over dependence on oil." Poppycock!
 
Our biggest failure is our inability to accept individual responsibility to do all that we possibly can to promote the common good. Who is responsible for fixing all of these problems if we sit on our collective asses denying responsibility for the arc of ills that bedevil us because we personally didn't vote for GWB or some other incompetent leader? It's not about what you didn't do, the question to ask yourself is what have I done, and what am I willing to do to improve this world that I share with the rest of creation?
 
Merely sitting back and shaking your head in disgust and dismay is not a solution. Announcing which candidates you didn't support is not a solution. Declaring that you personally recycle and drive a small car is not a solution. If you aren't actively and consistently taking steps to effect change, then you're useless and all of your disgust with the status quo is self-indulgent.
 
Get involved! Join organizations that advocate for change and become an activist. Know who your federal and state legislators are. Call, write, email and let them know what you support and what you are against. Collect signatures and send petitions from voters who agree with you. Make certain to be informed on all issues in elections and vote! Volunteer to pass out information, drive people to the polls, get the word out about the issues. Effecting change is hard work but nothing has ever been changed by declaring your lack of personal responsibility and bemoaning the inadequacies of government.
 
Government is only as good as we make it. So what have you done lately to contribute to the common good?

HELP BRITISH PETROLEUM IMPROVE ITS PUBLIC IMAGE

Understatement of the year: British Petroleum seems to have a public relations problem, and the website of logo design, LogoMyWay.com, is sponsoring a contest to help BP improve its corporate image. Here is a sampling of logos submitted thus far:

Is Greene a GOP plant?

S.C. politics are just flat weird. GOP politics stink like a convention of skunks.

How could an unemployed ex-marine (alleged) raise the $10,400 filing fee to run for the S.C. democratic Senate seat? Alvin Greene didn't campaign  but claims he "criss-crossed the state during his campaign—though he declined to specify any of the towns or places he visited or say how much money he spent while on the road."

"It wasn’t much, I mean, just, it was—it wasn’t much. Not much, I mean, it wasn’t much," he said, when asked how much of his own money he spent in the primary. Greene frequently spoke in rapid-fire, fragmentary sentences, repeating certain phrases or interrupting himself multiple times during the same sentence while he searched for the right words

He didn’t show up at the "South Carolina Democratic Party convention in April and didn't file any of the required paperwork for candidates with the state or Federal Election Commission."

James Clyborn (D-SC) House Majority Whip, called for an investigation into the circumstances that led to Alvin Greene winning the Democratic Senate primary.

"There were some real shenanigans going on in the South Carolina primary," Clyburn said during an appearance on the liberal Bill Press radio show. "I don't know if he was a Republican plant; he was someone's plant."

Greene certainly talks like a Republican and he may even act like one. He's facing a felony charge for allegedly showing obscene photos to a University of South Carolina student.

Welcome to Carolinagate.

As goes Arizona

I'd like to give notice. There must be someone, some registry I can add my name to as one who wishes to officially disassociate myself with the idiocy of America. Those who doubted that our experiment in including the rabble in government would fare any better than the French Revolution did would, if they could, be smiling to read Florida gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott's campaign rhetoric and would spit up in their coffins to read the comments on his website from people responding to his appeal to "stand with Rick Scott" in pushing for an unconstitutional immigration policy. The end should justify the means in Florida and not just in Arizona.

The United States Constitution, like the Bible and the Qur'an are mirrors in which we see our thoughts justified, venal and noble. I hear from people who insist that Arizona is doing what's necessary and if immigrants are second class citizens, required to wear yellow stars and carry papers at all times, it simply doesn't bother them. Of course if the Coast Guard hails and boards their yachts and fishing boats asking for papers; asking about weapons aboard and checking registration and proof of ownership? Why that's unconstitutional!

In fact the constitution demands that the US protect our states from "invasion" by gardeners, fruit pickers, dish washers and day laborers, says one Scott supporter. And of course, it's not racism, says another. It's simply our distaste for infractions of the law, you see. If we were being "invaded" by Canadians, we'd need to do the same thing although since nobody seems to bother tallying up the number of Canadians in the US illegally and fair skinned blue-eyed, people named McKenzie or Scott aren't being stopped in Home Depot parking lots for interrogation. I frankly don't think anyone gives a damn about immigration law or quotas or visas or green cards. I think it's about an ethnically pure America, just as it always has been.

No, I don't deny the need to control immigration. I don't deny that there is a problem with porous borders. I do deny that the problems need to be dealt with by taking away yet another bit of American freedom.

I don't notice much damn being given at all about US agents shooting a Mexican 14 year old on Mexican soil for throwing rocks either. Fox News of course assured us that it was all OK, since the kid was "known to authorities," although in Fox Fashion, no actually authorities were identified or quoted and more than likely weren't actually consulted. Why bother, why care? Something needs to be done and so anything can be done and let's just be done with it.

Will Florida join the Arizona Confederacy and force people with Spanish accents and other unspecified characteristics to stop and furnish papers or be arrested? Will we fire teachers with accents and punish schools that mention Cesar Chavez or that the Seminoles were hunted down like animals and killed and tortured or that an entire Florida town was murdered and no one was prosecuted for it or that (yes, it's true) our fair state tolerated de facto slavery until the 1940's?

If I'm looking at the future when I look at Arizona and listen to Rick Scott, if the near unanimous opinion of my peers is that we have a disaster in the Gulf because of "too much government regulation" I want no part of the insanity, the stupidity, the animal rage, the drooling masses yearning to bring back what my parents' generation and my generation fought to free us from.

Smoke coming out of my ears . . .

Life hasn't been great in this dumpy apartment complex I've been living in for three years but it's been tolerable and even peaceful considering the drug deals going down, a crazy neighbor who used to walk out of his apartment and fall flat in a drunken stupor, another guy who liked to stand outside my window and watch me work, and a new neighbor who runs around squawking like a mother hen and who hates Blacks, Hispanics and Southerners.

My apartment manager has always been decent, friendly and fair and square. Then she hired Brunhilde who lives here and who began her weekend job as assistant with gusto. A real matron of the prison farm school. Even when she's not on duty she's on duty. "That's against the rules." "You're not allowed to do that." She's about as popular as a bucket of road apples.

The manager has always been tolerant of my 14-year-old 110 pound lab mix getting lose or simply lying out in front of my apartment and rolling in the grass. Unfortunately I live right across from the office. Nobody has ever complained about Lucky or me or any other dog who isn't on a leash. That is, until Brunhilde stormed in.

The Brun hates animals and is petrified of them. So why didn't she move into a pet-free apartment complex you ask? Who in hell knows.

For three weeks I've watched her eyes bulge every time Lucky went within 50 yards of her. "It's against the rules." "It's for safety." "Hasn't anyone complained?" No. But I knew the day would come when Brun would turn the screws in my back. Today the apartment manager told me to put him on a leash. There's a couple of Pit Bulls here and a Chiguagua that are bigger threats than my 110 pound wuss. I'd be delighted if they did me the favor of putting teeth marks in her ass.

Yes, yes I know there are major tragedies that are far more severe and devastating than the one I'm facing. The Gulf Oil Spill exceeds any man made disaster this country has ever experienced. The destruction of the marine life, the birds, the wetlands, the beaches, the fishing industry and other industries that are dependant on the Gulf for survival and the entire way of life of the region is being destroyed day by day, minute by minute for thousands of miles.

And polls are showing that people are blaming the government for not acting fast enough. Translated, that means our black president. You see, it's much easier to cast blame than to look a little deeper and to consider the realities of the problem. This is a tragedy that should bring the nation together, not rip it apart with dumb, petty, spiteful, ignorant as-hell politics.

The idiots at FoxNews aren't the only media outlets criticizing the government. But their irresponsibility is driven by ignorance and downright mean spiritedness. The Main Stream Media doesn't even have a decent excuse for their know-nothing, superficial coverage . Reporters have become lazy, cowardly, and slaves to the corporations and they can't be bothered with research or looking below the surface.

Then there's the Texas State Board of Education which passed textbook guidelines that practically annihilates American history.

To the West is Arizona which has passed a law making it a state crime for an illegal immigrant to apply for a job or to solicit work publicly. But it's a-okay if an employer hires illegals. This is followed up with Ethnic Studies being banned in public schools. And Arizona Governor Jan Brewer hysterically claiming the state is under "terrorist attack."  Arizona state treasurer Dean Martin  has called for tent cities to house illegal immigrants, no doubt copying the idea from Maricopa County's notorious sheriff Joe Arpaio - and maybe because he might earn a few more votes in his run for governor.

Let's don't forget Republican Representative from South Carolina, Joe "you lie" Wilson or S.C. state senator Jake "raghead" Knotts, or his twin over in Mississippi Gov. Haley "Oil? What oil?" Barbour.

And then there's that adorable Sarah Palin, whose lies are only superseded by her ignorance of American history, the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, who doesn't read, who's an international whiz-kid because she can see Russia out her back window. I'm sure she'd fit right in as a Texas School Board member.

I can't finish without mentioning SCOTUS and it's rape of Miranda, its personalization of corporations and its ruling blocking Arizona from subsidizing state candidates facing privately funded foes.

So, between Brunhilde, the Neanderthals who are elected to uphold the laws of the land but don't, and the MSM which doesn't investigate but should, I have smoke coming out of my ears, I'm steaming and I'm swearing up a storm. In more succinct terms, I'm p****d as hell.