Warning: I'm in a bad mood. I've been reading comments on a friend's blog (The Rant by Tom Degan) and I've finally reached my limit. I've tried to not let the debate over Obama's job performance among progressives get personal but I've finally accepted that for me, it is personal. President Obama represents everything that I hoped for when I was growing up a little black girl in the segregated South. I remember hearing the grownups talk about politics. They would ruefully shake their heads and discuss the lack of Negroes in positions of authority. No one even spoke of a black man being president; it was so out of reach. But I secretly thought about being president someday, ignoring that my gender as well as my race made that unlikely.
When I read Tom's blog post, "Time to Get Moving," I thought it was reasonably balanced. I didn't fully agree with his assessment of Obama or his review of FDR's presidency but his post didn't engender my foul mood. I concur that a great many Americans of voting age have a deficit of knowledge when it comes to the history of this country. However, I also think one of our failures is that we idealize historical figures and make them into icons that they never were. The problem is that no one in the immediate present can ever measure up to these past icons which never really existed, at least not as portrayed.
Which brings me to consideration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), the president that so many progressives have repeatedly compared Obama to and always find Obama lacking. Roosevelt just told Congress what he would and would not do and shoved his New Deal through, Congress be damned. Only, that isn't factual; the real story is much more complex.
FDR moved the country forward through a very difficult time. However, he didn't walk on water. No president ever has.
FDR had to deal with the southern Democrats, the Dixiecrats. They and a great deal of the country opposed anything that even vaguely resembled civil rights for black Americans. Roosevelt needed the southern votes to pass his legislation; so he compromised big time on civil rights issues. FDR failed to support proposed federal anti-lynching legislation. Lynching was a family sport that was ever growing in the South during FDR's administration but he refused to get behind efforts by blacks and white civil rights advocates efforts to pass federal anti-lynching legislation. FDR also refused to integrate the armed forces, leaving that to Truman to begin the integration of the armed forces in 1946. Blacks fought for this country but weren't allowed to train on the white military bases nor to interact with their white counterparts. When they came home, it was to return to the same segregation and Jim Crow laws that they faced prior to joining the military. FDR sold out black Americans in order to push through his New Deal.
It was also FDR's administration that interred Japanese Americans in camps during WWII. FDR made nine appointments to the Supreme Court and eight of those nine justices supported the administrations's decision to strip Japanese Americans of property and homes, and place them in confinement in Korematsu v. United States (1944).
Then there were the provisions of the New Deal, great intentions but not always realized.
The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to inflate prices by reducing farm acreage. This meant white farm owners (it was 1933 and blacks were sharecroppers, not farm owners) were paid to let their fields lie fallow, which often resulted in the eviction of sharecroppers and tenant farmers, a significant number of whom were African Americans. In addition, the Department of Agriculture, paid farmers to destroy crops and slaughter livestock while millions of Americans went hungry.
The cornerstone of the New Deal, the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) created the Works Progress Administration (WPA). The NIRA also authorized the National Recovery Administration (NRA), which organized cartels, fixed wages and prices, and, under section 7(a), established the practice of collective bargaining, whereby a union selected by a majority of employees exclusively represented all employees. Sounds like a good idea but many of these compulsory unions closed their doors to black workers. If you weren't a member of the union, you couldn't work in that particular industry. The NIRA was in effect from June 1933 until May 1935 when the Supreme Court found it to be unconstitutional.
My point is that when one starts talking about remembering history, it's important to remember all of it. My point is that every president has had his less than stellar moments because politics has always been about compromise. For every gain, you surrender something. It's a balancing act; you hope that what you get is worth what you give up.
I think that all of the expressed disappointment in Obama is unmerited and I'm particular tired of the dismissal of Obama as fearful of not being liked or being a coward. Have you ever been the first person of your race to enter into a position that has always been held by another race? I have and it is the most difficult step that a person can take. You have to deal with your own people expecting that their interests will take priority, those of the other race who feel that you don't deserve the position, and those of the other race who mythologized you into an archetype of nobility and are disappointed to find out that you are only human and don't walk on water. In the mean time, you actually have to carry out the duties of your job and remain civil and calm while not only you are being attacked, but in Obama's case, his wife is the object of ridicule, compared to various members of the simian family in right wing publications on a fairly regular basis.
The courage that it took for Obama to run for president is phenomenal in a country where assassination is not unheard of and it was less than 50 years ago when lynching of black men and women was public entertainment, documented in photographs of the crowds of men women and children in attendance. (According to the Tuskegee Institute, lynching occurred as late as 1968). When Billie sang about southern trees bearing strange fruit, she wasn't merely being metaphorical.
I'm tired of whites who supported Obama in 2008 acting as if they did him a favor and righteously declaring their indignant disappointment. Enjoy your right to be critical of anyone but don't expect me to like it and I'm exercising my right to say so. The man has worked within the confines of Republicans who have publicly declared that their goal is to ensure that he is not re-elected. That has been their stated goal since his inauguration. Instead of bitching about what he hasn't done or disagreeing with what he has, take a look at what he has accomplished in spite of having a rock equivalent to that of Sisyphus to continually push up the hill.
I cried when Obama won. I cried for the years when the signs over the water fountains said white and colored. I cried for the stores in which I couldn't sit and the lunch counters that my mother grabbed me away from lest someone take offense. I cried for the time my mother entered the wrong door at the clinic because my knee was bleeding profusely and she was confused, and she was met at the door by a white woman who told her to go to the colored entrance. I cried because of the job my mother quit because the KKK threaten to kill me and my brother and sister if she didn't. I cried for my father who went to Korea and had to ride in the back of the bus to go to boot camp. I cried because my mother died two months before Barack Obama became president and she never got to see President Obama. I'm proud of the President and what he has accomplished and I think that he has done a far better job than this country deserves.
[Suggested reading for two differing contemporary historical perspectives on FDR and the New Deal:
Powell, Jim. FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression. New York: Crown Forum (2003).
McMahon, Kevin J. Reconsidering Roosevelt on Race: How the Presidency Paved the Road to Brown. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (2003).
A review, "Bad Deal," of both books by Damien W. Root.]
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Friday, October 28, 2011
When up means down
The Mayans were far less pessimistic about 2012 than the people who fill my inbox with prophecies of economic doom every day. Actually doom is too mild a word and so is apocalypse if one is trying to set a mood so terrifyingly descriptive of what is happening now and is about to happen, thanks to that Obama. Of course these people are selling investment strategies which I'm sure include buying things they're desperate to get rid of like the gold they bought at $1900 an ounce, but any way the market wind is blowing, they make money from the seminars and newsletters and from screaming like Chicken Little. There's a lot of money in the doom business.
Most of the people I talk to seem convinced that everything is getting worse and won't get better until we "get rid of" Obama in 2012; replacing him no doubt with someone who thinks managing a worldwide economy is an easy task for someone who once managed to save a pizza business by firing everyone, and yet has the nerve to talk about being able to "create jobs." Not to change the subject, but it's truly stunning to see the seamless segue from "government can't create jobs" to "elect me and I'll create jobs, jobs, jobs."
I guess it's no less stunning than Fox News' and John McCain's embarrassing assertions that the 2008 economy was "robust" as we all marched unwittingly off the cliff like a certain cartoon coyote -- and of course, that because "Liberals" were warning us about the inevitable collapse, they "hated America." Not like those forward thinking optimists that modern conservatives are.
We can expect, now that the next presidential election is a year away, that the howling and wailing and rending of garments will grow louder and angrier and numbers will appear proving that calamity awaits us all, no matter what actually happens. It's far too soon to be sure, but this chronic pessimist and a few others with more credible credentials are noticing that our Gross Domestic Product After adjusting for inflation, climbed to $13.35 trillion last quarter, topping the $13.33 trillion peak reached in the last three months of 2007.
I hate to make too much of it, particularly with the Filibustering Vandals doing everything they can to sabotage the economy until November 8th, 2012, but the reality is not quite what the pseudo-conservative chorus is chanting. At least for the moment, things are looking less down. Unemployment is still high, of course -- just a bit above Ronald Reagan levels and we can expect the screamers to keep screaming about that while refusing to do anything about it. We can expect Tea Pissers like Tom "Looney" Rooney (R-Florida) to keep meeting with "Job Creators" and telling us that business owners will hire more employees, irrespective of demand, if we cut their marginal rates even more -- and we can expect that if things do recover steadily and noticeably, he'll find a way to take credit for it because after all, they kept that O-BAH-ma from doing anything for four years while lambasting him for doing nothing. If there is anything these Doomsters are optimistic about it's that they'll always have someone to blame.
Most of the people I talk to seem convinced that everything is getting worse and won't get better until we "get rid of" Obama in 2012; replacing him no doubt with someone who thinks managing a worldwide economy is an easy task for someone who once managed to save a pizza business by firing everyone, and yet has the nerve to talk about being able to "create jobs." Not to change the subject, but it's truly stunning to see the seamless segue from "government can't create jobs" to "elect me and I'll create jobs, jobs, jobs."
I guess it's no less stunning than Fox News' and John McCain's embarrassing assertions that the 2008 economy was "robust" as we all marched unwittingly off the cliff like a certain cartoon coyote -- and of course, that because "Liberals" were warning us about the inevitable collapse, they "hated America." Not like those forward thinking optimists that modern conservatives are.
We can expect, now that the next presidential election is a year away, that the howling and wailing and rending of garments will grow louder and angrier and numbers will appear proving that calamity awaits us all, no matter what actually happens. It's far too soon to be sure, but this chronic pessimist and a few others with more credible credentials are noticing that our Gross Domestic Product After adjusting for inflation, climbed to $13.35 trillion last quarter, topping the $13.33 trillion peak reached in the last three months of 2007.
I hate to make too much of it, particularly with the Filibustering Vandals doing everything they can to sabotage the economy until November 8th, 2012, but the reality is not quite what the pseudo-conservative chorus is chanting. At least for the moment, things are looking less down. Unemployment is still high, of course -- just a bit above Ronald Reagan levels and we can expect the screamers to keep screaming about that while refusing to do anything about it. We can expect Tea Pissers like Tom "Looney" Rooney (R-Florida) to keep meeting with "Job Creators" and telling us that business owners will hire more employees, irrespective of demand, if we cut their marginal rates even more -- and we can expect that if things do recover steadily and noticeably, he'll find a way to take credit for it because after all, they kept that O-BAH-ma from doing anything for four years while lambasting him for doing nothing. If there is anything these Doomsters are optimistic about it's that they'll always have someone to blame.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
HIPPIES!
With the Florida Coven of the Republican Party making the Visigoths look like Cub Scouts these days; arguing that a prohibition of "Dwarf Tossing " is destroying American jobs, I think I'm more than justified in a certain lack of restraint when describing the moral character of that party as having everything to do with gaining power by any and all means, and having nothing whatever to do with making the US a real Democracy. These days it's as much about making the news a series of passion plays meant to obscure and often reverse the facts as it has been about suppressing votes and Gerrymandering.
The practice of dirty tricks has come a long way since Richard Nixon. Tricky Dick used the media to convince us that the media was lying and that the vast and silent majority was a small and unpatriotic minority. That hasn't changed. What has changed is the confidence level that allows them to strongly support something one day and denounce it in hyperbolic tirades on the next according to tactical needs.
It's possible to denounce Wall Street brokers and banks; insist that we let them die and scream about it in the streets with tea bags stapled to three-cornered hats, yet support the same corrupt and unpunished entities passionately by denouncing the same sentiments; associating them with "hippies" in fine old 1968 style two generations after the last real hippie got a haircut and went to work on Wall Street.
And yes, you're damned right that Fox News is the Joseph Goebbels of the new Right. You'll remember how ACORN was smeared and destroyed by patched together video, You'll remember fake video made to look like millions were at Republican rallies, but you're less likely to remember that fake video was used by Brit Hume to denounce Iraq war protesters in 2003 as "hippies" -- Protesting the Protesters documentary and other fake documentaries like Indoctrinate U that was intended to show how righteous "conservatives" were being censored at those hotbeds of hippieism, the Universities. You may then not be surprised that the same saboteur behind those atrocities, one Evan Coyne Maloney, has been at work on the sidewalks of New York, handing out rolling papers with pictures of Che Guevara and bongs so that the recipients can be filmed with them and another invidious documentary can be patched together so that we can be Foxed again.
Never mind that the streets are filled with veterans and economists, businessmen and others who demand respect and deserve to be heard, Fox wants them out of the way and can think of no better way than to dredge up hoary straw men in tie-died T-shirts. Look! that investment banker, that war veteran, that Nobel Prize winning economist: HIPPIES! COMMIES! DRUG FIENDS! HATERS OF OUR SACRED CAPITALIST VALUES!
Has any nation been able to stand; been able to avoid catastrophe, been able to maintain the illusion of freedom under such an internal assault?
The practice of dirty tricks has come a long way since Richard Nixon. Tricky Dick used the media to convince us that the media was lying and that the vast and silent majority was a small and unpatriotic minority. That hasn't changed. What has changed is the confidence level that allows them to strongly support something one day and denounce it in hyperbolic tirades on the next according to tactical needs.
It's possible to denounce Wall Street brokers and banks; insist that we let them die and scream about it in the streets with tea bags stapled to three-cornered hats, yet support the same corrupt and unpunished entities passionately by denouncing the same sentiments; associating them with "hippies" in fine old 1968 style two generations after the last real hippie got a haircut and went to work on Wall Street.
And yes, you're damned right that Fox News is the Joseph Goebbels of the new Right. You'll remember how ACORN was smeared and destroyed by patched together video, You'll remember fake video made to look like millions were at Republican rallies, but you're less likely to remember that fake video was used by Brit Hume to denounce Iraq war protesters in 2003 as "hippies" -- Protesting the Protesters documentary and other fake documentaries like Indoctrinate U that was intended to show how righteous "conservatives" were being censored at those hotbeds of hippieism, the Universities. You may then not be surprised that the same saboteur behind those atrocities, one Evan Coyne Maloney, has been at work on the sidewalks of New York, handing out rolling papers with pictures of Che Guevara and bongs so that the recipients can be filmed with them and another invidious documentary can be patched together so that we can be Foxed again.
Never mind that the streets are filled with veterans and economists, businessmen and others who demand respect and deserve to be heard, Fox wants them out of the way and can think of no better way than to dredge up hoary straw men in tie-died T-shirts. Look! that investment banker, that war veteran, that Nobel Prize winning economist: HIPPIES! COMMIES! DRUG FIENDS! HATERS OF OUR SACRED CAPITALIST VALUES!
Has any nation been able to stand; been able to avoid catastrophe, been able to maintain the illusion of freedom under such an internal assault?
The New Feudalism (According to the Latest CBO Report)
By Octopus
The Director’s Blog of the Congressional Budget Office released this report earlier today. It confirms everything we know about income inequality, and everything the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators have said from the start:
[Income] for households at the higher end of the income scale rose much more rapidly than income for households in the middle and at the lower end of the income scale.If the language of the CBO summary seems understated, the accompanying graph screams louder than words:
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Tricky Rick from Texas Holds Forth on the President’s Birth Certificate
"I'm really not worried about the president's birth certificate. It's fun to poke at him a little bit and say, how 'bout let's see your grades and your birth certificate." (Rick Perry as quoted in a CNBC interview; see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/25/rick-perry-obama-birth-certificate_n_1030157.html)
See, here's the thing, guv -- when you talk like that, even if you say it with a disarming Texas grin, people might just get the idea that you don't really believe a word of the birther nonsense but are willing to keep repeating it for the fun of the thing. Problem is, a lot of the rubes and certifiable cases out there who still talk this way DO believe it -- every mad-hatter word of it, in fact. So when you imply that you're not quite serious, they get upset and you lose potential votes. Even people who deserve to be talked down to don't like it when you talk down to them and snicker about it right in front of them.
Of course, there's another way to view the matter: once you reveal that you're approximately as sophisticated as a middle-school bully -- you know, someone who gets up every blessed morning 100% prepared to toss around baseless insults to hurt some other person’s feelings – or jes’ to “poke at 'im,” as y'all might put it -- you stand to gain considerably in the eyes of others who fit the same schoolyard profile. And unfortunately, being that sort of person is pretty much standard fare for the Republican base. From that perspective, I suppose, you've got both hat and cattle workin' for ya, podnah! You know, “strategery”!
A serious question -- is it possible for the current Republican Party to put its faith in anyone who is NOT essentially an overgrown middle-school bully in an expensive suit or dress?
See, here's the thing, guv -- when you talk like that, even if you say it with a disarming Texas grin, people might just get the idea that you don't really believe a word of the birther nonsense but are willing to keep repeating it for the fun of the thing. Problem is, a lot of the rubes and certifiable cases out there who still talk this way DO believe it -- every mad-hatter word of it, in fact. So when you imply that you're not quite serious, they get upset and you lose potential votes. Even people who deserve to be talked down to don't like it when you talk down to them and snicker about it right in front of them.
Of course, there's another way to view the matter: once you reveal that you're approximately as sophisticated as a middle-school bully -- you know, someone who gets up every blessed morning 100% prepared to toss around baseless insults to hurt some other person’s feelings – or jes’ to “poke at 'im,” as y'all might put it -- you stand to gain considerably in the eyes of others who fit the same schoolyard profile. And unfortunately, being that sort of person is pretty much standard fare for the Republican base. From that perspective, I suppose, you've got both hat and cattle workin' for ya, podnah! You know, “strategery”!
A serious question -- is it possible for the current Republican Party to put its faith in anyone who is NOT essentially an overgrown middle-school bully in an expensive suit or dress?
Dwarves and Tea Orcs: A Morality Tale of Middle Earth
Florida legislator Ritch Workman, a Melbourne Republican, is too small a man to pick on someone his own size, so now he wants to legalize dwarf tossing. A pointless intrusion on personal liberty, he proclaims, one that takes “away some employment from some little people."
In one more sign of our times, Workman thinks Big Brother has no business looking after little brother, so he wants to give dwarves the 'freedom' to find work as a human bowling ball. In his view, a dislocated shoulder or a broken neck beats unemployment; although the non-profit group, Little People of America, disagrees: “It dehumanizes dwarves in the name of entertainment ...”
In one more sign of our times, Workman thinks Big Brother has no business looking after little brother, so he wants to give dwarves the 'freedom' to find work as a human bowling ball. In his view, a dislocated shoulder or a broken neck beats unemployment; although the non-profit group, Little People of America, disagrees: “It dehumanizes dwarves in the name of entertainment ...”
Moreover, Mr. Workman, the Melbourne Republican and devoted family man, favors legalizing adultery - but not gay marriage or medical marijuana - and he has the full support of Florida’s Grifter-in-Chief, Governor Rick Scott. The story is no laughing matter depending upon whom you consider to be the laughing stock:
Monday, October 24, 2011
So, what's changed between now and then?
So, here's how the GOP works.
OK, so let's scoot forward to last year.
So, obviously, McCain knows what should happen next, right?
(April 22, 2004)Seems pretty clear, right?
(Peter G. Peterson, chairman, Council on Foreign Relations): Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it's a hypothetical, but it's at least possible.
(Sen. John) McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government of Iraq— and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.
OK, so let's scoot forward to last year.
(December 28, 2010)(Technically, that's actually a "Status of Forces Agreement," but it's not like English is his first language, right?)
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki: "The withdrawal of forces agreement expires on Dec. 31, 2011. The last American soldier will leave Iraq."
So, obviously, McCain knows what should happen next, right?
(Oct 21, 2011)Funny how that works, isn't it?
"Today marks a harmful and sad setback for the United States in the world," McCain said in a statement Friday afternoon. "I respectfully disagree with the President: this decision will be viewed as a strategic victory for our enemies in the Middle East, especially the Iranian regime, which has worked relentlessly to ensure a full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq."
McCain said the decision is "a consequential failure of both the Obama Administration - which has been more focused on withdrawing from Iraq than succeeding in Iraq since it came into office - as well as the Iraqi government."
Sunday, October 23, 2011
"Support the troops"? What's that mean?
In 1983, I joined the Air Force because of the educational benefits (and, yeah, because I really didn't know what I wanted to do with my life at the time); I'd only planned to stay in for one tour. By the time that tour was up, though, I had a wife and two kids, and having a good health plan seemed like the way to go. So I reenlisted.
My second tour ended and I still had the wife, but now I had three kids. Staying in seemed like a much better idea. And by the time that enlistment ended, I had been in the military twelve years - over halfway to retirement.
The military pays the troops less than they would get doing the same job in the civilian world. If it hadn't been for the benefits, there isn't a chance in hell that I would have stayed in, and my attitude wasn't unique. It's almost universal among the enlisted members. (There are some rare exceptions, of course, and officers may be a different story - they're paid significantly more money than the grunts.) If you cut the benefits, your all-volunteer military is going to collapse.
So, what the hell is going on here?
We pay a little more to get the Trophy Wife's prescriptions from Walgreens. They'd be free if I got them from the base hospital, but my wife works with Opera Unlimited, travelling across New Mexico to help music programs in elementary schools. If she is 500 miles away, and runs out of, say, Zetia (a heart medication) or Losartin/HCTZ (for blood pressure), Walgreens will get her an emergency supply to hold her over until she gets back to Albuquerque: their database clearly shows what she's taking and how often, and every Walgreens in the country can pull that information up.
But that's apparently going to change in January, because Walgreens and Express Scripts are locked in a contract dispute which may prevent Walgreens from handling prescriptions for Tricare, the Defense Department plan managed by Express Scripts.
But that's just an inconvenience. Thanks to Iraq and Afghanistan, we're getting more injured veterans pouring into the system than we have since Vietnam. And despite the challenges of readjusting to civilian life, they haven't been getting the help they need for years.
Plus, thanks to advances in both military and medical technology, more soldiers are surviving worse wounds than ever before. So, not only do they need more medical care, but their needs are only going to get worse as they get older.
The Pentagon estimates that as many as one in five soldiers are coming home from war zones with traumatic brain injuries, and current studies show that studies show that even a slight trauma to the brain doubles your chance of developing dementia later in life, meaning that many will need around-the-clock care.
Assuming that they can get any help at all.
Well, funny you should mention that.
The 2012 military budget includes 134 billion dollars for equipment, but also includes almost 81 billion dollars in research for new weapons systems. You know, I think we kill people well enough already; ask the Iraqi people. (You know, the ones who are left...)
But how much good is that 81 billion dollars doing us, anyway?
But as to the veterans, it's simple morality.
We have an all-volunteer military, but it goes both ways. When they sign on, they put, not just their lives, but their bodies, in harm's way. And if these brave men and women get hurt fighting for their country, we have an obligation to take care of them. For the rest of their lives, if necessary.
If you don't want to pay for wounded veterans, there's only one answer: stop making them. Stop sending soldiers to distant countries, where they risk their lives for some political agenda.
You don't get a choice on this. If you're going to play, you've got to pay; if you don't like it, get out of the game.
My second tour ended and I still had the wife, but now I had three kids. Staying in seemed like a much better idea. And by the time that enlistment ended, I had been in the military twelve years - over halfway to retirement.
The military pays the troops less than they would get doing the same job in the civilian world. If it hadn't been for the benefits, there isn't a chance in hell that I would have stayed in, and my attitude wasn't unique. It's almost universal among the enlisted members. (There are some rare exceptions, of course, and officers may be a different story - they're paid significantly more money than the grunts.) If you cut the benefits, your all-volunteer military is going to collapse.
So, what the hell is going on here?
Republicans and Democrats alike are signaling a willingness — unheard of at the height of two post-Sept. 11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — to make military retirees pay more for coverage. It's a reflection of Washington's newfound embrace of fiscal austerity and the Pentagon's push to cut health care costs that have skyrocketed from $19 billion in 2001 to $53 billion.And some changes are already happening.
The numbers are daunting for a military focused on building and arming an all-volunteer force for war. The Pentagon is providing health care coverage for 3.3 million active duty personnel and their dependents and 5.5 million retirees, eligible dependents and surviving spouses. Retirees outnumber the active duty, 2.3 million to 1.4 million.
We pay a little more to get the Trophy Wife's prescriptions from Walgreens. They'd be free if I got them from the base hospital, but my wife works with Opera Unlimited, travelling across New Mexico to help music programs in elementary schools. If she is 500 miles away, and runs out of, say, Zetia (a heart medication) or Losartin/HCTZ (for blood pressure), Walgreens will get her an emergency supply to hold her over until she gets back to Albuquerque: their database clearly shows what she's taking and how often, and every Walgreens in the country can pull that information up.
But that's apparently going to change in January, because Walgreens and Express Scripts are locked in a contract dispute which may prevent Walgreens from handling prescriptions for Tricare, the Defense Department plan managed by Express Scripts.
But that's just an inconvenience. Thanks to Iraq and Afghanistan, we're getting more injured veterans pouring into the system than we have since Vietnam. And despite the challenges of readjusting to civilian life, they haven't been getting the help they need for years.
Plus, thanks to advances in both military and medical technology, more soldiers are surviving worse wounds than ever before. So, not only do they need more medical care, but their needs are only going to get worse as they get older.
The Pentagon estimates that as many as one in five soldiers are coming home from war zones with traumatic brain injuries, and current studies show that studies show that even a slight trauma to the brain doubles your chance of developing dementia later in life, meaning that many will need around-the-clock care.
Assuming that they can get any help at all.
Marine Cpl. James Dixon was wounded twice in Iraq -- by a roadside bomb and a land mine. He suffered a traumatic brain injury, a concussion, a dislocated hip and hearing loss. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.But we have to cut expenses, right? We have to decrease spending somewhere, and defense spending is one of the larger chunks of the federal budget.
Army Sgt. Lori Meshell shattered a hip and crushed her back and knees while diving for cover during a mortar attack in Iraq. She has undergone a hip replacement and knee reconstruction and needs at least three more surgeries.
In each case, the Pentagon ruled that their disabilities were not combat-related.
In a little-noticed regulation change in March, the military's definition of combat-related disabilities was narrowed, costing some injured veterans thousands of dollars in lost benefits -- and triggering outrage from veterans' advocacy groups.
Well, funny you should mention that.
The 2012 military budget includes 134 billion dollars for equipment, but also includes almost 81 billion dollars in research for new weapons systems. You know, I think we kill people well enough already; ask the Iraqi people. (You know, the ones who are left...)
But how much good is that 81 billion dollars doing us, anyway?
Despite improvements, more than half of the Pentagon’s big weapons systems still cost more than they should, with management failures adding at least $70 billion to the projected costs over the last two years, government auditors said Tuesday.In August of this year, Congress finished a comprehensive look at spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Government Accountability Office, a Congressional watchdog, said the biggest program, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, accounted for $28 billion of that increase. Other systems also had significant cost overruns, the agency said, adding that the increases could force the Pentagon to cut the number of ships and planes it buys.
The auditors said many of the problems occurred because the Pentagon began building the systems before the designs were fully tested.
In its final report to Congress, the Commission on Wartime Contracting said the figure could grow as U.S. support for reconstruction projects and programs wanes, leaving both countries to bear the long-term costs of sustaining the schools, medical clinics, barracks, roads and power plants already built with American tax dollars.But that's OK. That's only the money we've lost in foreign countries.
Much of the waste and fraud could have been avoided with better planning and more aggressive oversight, the commission said. To avoid repeating the mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan, government agencies should overhaul the way they award and manage contracts in war zones, the commission recommended.
[...]
The commission said calculating the exact amount lost through waste and fraud is difficult because there is no commonly accepted methodology for doing so. But using information it has gathered over the past three years, the commission said at least $31 billion has been lost and the total could be as high as $60 billion. The commission called the estimate "conservative."
How often does the Pentagon award contracts to defense companies that have already been proven to be defrauding taxpayers? A report the Department of Defense did at the request of Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) reveals an answer that should make Washington very uncomfortable.So maybe there's a few places out there where we can save money.
The report, released today, showed that hundreds of defense contractors found guilty of civil fraud received more than $1.1 trillion in defense contracts since 2001. The study took into account only companies that were found to have defrauded taxpayers of more than $1 million dollars.
More than $573 billion went directly to companies that were guilty of defrauding taxpayers, and when you factor in the awards that went to the parent companies of those contractors, the total is $1.1 trillion. Of that $573 billion, more than two-thirds—$398 billion—went to companies after they had been found guilty of fraud.
But as to the veterans, it's simple morality.
We have an all-volunteer military, but it goes both ways. When they sign on, they put, not just their lives, but their bodies, in harm's way. And if these brave men and women get hurt fighting for their country, we have an obligation to take care of them. For the rest of their lives, if necessary.
If you don't want to pay for wounded veterans, there's only one answer: stop making them. Stop sending soldiers to distant countries, where they risk their lives for some political agenda.
You don't get a choice on this. If you're going to play, you've got to pay; if you don't like it, get out of the game.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Open the pod bay doors, Siri
I'm glad to have been raised on the English language, not just because that allows me to understand what I'm thinking about, but because the English language is gender neutral, at least when it comes to nouns. We do hear people calling groups of females "you guys" but that's another thing.
Of course there are exceptions. It's traditional to speak of ships as though they were female which quite frankly baffles me and so I always use 'it' instead of 'she' when referring to them, just as though they were cars. Of course there are those oddballs who anthropomorphize their vehicles too and usually in the female sense -- but not me and that's all you need to know about that. When it comes to my car or boat or motorcycle, I'm the 'it' guy.
Same goes for those things some brilliant marketing creep has decided to make female; like cell phones and GPS units for the car. Their synthetic voices, if not tired and meaningless are none the less dispassionate and unsympathetic while telling you to make the next legal U turn. We seem to take it for granted that this sort of robot should sound aristocratically female. I mean Americans when I say we, of course. I read this morning that BMW had to recall a 'female' GPS system in their domestic versions, German males being reluctant to following orders from female cars. I admit I did contact General Motors about converting my car's female navigation voice to a German male voice as I'd be more likely to do what it said. I've been conditioned to ignoring female voices in my car for a long time -- safety reasons, of course. The voice from the passenger seat being so likely to shout things like "Right Here!" meaning "turn left here." I have to point out that the GPS and other things in the car are supposed to respond to voice commands. Mine won't listen to me -- perhaps out of reciprocal spite. Asking it to find a gas station has often given me the locations of nearby cemeteries. Perhaps I might get better results if I addressed her as 'Mistress Vette?'
Anyway digital voices, unlike ancestral voices tend to be female in the US. Does that say anything about how Americans view females? I'm sure it does, but do we prefer them because we see females as subordinate advisers or assistants, as in personal secretaries, or do we prefer female bosses? My carefully considered and scholarly opinion is "who the hell knows?"
Of course we've been listening to female machines for a couple of decades now, but it takes some Act of Apple to transmogrify the quotidian into Genius. The latest manna from the Apple Store features a voice they're calling Siri who has been deliberately 'detuned' to sound less human and more SciFi, which to the masses means "High Tech" which is what we call taking standard technology and putting it a sleek plastic box. Not to get too far off track here, but any visiting aliens will certainly be able to buy Manhattan for a box of beads and trinkets and maybe the whole East coast if the trinkets have pictures of half eaten apples on them.
But once again, this is an American phenomenon. British and French versions of the brain numbing plastic parasites called iPhones sound like men as CNN.com tells us. This confirms the pathogenic nature of gadgets designed to latch on to our subliminal receptors like drugs and viruses do to our waiting and vulnerable cells. Do French and British iAddicts have different gender stereotypes, different attitudes toward women than Americans, or do their men just have more pleasant voices than their women? The answer may depend on your prejudices and the iPhone may be just another iStone to grind our axes on as we so often do when we pretend our stereotypes are better than other people's stereotypes.
Should I mention that my new Android smart-phone simply tortures me with beeps and other weird noises instead of human voices? Of course perhaps that's because I haven't yet discovered what all those odd hieroglyphs do and there's some peremptory and Teutonic male voice waiting in the software telling me to "turn left NOW -- und you will like it."
Of course there are exceptions. It's traditional to speak of ships as though they were female which quite frankly baffles me and so I always use 'it' instead of 'she' when referring to them, just as though they were cars. Of course there are those oddballs who anthropomorphize their vehicles too and usually in the female sense -- but not me and that's all you need to know about that. When it comes to my car or boat or motorcycle, I'm the 'it' guy.
Same goes for those things some brilliant marketing creep has decided to make female; like cell phones and GPS units for the car. Their synthetic voices, if not tired and meaningless are none the less dispassionate and unsympathetic while telling you to make the next legal U turn. We seem to take it for granted that this sort of robot should sound aristocratically female. I mean Americans when I say we, of course. I read this morning that BMW had to recall a 'female' GPS system in their domestic versions, German males being reluctant to following orders from female cars. I admit I did contact General Motors about converting my car's female navigation voice to a German male voice as I'd be more likely to do what it said. I've been conditioned to ignoring female voices in my car for a long time -- safety reasons, of course. The voice from the passenger seat being so likely to shout things like "Right Here!" meaning "turn left here." I have to point out that the GPS and other things in the car are supposed to respond to voice commands. Mine won't listen to me -- perhaps out of reciprocal spite. Asking it to find a gas station has often given me the locations of nearby cemeteries. Perhaps I might get better results if I addressed her as 'Mistress Vette?'
Anyway digital voices, unlike ancestral voices tend to be female in the US. Does that say anything about how Americans view females? I'm sure it does, but do we prefer them because we see females as subordinate advisers or assistants, as in personal secretaries, or do we prefer female bosses? My carefully considered and scholarly opinion is "who the hell knows?"
Of course we've been listening to female machines for a couple of decades now, but it takes some Act of Apple to transmogrify the quotidian into Genius. The latest manna from the Apple Store features a voice they're calling Siri who has been deliberately 'detuned' to sound less human and more SciFi, which to the masses means "High Tech" which is what we call taking standard technology and putting it a sleek plastic box. Not to get too far off track here, but any visiting aliens will certainly be able to buy Manhattan for a box of beads and trinkets and maybe the whole East coast if the trinkets have pictures of half eaten apples on them.
But once again, this is an American phenomenon. British and French versions of the brain numbing plastic parasites called iPhones sound like men as CNN.com tells us. This confirms the pathogenic nature of gadgets designed to latch on to our subliminal receptors like drugs and viruses do to our waiting and vulnerable cells. Do French and British iAddicts have different gender stereotypes, different attitudes toward women than Americans, or do their men just have more pleasant voices than their women? The answer may depend on your prejudices and the iPhone may be just another iStone to grind our axes on as we so often do when we pretend our stereotypes are better than other people's stereotypes.
Should I mention that my new Android smart-phone simply tortures me with beeps and other weird noises instead of human voices? Of course perhaps that's because I haven't yet discovered what all those odd hieroglyphs do and there's some peremptory and Teutonic male voice waiting in the software telling me to "turn left NOW -- und you will like it."
Killing him slowly
There simply aren't words adequate to describe Rush Limbaugh unless we quote his own. I'm tired, to tell the truth, of trying to match polemics with him, tired of denouncing him and of course the ears of his acolytes are deaf to such things anyway.
I admit that I don't actually listen to him any more and that's been true for many, many years. I simply can't trust myself in the presence of so much evil, so much hatred of the kind of America I hope for, but at the bottom of it, I can't stand to hear some sinister thing that the law requires us to treat as a human being and citizen, so incapable of reason, so bereft of any human feelings and so unable to feel any kind of shame, so full of hate.
But as I say, his followers can listen to him demanding harsh treatment - even death - for drug users while knowing he's a long time abuser of opiates who has had his employees risk their freedom by buying drugs for him. His hangers on can quote his self contradictions without pause and will smile and nod when he wishes disaster on our country if disaster is what it takes to promote Republicans and destroy any Democratic president. Who but Rush, after all, can call Obama an ineffectual "empty suit" and a tyrannical demagogue at the same time; tell us he was born in Kenya and Indonesia simultaneously and not instantly be dismissed as casually as one flushes a toilet.
Certainly not Limbaugh's ignorant army. They surely applauded his latest verbal atrocity; telling us how that evil Obama sent troops to Africa to help kill Christians: The Lord’s Resistance Army. They certainly aren't going to notice or care or believe that the LRA are a genocidal terrorist group who has murdered, raped, kidnapped and terrorized tens of thousands over many years. They've killed some Muslims, you see and that makes them Christian Soldiers, marching as to war.
They aren't going to be shocked at the way Limbaugh assembles scraps of misunderstood or non-existent or invented stories without any concern for truth or decency or patriotism or anything but the potential to destroy Barack Obama. No, not as long as he keeps up the endless supply of nasty little lies they can tell their friends over a beer and at the barber shop where Fox plays on the TV, where the stupid go to get their wisdom confirmed and hate is in the air.
I admit that I don't actually listen to him any more and that's been true for many, many years. I simply can't trust myself in the presence of so much evil, so much hatred of the kind of America I hope for, but at the bottom of it, I can't stand to hear some sinister thing that the law requires us to treat as a human being and citizen, so incapable of reason, so bereft of any human feelings and so unable to feel any kind of shame, so full of hate.
But as I say, his followers can listen to him demanding harsh treatment - even death - for drug users while knowing he's a long time abuser of opiates who has had his employees risk their freedom by buying drugs for him. His hangers on can quote his self contradictions without pause and will smile and nod when he wishes disaster on our country if disaster is what it takes to promote Republicans and destroy any Democratic president. Who but Rush, after all, can call Obama an ineffectual "empty suit" and a tyrannical demagogue at the same time; tell us he was born in Kenya and Indonesia simultaneously and not instantly be dismissed as casually as one flushes a toilet.
Certainly not Limbaugh's ignorant army. They surely applauded his latest verbal atrocity; telling us how that evil Obama sent troops to Africa to help kill Christians: The Lord’s Resistance Army. They certainly aren't going to notice or care or believe that the LRA are a genocidal terrorist group who has murdered, raped, kidnapped and terrorized tens of thousands over many years. They've killed some Muslims, you see and that makes them Christian Soldiers, marching as to war.
They aren't going to be shocked at the way Limbaugh assembles scraps of misunderstood or non-existent or invented stories without any concern for truth or decency or patriotism or anything but the potential to destroy Barack Obama. No, not as long as he keeps up the endless supply of nasty little lies they can tell their friends over a beer and at the barber shop where Fox plays on the TV, where the stupid go to get their wisdom confirmed and hate is in the air.
"Hey didja hear how Rush called Oh-BAH-ma an empty suit? He sure got that right!"
Thursday, October 20, 2011
The Hypocrisy of Herman Cain
 |
| Illustration by Mark Olmsted |
However after much thought, I think that evil is the most accurate term to describe GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain. He's also a lying, shameless hypocrite.
Cain is older than I am and he grew up in the Jim Crow south. Born in 1945 in Tennessee, his family moved to Atlanta, Georgia where he grew up. I don't have to question whether or not Cain's life was impacted by segregation and racism. His mother worked as a cleaning woman, and his dad held three jobs as a barber, janitor, and a chauffeur at the same time in order to make ends meet. Cain grew up poor and black in the deep south; he couldn't avoid experiencing racism.
Atlanta's Antioch Baptist Church North, of which Cain is a member, is a liberal black church with a congregation of 14,000 and an annual operating budget of more than $5 million. Antioch is known for hosting a "who's who" of civil rights activists as guest speakers. (The CNN Belief Blog, Eric Marrapodi & John Blake, The Liberal Church of Herman Cain, 10/18/11.) A recent article in the CNN Belief Blog includes interviews with some members and former members of the church who know Cain. It seems that many do not agree with his politics and avoid conflict by not discussing their differences. (Id.)
I don't buy for a moment that Cain really believes that the GOP has the best interests of low income people on their radar, and he fully knows that a disproportionate number of poor people are African-American and Hispanic.
Rev. Frederick Robinson, former associate pastor at Antioch Church, and a friend of Cain, is quoted as stating, “He knows there’s racism in the tea party, but he’ll never say that because they are his supporters. That bothers a lot of people, but he plays to that base not because he’s a sellout but because he’s a politician.” (The CNN Belief Blog.)
I say it's because he is a sellout, a hypocrite, and evil. Cain knows firsthand what racial apartheid means and yet he offers electric fences with sufficient voltage to kill those attempting to cross the border as a solution to unwanted immigration. He then tries to dismiss it as a joke. Let's suppose that Rick Perry made a joke about lynching black folks, anyone laughing yet?
A lot of Cain's popularity comes from his skin color. There is nothing that annoys some white people more than having attention called to any racist behavior exhibited by any white person. The immediate response is typically, "I'm not a racist." Witness the response to thoughtful analyses by writers, white and black, about the role race plays in the level of vitriol directed at Obama since his first day in office. Many appear incapable of hearing the messages, which generally are not accusing whites of intentional racism but are instead questioning perceptions and expectations that may be grounded in harmful racial stereotypes.
Cain is a black man who says what Tea Party types want to hear. He blames poverty on the laziness of those who are poor. He proclaims that Obama is a socialist out to destroy the country. He advocates killing illegal immigrants rather than letting them cross our borders. He thinks that all social welfare programs just make people lazy and greedy and would eliminate them under his watch. What's not to love if you're a Tea Partier?
Magically, whites who are uncomfortable with any discussion of race and who consciously or subconsciously promote racist attitudes can say with proud defiance, "I am not a racist, after all I support Herman Cain."
Prostituting the heritage of black people's oppression in this country for his political gain is shameful and yes, that makes Cain evil and dangerous. His repeated affirmations that issues of race are figments of the imagination of people of color undermine the progress that has been made in honestly and openly addressing the legacy of racism in this country. He insults the memory of all those who fought and died in the struggle to defeat Jim Crow and promote equality. His head should be bowed in shame over his minstrel show act performed for the gleeful Tea Party crowds that hang on his every word.
Why label Herman Cain as evil? Because he is indifferent to the needs of others, indifferent to the suffering endured by those who came before him and fought for the liberties that allow him to run for office. He takes no responsibility for his words, using them to further incite those who oppose the very concept of social justice. In the words of Elie Wiesel, "Indifference, to me, is the epitome of evil." It is indifference, the refusal to act to prevent injustice, that provides evil with the fertilizer that it needs to grow.
Monday, October 17, 2011
A short Facebook conversation (on gender)
Sheria: I find the interchanges among you gentlemen fascinating and quite interesting.
Edge: How so?
S: I like the directness of your interchanges. Women tend to skirt around issues on which they disagree or have differing points of view. It can make direct conversation awkward. I generally prefer the way that men communicate with each other.
E: But men get confrontational too quickly. Women have mastered judicious restraint, probably for survival reasons, physical abuse directed at women, etc.
S: Judicious restraint is a good thing but avoidance of confrontation is also problematic. I spoke with a good friend today and a male member of a board to which she belongs has been a pain in the ass for over a year. He finally told the female chair of the board, "Fuck you," and resigned from the board. There's a board event coming up soon and the chair decided that he should still be invited for to the event because she wanted to show that there are no hard feelings. He accepted the invitation. My response would have been, "You wish and let the door hit you on the way out."
E: I'm with you on your assessment re: your friend... There was a bit on the radio today about women 'making it' in politics. There was a reference to Question Period in the parliamentary system, which favours the testosterone exchanges rather than a more nuanced and conciliatory approach that a woman might take. I found that interesting. And on the other hand, I find it fascinating how women are drawn to men who have power...
S: I find that the more female approach works more effectively in interpersonal relationships but a bit of testosterone helps in business and politics. I think that both genders could learn a bit from each other.
E: That's the truth. Mix is good in all ways. Modern men, unfortunately, are not trained to handle male-only environments and that poses a great problem for communication. Modern men will suck up after women and then behave like women (or a parody thereof) when dealing with each other.
S: I think that perhaps both genders are still stuck in patterns of behavior that were necessary in earlier eras. Powerful men were better protectors when survival was a daily battle and therefore more attractive to women who needed a mate who could protect the home and provide security for the family. Women who were dependent and submissive were more attractive to the alpha male who needed home to be a place of peace and comfort to balance out the struggles of the outside world.
E: Well, if you go by the grocery store checkout magazine racks, those patterns are sure enduring!
S: As we've modernized and created more and more creature comforts, those patterns are no longer necessary but the genetic imprinting is still there in our psyche.
E: Deep imprinting. The game of dominance vs. the game of cooperation. How do we get it to work? I'm still reading this Equality book by Wilkinson and Pickett. Great stuff. Cooperation and equality produce a finer, gentler life experience every time. And yet...
S: Cooperation and equality aren't highly valued traits outside of interpersonal relationships. The women's movement emphasized equality but that equality was defined as being allowed to play in the male arena rather than amending the rules of that arena to more reflect and respect female styles of interaction. As a woman, to be successful in previously male dominated arenas such as business or politics one must learn to play by male patterned rules.
E: These traits should be among the most highly valued. As evidence, the disenfranchised American male is now in deep emotional crisis...or so the research says. W&P point to humiliation and shame as a real problem to male in unequal societies. Incarceration rates in the US tell only some of that horrible story... That point about male patterned roles was the topic of the radio show. More forward thinking women were opposed to that approach, and rightly so, I think.
S: I agree fully. The big issue is how to effect that type of change when the attitudes and beliefs continue to be passed from generation to generation.
E: Well the concept of women adopting male roles to survive and thrive in business is still relatively new. A lot of women haven't reached that stage yet at all. But I do agree, there is a strong intergenerational transference.
S: I agree, a lot of women haven't reached that stage. First you have to recognize that there are different rules and then you have to figure out how to incorporate them into your own style without going too far and risking being labeled a bitch. It's a tightrope.
E: What women don't know is that it's just as hard or harder for most men. A lot of men just aren't that dominant. Small men have a big handicap in the power game, and the physical size of CEOs shows it. The most successful women whom I've met in business are either very well put together (intimidatingly clean-cut and good looking) or tall and even large and imposing. One needs to threaten a male to maintain power it seems. Ancient patterns...
S: I believe you. A lot of the posturing that I see among men has to do with insecurities. I recall reading a few studies that put forth the belief that taller men are more likely to be in positions of power. I think that there is a lot of pressure on men to fulfill idealized notions of masculinity, just as women are expected to fit certain notions of femininity. Too many stereotypical notions of gender identity equals way too much stress.
E: I think all of society has, at the moment, a heightened sensitivity to power, although it's not yet being openly discussed... And I agree with you on the personal level. As a male I've dealt with these power issues all my life. I remember moving to new schools (4 in 8 years) and having to fight the toughest kid in every class—even though I wasn't either confrontational or big and tough (I was on the small side).
S: That's a lot of new schools in a short period of time. I was a quiet child, terribly shy, so I avoided confrontation for the most part. I just disappeared. It wasn't until I went to college that I found my voice. Great conversation as always, perhaps if we were allowed to be in charge of the world we could resolve these issues. I have a couple of things to do online and then it's bed time for me. Good night, Jerry.
E: Night Sheria. A pleasure as always. Much warmth.
Edge: How so?
S: I like the directness of your interchanges. Women tend to skirt around issues on which they disagree or have differing points of view. It can make direct conversation awkward. I generally prefer the way that men communicate with each other.
E: But men get confrontational too quickly. Women have mastered judicious restraint, probably for survival reasons, physical abuse directed at women, etc.
S: Judicious restraint is a good thing but avoidance of confrontation is also problematic. I spoke with a good friend today and a male member of a board to which she belongs has been a pain in the ass for over a year. He finally told the female chair of the board, "Fuck you," and resigned from the board. There's a board event coming up soon and the chair decided that he should still be invited for to the event because she wanted to show that there are no hard feelings. He accepted the invitation. My response would have been, "You wish and let the door hit you on the way out."
E: I'm with you on your assessment re: your friend... There was a bit on the radio today about women 'making it' in politics. There was a reference to Question Period in the parliamentary system, which favours the testosterone exchanges rather than a more nuanced and conciliatory approach that a woman might take. I found that interesting. And on the other hand, I find it fascinating how women are drawn to men who have power...
S: I find that the more female approach works more effectively in interpersonal relationships but a bit of testosterone helps in business and politics. I think that both genders could learn a bit from each other.
E: That's the truth. Mix is good in all ways. Modern men, unfortunately, are not trained to handle male-only environments and that poses a great problem for communication. Modern men will suck up after women and then behave like women (or a parody thereof) when dealing with each other.
S: I think that perhaps both genders are still stuck in patterns of behavior that were necessary in earlier eras. Powerful men were better protectors when survival was a daily battle and therefore more attractive to women who needed a mate who could protect the home and provide security for the family. Women who were dependent and submissive were more attractive to the alpha male who needed home to be a place of peace and comfort to balance out the struggles of the outside world.
E: Well, if you go by the grocery store checkout magazine racks, those patterns are sure enduring!
S: As we've modernized and created more and more creature comforts, those patterns are no longer necessary but the genetic imprinting is still there in our psyche.
E: Deep imprinting. The game of dominance vs. the game of cooperation. How do we get it to work? I'm still reading this Equality book by Wilkinson and Pickett. Great stuff. Cooperation and equality produce a finer, gentler life experience every time. And yet...
S: Cooperation and equality aren't highly valued traits outside of interpersonal relationships. The women's movement emphasized equality but that equality was defined as being allowed to play in the male arena rather than amending the rules of that arena to more reflect and respect female styles of interaction. As a woman, to be successful in previously male dominated arenas such as business or politics one must learn to play by male patterned rules.
E: These traits should be among the most highly valued. As evidence, the disenfranchised American male is now in deep emotional crisis...or so the research says. W&P point to humiliation and shame as a real problem to male in unequal societies. Incarceration rates in the US tell only some of that horrible story... That point about male patterned roles was the topic of the radio show. More forward thinking women were opposed to that approach, and rightly so, I think.
S: I agree fully. The big issue is how to effect that type of change when the attitudes and beliefs continue to be passed from generation to generation.
E: Well the concept of women adopting male roles to survive and thrive in business is still relatively new. A lot of women haven't reached that stage yet at all. But I do agree, there is a strong intergenerational transference.
S: I agree, a lot of women haven't reached that stage. First you have to recognize that there are different rules and then you have to figure out how to incorporate them into your own style without going too far and risking being labeled a bitch. It's a tightrope.
E: What women don't know is that it's just as hard or harder for most men. A lot of men just aren't that dominant. Small men have a big handicap in the power game, and the physical size of CEOs shows it. The most successful women whom I've met in business are either very well put together (intimidatingly clean-cut and good looking) or tall and even large and imposing. One needs to threaten a male to maintain power it seems. Ancient patterns...
S: I believe you. A lot of the posturing that I see among men has to do with insecurities. I recall reading a few studies that put forth the belief that taller men are more likely to be in positions of power. I think that there is a lot of pressure on men to fulfill idealized notions of masculinity, just as women are expected to fit certain notions of femininity. Too many stereotypical notions of gender identity equals way too much stress.
E: I think all of society has, at the moment, a heightened sensitivity to power, although it's not yet being openly discussed... And I agree with you on the personal level. As a male I've dealt with these power issues all my life. I remember moving to new schools (4 in 8 years) and having to fight the toughest kid in every class—even though I wasn't either confrontational or big and tough (I was on the small side).
S: That's a lot of new schools in a short period of time. I was a quiet child, terribly shy, so I avoided confrontation for the most part. I just disappeared. It wasn't until I went to college that I found my voice. Great conversation as always, perhaps if we were allowed to be in charge of the world we could resolve these issues. I have a couple of things to do online and then it's bed time for me. Good night, Jerry.
E: Night Sheria. A pleasure as always. Much warmth.
The Nine Percent Solution
A flat rate income tax, a national sales tax and a flat rate corporate income tax and all fixed at 9%. Is it the number of the Beast standing on its head?
Why not 8, why not 10? Is it because Nein, Nein, Nein sounds like standing up to something bad, or because it's easier to chant? Certainly there wasn't a lot of mathematics behind Herman Cain's arrival at this Goldilocks level and those who have done some arithmetic, like Melissa Labant, an accountant with the American Institute of CPAs, say that since Warren Buffet's income is mostly in capital gains, the billionaire investor would pay no taxes. The poor fellow trying to support a family on 25 to 30 thousand a year? That 9% means some painful choices have to be made particularly if he has to pay for medical care out of pockets with holes in them.
That national sales tax will certainly diminish already taxed disposable income and harm those of us who spend all of it just keeping the family fed and housed. Yes, this is a simple plan indeed -- simply disastrous unless you're rather well off, like Herman Cain. Sounds great on paper though, just like Communism and some other really disastrous isms.
Would there have to be exemptions for those for whom 9% of income and another 9% of necessary consumption would be ruin? Probably so, but then we're back where we started with loopholes, exemptions and deductions and with almost half the country paying nothing, a situation the simple minded tea bag wavers are making much of in a rather confused way -- as if it was a situation Barack Obama were responsible for. Still the plan offers hope to those for whom paying taxes is a serious burden even though it's false hope that promises to make us more of a country of many serfs and a few lords.
We love simple ideas because life is complex and scary and Herman Cain, although far from the first to propose such regressive tax structures is simply tapping into the power of simple mindedness; maintaining that he wouldn't, as President, sign a bill of more than three pages. It's a good thing that idea wasn't popular when the country was founded. It's hard to envision our already terse constitution being reduced to something acceptable to the minimalists and reductionists looking for a free ride and to people who think the complex global economy should be run more like Godfather's Pizza where you keep firing people and closing stores until it all looks good -- on paper.
Why not 8, why not 10? Is it because Nein, Nein, Nein sounds like standing up to something bad, or because it's easier to chant? Certainly there wasn't a lot of mathematics behind Herman Cain's arrival at this Goldilocks level and those who have done some arithmetic, like Melissa Labant, an accountant with the American Institute of CPAs, say that since Warren Buffet's income is mostly in capital gains, the billionaire investor would pay no taxes. The poor fellow trying to support a family on 25 to 30 thousand a year? That 9% means some painful choices have to be made particularly if he has to pay for medical care out of pockets with holes in them.
That national sales tax will certainly diminish already taxed disposable income and harm those of us who spend all of it just keeping the family fed and housed. Yes, this is a simple plan indeed -- simply disastrous unless you're rather well off, like Herman Cain. Sounds great on paper though, just like Communism and some other really disastrous isms.
Would there have to be exemptions for those for whom 9% of income and another 9% of necessary consumption would be ruin? Probably so, but then we're back where we started with loopholes, exemptions and deductions and with almost half the country paying nothing, a situation the simple minded tea bag wavers are making much of in a rather confused way -- as if it was a situation Barack Obama were responsible for. Still the plan offers hope to those for whom paying taxes is a serious burden even though it's false hope that promises to make us more of a country of many serfs and a few lords.
We love simple ideas because life is complex and scary and Herman Cain, although far from the first to propose such regressive tax structures is simply tapping into the power of simple mindedness; maintaining that he wouldn't, as President, sign a bill of more than three pages. It's a good thing that idea wasn't popular when the country was founded. It's hard to envision our already terse constitution being reduced to something acceptable to the minimalists and reductionists looking for a free ride and to people who think the complex global economy should be run more like Godfather's Pizza where you keep firing people and closing stores until it all looks good -- on paper.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
A little good news
We got the news today from an Associated Press report that the Pentagon has decided not to keep troops in Iraq after a New Year's Eve deadline. All troops will be removed except for 160 soldiers left to guard the US embassy in Baghdad.
Now, there are some people who aren't going to trust this. "Obama promises a lot. We've heard this before."
Well, technically, what we heard before was a troop reduction, not a complete pullout. And Obama lived up to that.
But some people, ignoring the evidence, have always refused to believe that Obama is acting in good faith in Iraq, and I suspect that they will continue to ignore reality.
Well, I don't know if this will help, but here's a little reality for you.
When I was in Iraq (in the first relief group, replacing the actual invasion forces), the Army had taken over Al-Faw palace, one of the last of Saddam's overly ornate structures left standing.
The Army named it and the area around it Camp Victory. It became the HQ for the US Army, and was referred to by the Army as the Victory Base Complex, also encompassing Camp Liberty, Camp Striker, our Air Force unit in Camp Sather, and a number of other encampments from all branches of the military, and even forces from other countries - we had a British unit right next door, for example.
And how do you know that the military is actually going to pull out by January?
They have closed the main PX in Camp Victory.
You can trust in one thing over all others. You have a buttload of generals in one place, you're going to have someplace for them to stock up on clean underwear, chocolate and cigarettes. And the little black-market supply of Jack Daniels and porn coming in aboard the military aircraft isn't going to be able to expand enough to keep them supplied with all the amenities available. (There are other ways to keep supplied with contraband, but I bought mine straight from the aircrews, and I wasn't in charge of anything...)
They can't shop in Baghdad (OK, they could, but there's rules to keep the military out of town, because of those pesky bullets that keep flying toward them), and they don't want to go all the way to the Green Zone after a long day at the office.
An argument can be made about the lower-ranking troops needing some place to get razors and shampoo, but in the end, the needs of the brass override anything else.
_____
Update (10/17/2011): As was pointed out in the comments, I misidentified the Embassy as being in Tehran, rather than Baghdad. That has been corrected.
Now, there are some people who aren't going to trust this. "Obama promises a lot. We've heard this before."
Well, technically, what we heard before was a troop reduction, not a complete pullout. And Obama lived up to that.
But some people, ignoring the evidence, have always refused to believe that Obama is acting in good faith in Iraq, and I suspect that they will continue to ignore reality.
Well, I don't know if this will help, but here's a little reality for you.
When I was in Iraq (in the first relief group, replacing the actual invasion forces), the Army had taken over Al-Faw palace, one of the last of Saddam's overly ornate structures left standing.The Army named it and the area around it Camp Victory. It became the HQ for the US Army, and was referred to by the Army as the Victory Base Complex, also encompassing Camp Liberty, Camp Striker, our Air Force unit in Camp Sather, and a number of other encampments from all branches of the military, and even forces from other countries - we had a British unit right next door, for example.
And how do you know that the military is actually going to pull out by January?
They have closed the main PX in Camp Victory.
You can trust in one thing over all others. You have a buttload of generals in one place, you're going to have someplace for them to stock up on clean underwear, chocolate and cigarettes. And the little black-market supply of Jack Daniels and porn coming in aboard the military aircraft isn't going to be able to expand enough to keep them supplied with all the amenities available. (There are other ways to keep supplied with contraband, but I bought mine straight from the aircrews, and I wasn't in charge of anything...)
They can't shop in Baghdad (OK, they could, but there's rules to keep the military out of town, because of those pesky bullets that keep flying toward them), and they don't want to go all the way to the Green Zone after a long day at the office.
An argument can be made about the lower-ranking troops needing some place to get razors and shampoo, but in the end, the needs of the brass override anything else.
_____
Update (10/17/2011): As was pointed out in the comments, I misidentified the Embassy as being in Tehran, rather than Baghdad. That has been corrected.
All the shallow things
"If this be treason, make the most of it."
What a different line that would be without "if." It would become an admission of the crowd's charge of treason rather than Patrick Henry's defiant stand for the law it was.
"Thou hast said it."
Is that an affirmation or a denial; or a refusal to answer the question?
"If I was a drum major for justice, peace and righteousness. . ."
How would that statement differ if the 'if' disappeared? That's a question being asked today about one of the inscriptions on the new Martin Luther King memorial being dedicated in Washington, where the 'if' does not appear as it did when it was spoken at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta in 1968:
"Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice. Say that I was a drum major for peace. I was a drum major for righteousness. And all the other shallow things will not matter."
The 'if' matters. It matters a great deal because without it King is assuming a mantle and with it he is not; that it is not about him but about Justice, peace and righteousness. Is this a shallow thing or insignificant? I don't think so. I think it speaks of the way our heroes are elevated, to become, in death, a 30 foot tall man expressing stern, stony determination rather than just a man struggling with a mission, struggling with himself, struggling with a stupid, angry and vengeful world that will continue to be just that long after he is gone. The quote on the monument is not phrased as part of a question and that raises many questions.
Are we making him what he was not and apparently did not wish to be? If we make his life about him, then we can opposes him more readily than we can argue against justice and we can make the movement he participated in, a mere matter of quotes and formulae if we like him and personal failings if we do not. Perhaps some can ask his stone idol for guidance and support for their own objectives and pretend he is not gone and will magically return some day. As always happens when our heroes die, we are making his life something less than it was and something more about our lust for leaders, prophets and even gods and we do it to preachers and prophets; polemicists and presidents when we put our desires into their acts and words and thereby worship ourselves.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Victoria Falls
I think I'm starting to figure something out.
I’m coming to realize that Victoria Jackson is either a whip-smart satirist in the style of Steven Colbert, or she is so criminally, bone-chillingly vapid and clueless that it’s miraculous that she can navigate her way out of bed in the morning.
I never thought that she was even slightly humorous when she was on SNL: she was, in fact, one of the stupidest members of a particularly unfunny era for the Not Ready for Primetime Players (the only true bright spots being A. Whitney Brown and the early Dennis Miller – as opposed to the current, self-important, pandering Dennis Miller).
But now I think I understand. I suspect she’s actually a world-class performance artist, who’s been pulling off this ditzy blond act for almost thirty years now. Not because she is, herself, a vacuous, inane bundle of stupid wrapped in a little-girl voice, but as a potent weapon to skewer the ignorant and ego-driven. She has been making fun of various groups of unthinking zombies for decades, and has been doing it with such a straight face that nobody has caught on.
In her early career, I think she was concentrating on the female airhead: the woman willing to suppress her own personality and her own needs to fall in line with the 1950's cheerleader/Playboy image, where youth is prized and women have limited options. But she took that image to an extreme, and used as her archetype not the post-pubescent, sexually-charged girl, but the prepubescent, playful child: her original act consisted of reciting bad poetry while doing clumsy handstands and somersaults, while "accidentally" revealing her white cotton children's panties.
She stuck with that parody for most of her career, but now, perhaps noting that she's grown a little too old to pull off her infantile act any more, she's recast herself into a bad stereotype of a Teabagger. She mouths irrational philosophies, and tunes out any application of logic that might refute her poorly-conceived arguments.
That's the only explanation that I can come up with, to explain why Victoria Jackson proudly posted this video. She takes a cab into New York to meet up with members of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, and although she shows a couple of people just out to have a good time, and one extremist toward the end (essentially correct, but still an extremist), she spends most of the video talking to one man, who calmly and patiently destroys every argument she makes.
Her response? To repeat those same arguments, as if their bloodied shreds weren't piled around her feet. She completely ignores everything said by this quiet, good-tempered person, and goes back to her original, idiotic allegations, completely ignoring the past 15 minutes of her life.
And then she posts it on Youtube, as if it was a victory for her side of the debate. She even seems proud of it.
She can't possibly be that eyeball-meltingly ignorant. This has to be an act. A satirical persona that she uses to lampoon the Teabaggers. No person who can manage to navigate a fork into their mouth without impaling themselves in the forehead can be this galactically obtuse, can they?
I’m coming to realize that Victoria Jackson is either a whip-smart satirist in the style of Steven Colbert, or she is so criminally, bone-chillingly vapid and clueless that it’s miraculous that she can navigate her way out of bed in the morning.
I never thought that she was even slightly humorous when she was on SNL: she was, in fact, one of the stupidest members of a particularly unfunny era for the Not Ready for Primetime Players (the only true bright spots being A. Whitney Brown and the early Dennis Miller – as opposed to the current, self-important, pandering Dennis Miller).
But now I think I understand. I suspect she’s actually a world-class performance artist, who’s been pulling off this ditzy blond act for almost thirty years now. Not because she is, herself, a vacuous, inane bundle of stupid wrapped in a little-girl voice, but as a potent weapon to skewer the ignorant and ego-driven. She has been making fun of various groups of unthinking zombies for decades, and has been doing it with such a straight face that nobody has caught on.
In her early career, I think she was concentrating on the female airhead: the woman willing to suppress her own personality and her own needs to fall in line with the 1950's cheerleader/Playboy image, where youth is prized and women have limited options. But she took that image to an extreme, and used as her archetype not the post-pubescent, sexually-charged girl, but the prepubescent, playful child: her original act consisted of reciting bad poetry while doing clumsy handstands and somersaults, while "accidentally" revealing her white cotton children's panties.
She stuck with that parody for most of her career, but now, perhaps noting that she's grown a little too old to pull off her infantile act any more, she's recast herself into a bad stereotype of a Teabagger. She mouths irrational philosophies, and tunes out any application of logic that might refute her poorly-conceived arguments.
That's the only explanation that I can come up with, to explain why Victoria Jackson proudly posted this video. She takes a cab into New York to meet up with members of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, and although she shows a couple of people just out to have a good time, and one extremist toward the end (essentially correct, but still an extremist), she spends most of the video talking to one man, who calmly and patiently destroys every argument she makes.
Her response? To repeat those same arguments, as if their bloodied shreds weren't piled around her feet. She completely ignores everything said by this quiet, good-tempered person, and goes back to her original, idiotic allegations, completely ignoring the past 15 minutes of her life.
And then she posts it on Youtube, as if it was a victory for her side of the debate. She even seems proud of it.
She can't possibly be that eyeball-meltingly ignorant. This has to be an act. A satirical persona that she uses to lampoon the Teabaggers. No person who can manage to navigate a fork into their mouth without impaling themselves in the forehead can be this galactically obtuse, can they?
Is the GOP Abel to raise Cain?
Herman Cain's attempt to position himself as an "outsider" is a key plank of his presidential campaign: unlike the rest of them, he wants you to know that he is not a professional polician, and that's part of why he should be elected.
Perhaps that's the entire problem. Maybe his inexperience is the reason for the abject stupidity of his ideas, and has nothing to do with him being a brainless twatwaffle.
On the other hand, maybe it's both.
One of Hermie's earliest ideas, that as president, he would never sign a bill longer than three pages, was widely derided by anyone who understood that there are, in fact, complex problems that might take a little longer merely to explain, much less fix.
Hermie's response? He explained that anybody who actually listened to him or took him at his word was stupid.
Actually, "stupid" is his favorite word. He loves to describe people that way: he gave a whole speech at CPAC around the theme that stupid people are ruining America. Which is odd. Because, despite having risen from a humble beginning to CEO of a crappy pizza chain, Herman Cain just doesn't come across as the brightest motherfucker on the planet.
Admittedly, his business model didn't take a genius to develop: pay people eight dollars an hour to deliver pizzas that cost less than a dollar to make, and charge twelve to eighteen dollars apiece for them. It's not like it's an original idea or anything. Hermie just put one interesting spin on the idea: if you use cheaper ingredients, they cost less. But then, instead of improving on the pizza, you give it an exciting, all-crime ad campaign. (As in, "I'm stealing from you by charging you money for this crappy pizza.")
Cain is more than willing to spew the most ignorant talking points with great authority, and totally without shame. It's not just that you're stupid if you disagree with him, you're lazy if you don't have a job. Oh, and by the way, this whole "Occupy Wall Street" movement? In Hermie's world, that's not just lazy people (OK, that's mostly what it is), that's lazy people being manipulated by the White House.
Because conspiracy theories go across real well with the modern Republican party.
Cain can't even get his birther talking points right:
He can't even spew the standard GOP rhetoric correctly. In the middle of accusing the left of being (once again) stupid, this time for not reading the Constitution, he tries to make his point by quoting... wait for it... the Declaration of Independence.
And his current big campaign promise is the 9-9-9 tax plan (9% income tax, 9% business tax, 9% sales tax). A plan which is basically hated by everybody, Democrat or Republican, except Herman Cain.
This is the kind of "leadership" we can expect from Herman Cain? It doesn't take a lot of logic to rip his ideas to shreds.
If he does, by some miracle, win the primaries, Herman Cain may actually make history, though. He will be the first black man to get another black man reelected.
Perhaps that's the entire problem. Maybe his inexperience is the reason for the abject stupidity of his ideas, and has nothing to do with him being a brainless twatwaffle.
On the other hand, maybe it's both.
One of Hermie's earliest ideas, that as president, he would never sign a bill longer than three pages, was widely derided by anyone who understood that there are, in fact, complex problems that might take a little longer merely to explain, much less fix.
Hermie's response? He explained that anybody who actually listened to him or took him at his word was stupid.
Some of these idiotic reporters thought I was serious. The joke’s on them. The message was short bills. Understandable bills. No it’s not literally going to be three pages. The executive summary will be three pages.Of course, reporters aren't the only stupid people in Cain's tiny little world - basically anybody who questions him must automatically be stupid, right? In his latest book, This is Herman Cain, Hermie explained how Ron Paul's stupid followers were conducting a systematic conspiracy to make him look bad.
"I get the same stupid question at almost every one of these events," Cain writes. "I know it’s a deliberate strategy. How can a person randomly show up at a hundred events and ask the same stupid question to try to nail me on the Federal Reserve?"(Apparently, Hermie isn't used to people with more than 5 followers.)
Actually, "stupid" is his favorite word. He loves to describe people that way: he gave a whole speech at CPAC around the theme that stupid people are ruining America. Which is odd. Because, despite having risen from a humble beginning to CEO of a crappy pizza chain, Herman Cain just doesn't come across as the brightest motherfucker on the planet.
Admittedly, his business model didn't take a genius to develop: pay people eight dollars an hour to deliver pizzas that cost less than a dollar to make, and charge twelve to eighteen dollars apiece for them. It's not like it's an original idea or anything. Hermie just put one interesting spin on the idea: if you use cheaper ingredients, they cost less. But then, instead of improving on the pizza, you give it an exciting, all-crime ad campaign. (As in, "I'm stealing from you by charging you money for this crappy pizza.")
Cain is more than willing to spew the most ignorant talking points with great authority, and totally without shame. It's not just that you're stupid if you disagree with him, you're lazy if you don't have a job. Oh, and by the way, this whole "Occupy Wall Street" movement? In Hermie's world, that's not just lazy people (OK, that's mostly what it is), that's lazy people being manipulated by the White House.
Because conspiracy theories go across real well with the modern Republican party.
Cain can't even get his birther talking points right:
"Barack Obama is more of an international," Cain said. "I think he’s out of the mainstream and always has been. Look, he was raised in Kenya..."(Look, moron, Obama lived in Indonesia, and only for four years - ages six to ten. Were all your ideas set in stone when you were in second grade?)
He can't even spew the standard GOP rhetoric correctly. In the middle of accusing the left of being (once again) stupid, this time for not reading the Constitution, he tries to make his point by quoting... wait for it... the Declaration of Independence.
"...when you get to the part about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, don’t stop reading! Keep reading!"Gonna be reading a long time there, big fella.
And his current big campaign promise is the 9-9-9 tax plan (9% income tax, 9% business tax, 9% sales tax). A plan which is basically hated by everybody, Democrat or Republican, except Herman Cain.
Bruce Bartlett, an adviser in the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, says that 9-9-9 is unfair to working taxpayers. "It's the most upside-down tax plan that’s been put forward to tax the poor and the middle class," he says...This plan was developed, not by an economist, but an investment banker with ties to the Koch brothers (unless it was stolen from SimCity). And basically, the rich get taxed less, the poor and middle class get taxed more, and the government gets less money.
Daniel Shaviro, a New York University law professor who specializes in taxation, calls the plan "not viable." For rich people—defined as those who work for themselves and don’t have to take a salary—it essentially becomes an 18 percent total tax on all money. But for poor people collecting a paycheck, Shaviro says, it amounts to a 27 percent tax.
This is the kind of "leadership" we can expect from Herman Cain? It doesn't take a lot of logic to rip his ideas to shreds.
If he does, by some miracle, win the primaries, Herman Cain may actually make history, though. He will be the first black man to get another black man reelected.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Occupational Hazard
I first heard of it a few days ago from a blogger noted for outrageous claims, but I have been late to pick up on the ploy, even though it has been used against liberals and liberal causes for some time. Similarly overbearing "conservative" commentators once assured me that of course Bill and Hillary Clinton were obvious anti-Semites and if you're old enough to read this you'll remember that Barack Obama was of the same racist, intolerant and bigoted stripe and perhaps even a Hitler Sympathizer and Muslim terrorist.
Of course there's always an anecdote, a selected collection of irrelevant or even fabricated 'facts' to prove the point -- and of course and strangely, those making the claim aren't often Jews. I've learned to discount these attacks, of course, you should pardon the metaphor, for many reasons including the observation that the accusations most often come from iron fisted defenders of a faith only they call Christian and who have only suddenly and temporarily stopped accusing Jews and other infidels of persecuting them. ( Sorry Muslims, you'll have to wait your turn for forgiveness.)
So for now, this week only and especially for you, I'm offering 99.99% off (what a deal) on the notion that the Occupy Wall Street people are really there to express their anti-Semitic notions about bankers and brokers and not their antiestablishmentarian anger at those who accepted massive and expensive rescue only to continue their shoddy practices to the detriment of the public and national survival.
That's a sentiment strangely similar to the Tea Party disdain for government bailouts, and the strange bed-fellowship implied here is difficult to sweep under the rug for those who need to look like the only ones discontent with the status quo on Wall Street. So how do you make the Tea Party look good and other people with the same idea look bad? You find something or someone atypical or irrelevant and promote it or him as the prototype.
The Jewish Journal today reminds us of the infamous "protocols of the Elders of Zion" that was used by Czarist supporters to identify the feared and hated Jews with socialism, a practice not unknown to this day and a book that was printed by "Christian" organizations around the world until recently -- if indeed they've stopped. I certainly remember the promotion of Abbie Hoffman to leadership of the many disparate and mostly respectable protesters in Grant Park during the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. I was there and I'd never heard of him until I heard on the news that he was my leader, but of course it was enough to taint the many clergymen, Vietnam veterans and business leaders with the yellow star.
The fear of being labeled a racist of any stripe is, I think, being used quite deliberately to downplay the legitimacy of this protest. It isn't enough to play up the numbers of people who are making a mess of the city and its public and private facilities, particularly for a party trying to wear the mantle of some 18th century destructive, anti-Government protesters. It's hard to convince us that they're really secretly Mexican illegals or African Americans demonstrating their disdain for enterprise and civility, but anyone can be a Jew, or at least accused of it and so the sudden concern by the Religious right that their best friends are being offended on these holiest of holy days, by those unwashed, free loading, anti-Semitic hippies who seem to be gathering around the world calling for regulation.
And of course President Obama we already know to be a Jew hater and if he tries to impose regulations on the Jew-Dominated financial and banking interests, we have additional proof that regulation equals bigotry and not just Communism - just don't think about it too carefully and you won't notice the absurdity -- and if you do, the Tea Party will turn on you too, you bigot!
Of course there's always an anecdote, a selected collection of irrelevant or even fabricated 'facts' to prove the point -- and of course and strangely, those making the claim aren't often Jews. I've learned to discount these attacks, of course, you should pardon the metaphor, for many reasons including the observation that the accusations most often come from iron fisted defenders of a faith only they call Christian and who have only suddenly and temporarily stopped accusing Jews and other infidels of persecuting them. ( Sorry Muslims, you'll have to wait your turn for forgiveness.)
So for now, this week only and especially for you, I'm offering 99.99% off (what a deal) on the notion that the Occupy Wall Street people are really there to express their anti-Semitic notions about bankers and brokers and not their antiestablishmentarian anger at those who accepted massive and expensive rescue only to continue their shoddy practices to the detriment of the public and national survival.
That's a sentiment strangely similar to the Tea Party disdain for government bailouts, and the strange bed-fellowship implied here is difficult to sweep under the rug for those who need to look like the only ones discontent with the status quo on Wall Street. So how do you make the Tea Party look good and other people with the same idea look bad? You find something or someone atypical or irrelevant and promote it or him as the prototype.
The Jewish Journal today reminds us of the infamous "protocols of the Elders of Zion" that was used by Czarist supporters to identify the feared and hated Jews with socialism, a practice not unknown to this day and a book that was printed by "Christian" organizations around the world until recently -- if indeed they've stopped. I certainly remember the promotion of Abbie Hoffman to leadership of the many disparate and mostly respectable protesters in Grant Park during the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. I was there and I'd never heard of him until I heard on the news that he was my leader, but of course it was enough to taint the many clergymen, Vietnam veterans and business leaders with the yellow star.
The fear of being labeled a racist of any stripe is, I think, being used quite deliberately to downplay the legitimacy of this protest. It isn't enough to play up the numbers of people who are making a mess of the city and its public and private facilities, particularly for a party trying to wear the mantle of some 18th century destructive, anti-Government protesters. It's hard to convince us that they're really secretly Mexican illegals or African Americans demonstrating their disdain for enterprise and civility, but anyone can be a Jew, or at least accused of it and so the sudden concern by the Religious right that their best friends are being offended on these holiest of holy days, by those unwashed, free loading, anti-Semitic hippies who seem to be gathering around the world calling for regulation.
And of course President Obama we already know to be a Jew hater and if he tries to impose regulations on the Jew-Dominated financial and banking interests, we have additional proof that regulation equals bigotry and not just Communism - just don't think about it too carefully and you won't notice the absurdity -- and if you do, the Tea Party will turn on you too, you bigot!
Monday, October 10, 2011
Bush v. Gore Redux (With 2 Updates)
In Election Year 2000, Al Gore won the national vote by a plurality of over 2 million votes cast. The Bush campaign won the not so great State of Flori-duh by a mere 531 votes - winning an Electoral College victory but making George Bush only the second president in history without a popular mandate. No other democracy in the free world counts votes quite like the United Reprobates of Amerika. Eleven years later, former Supreme Justice John Paul Stevens writes in his new memoir, Five Chiefs, that the Bush appeal to the United States Supreme Court was "frivolous" and should never have been granted (source):
** Database Technologies (DBT) won a $4 million contract from the state of Florida to assist the Division of Elections in the removal of ineligible registrants from the voter file. Ultimately 173,127 Floridians were identified as potentially ineligible to vote in the November 2000 election. Of those on the list, 57,746 were identified as convicted felons, which later proved to be false. The practice of felon disenfranchisement has resulted in the greater likelihood of minorities, especially African Americans – the ones most likely to vote Democrat - appearing erroneously on the Florida felon exclusion list. For more commentary on election rigging, please read the comment thread below.
TUESDAY UPDATE: If you believe Bush v. Gore was a freak historical anomaly, think again. Republicans are determined to create a political monopoly and end democracy as we know it. Slowly, methodically, bit by bit, they have been laying a foundation nationwide to disenfranchise voters, as this New York Times Editorial explains:
WEDNESDAY UPDATE: Is the hidden motive behind voter suppression driven solely by the ambitions of one party - to crush the opposition and dominate the national agenda? Or is there more? A political party is merely the public face of its backers in the pursuit of economic self-interest. In this article, The Real Agenda Behind Voter Suppression, Donald Cohen offers this perspective:
He recalls bumping into Justice Stephen Breyer at a Christmas party and the two having a brief conversation about the Bush application to halt the recount by issuing a stay. "We agreed that the application was frivolous," he writes. "To secure a stay, a litigant must show that one is necessary to prevent a legally cognizable irreparable injury. Bush's attorneys had failed to make any such showing."Imagine what the world would be like if the SCOTUS stayed away from politics … and let the election be decided in Flori-Duh after massive amounts of election rigging had come to light.** If the vote count were reversed in the Florida Supreme Court, imagine a world with no George Bush! No Darth Cheney! No fungible Rumsfeld! No Bush tax cuts! No decade of ruinous wars! And no economic meltdown!
** Database Technologies (DBT) won a $4 million contract from the state of Florida to assist the Division of Elections in the removal of ineligible registrants from the voter file. Ultimately 173,127 Floridians were identified as potentially ineligible to vote in the November 2000 election. Of those on the list, 57,746 were identified as convicted felons, which later proved to be false. The practice of felon disenfranchisement has resulted in the greater likelihood of minorities, especially African Americans – the ones most likely to vote Democrat - appearing erroneously on the Florida felon exclusion list. For more commentary on election rigging, please read the comment thread below.
TUESDAY UPDATE: If you believe Bush v. Gore was a freak historical anomaly, think again. Republicans are determined to create a political monopoly and end democracy as we know it. Slowly, methodically, bit by bit, they have been laying a foundation nationwide to disenfranchise voters, as this New York Times Editorial explains:
The Myth of Voter Fraud
It has been a record year for new legislation designed to make it harder for Democrats to vote — 19 laws and two executive actions in 14 states dominated by Republicans, according to a new study by the Brennan Center for Justice. As a result, more than five million eligible voters will have a harder time participating in the 2012 election.
Of course the Republicans passing these laws never acknowledge their real purpose, which is to turn away from the polls people who are more likely to vote Democratic, particularly the young, the poor, the elderly and minorities. They insist that laws requiring government identification cards to vote are only to protect the sanctity of the ballot from unscrupulous voters …
None of these explanations are true. There is almost no voting fraud in America. And none of the lawmakers who claim there is have ever been able to document any but the most isolated cases. The only reason Republicans are passing these laws is to give themselves a political edge by suppressing Democratic votes [my bold].If you thought the stolen election of 2000 were bad enough – the one that gave us 8 disastrous years of Bush/Cheney – get ready for the Republican Reich.
WEDNESDAY UPDATE: Is the hidden motive behind voter suppression driven solely by the ambitions of one party - to crush the opposition and dominate the national agenda? Or is there more? A political party is merely the public face of its backers in the pursuit of economic self-interest. In this article, The Real Agenda Behind Voter Suppression, Donald Cohen offers this perspective:
In 1974 and 1975, the Conference Board, a mainstream business organization, held a set of strategic brainstorming meetings with groups of top business executives to understand these threats to free enterprise and begin to chart a course to fight back. They openly expressed their worries whether democracy, in the long run, was even compatible with capitalism. “One man, one vote has undermined the power of business in all capitalist countries since WWII. “ said one participant. Said another, “We need to question the system itself: one man, one vote” [my bold].… which leads me to an academic question: If you can only have one, democracy or free enterprise but not both, which would you prefer? In my view, the Conference Board debate is a false dichotomy. Democracy and free enterprise are not mutually exclusive because eventually you will end up with neither. In a predatory world of business where the rules are written only by the most powerful, eventually the big fish will swallow the little fish, and all you will have left are lords and serfs.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Amerika Über Alles
Mitt Romney is hard to figure out, partly because his most salient feature is the love of ingratiating himself dishonestly with any group he thinks is worth ingratiating himself to. So I have to wonder if he really thinks the United States is the nation chosen of God to lead the world as he told cadets at the Citadel yesterday or whether he just assumes that people embarking upon a military career are dreaming of imperial glory. I have no way of knowing whether these cadets have Napoleonic dreams or are attracted to arms because of some sense of personal weakness and humiliation, but I'd hesitate to bet that many really think that US history isn't filled with mistakes at home and abroad or that we aren't a better, more moral nation than once we were. Of course I don't mean to say we shouldn't strive to be a good influence in the world, but being a good influence doesn't mean command, doesn't mean control, doesn't mean we're the infallible and mighty hand of some invented Lord as Romney would be implying if there were any implications beyond opportunism in anything he has ever said in public.
But as I say, you never know what Romney thinks, particularly if your assessment is derived from listening to the man. You certainly can know that he's willing to put some strange interpretations on events to bolster his imperial and messianic aspirations whether or not he believes them. President Obama's "apology tour" for instance; Mitt would like to make the psychorabble feel important and loved by associating honesty with apology and apology with weakness and weakness with Jonah-like abdication of a divine mission. Of course Obama never went on an apology tour, but what black man has ever not been in danger from Godly Americans when someone accuses him of winking at a white girl. Where there's smoke, there's fire, we say, forgetting that where there's smoke there may be a smokescreen and there may be arson.
That Obama portrayed American history in a poor light by admitting that we have sometimes been guilty of arrogance and have sometimes made mistakes is a big fish to swallow, to invert the metaphor and it clashes with Romney's carefully crafted humble demeanor. There's nothing humble about him and there's something disturbing about the belief in divinely ordained male control of family life his religion seems to demand, at least to an outsider like me.
I've often been told that Obama "went over there and apologized to them" by Fox News victims totally ignorant of where there is or who said what. It's a lie of course and a big one but it isn't going away even if Romney never says another word about it or is magically transported to another world for him to rule, as apparently he thinks he will be. Lies, like cancer cells, are all but immortal. Truth and decency and the hope for a world not run by pompous and powerful thugs in expensive suits and plastic hair are as fragile as a dream.
But as I say, you never know what Romney thinks, particularly if your assessment is derived from listening to the man. You certainly can know that he's willing to put some strange interpretations on events to bolster his imperial and messianic aspirations whether or not he believes them. President Obama's "apology tour" for instance; Mitt would like to make the psychorabble feel important and loved by associating honesty with apology and apology with weakness and weakness with Jonah-like abdication of a divine mission. Of course Obama never went on an apology tour, but what black man has ever not been in danger from Godly Americans when someone accuses him of winking at a white girl. Where there's smoke, there's fire, we say, forgetting that where there's smoke there may be a smokescreen and there may be arson.
That Obama portrayed American history in a poor light by admitting that we have sometimes been guilty of arrogance and have sometimes made mistakes is a big fish to swallow, to invert the metaphor and it clashes with Romney's carefully crafted humble demeanor. There's nothing humble about him and there's something disturbing about the belief in divinely ordained male control of family life his religion seems to demand, at least to an outsider like me.
said the man who is more frightening for his benign smile. To me there is no one more dangerous than a man who can call upon a sufficiently established god to justify world domination and I don't think I need to offer examples. No one more dangerous unless, of course, we add the photogenic charm and the forked tongue. What Mitt really is saying is that America is chosen to be the priest and caretaker of the planet and what he is implying is that by being its ordained leader, he's God's agent on Earth. Where and when have we heard this before? Certainly not from the founders of our Republic who took up arms against God's own chosen King.
"An eloquently justified surrender of world leadership is still surrender"
I've often been told that Obama "went over there and apologized to them" by Fox News victims totally ignorant of where there is or who said what. It's a lie of course and a big one but it isn't going away even if Romney never says another word about it or is magically transported to another world for him to rule, as apparently he thinks he will be. Lies, like cancer cells, are all but immortal. Truth and decency and the hope for a world not run by pompous and powerful thugs in expensive suits and plastic hair are as fragile as a dream.
Three idiots, balanced by a genius.
Mitt Romney is going to speak before the Values Voters Summit, which is another gathering of God-botherers that happens every year, this one put on by the Family Research Council, the American Family Association and other evangelical groups.
Now, Bryan Fischer (of the American Family Association) said just last month that the First Amendment doesn't apply to Mormons. So the New York Times asked the Romney's people to comment on that, but the campaign didn't reply.
Why is anyone surprised about that? It's Romney's people! How could they reply? They don't have the right!
Ought to be a short speech, though.
But this move of Romney's is only... interesting (you know - the polite way to say "pandering"). Other people are just outright stupid.
Congressman, please define what you consider “freedom.” And for that matter, define “attack.”
Especially ironic that, having gotten everything bass-ackwards like that, he went on to say that the president’s policies were “ignorant and incompetent”...
Meanwhile, Eric Cantor tried to whip up anger against those same protesters that broke Rep. Broun's brain.
But, just because there are useless policians out there, that doesn't mean we have to pay attention to them all time, does it?
Instead, join me in wishing a happy birthday, on this late hour of October 7, to the brilliant Tim Minchin.
Now, Bryan Fischer (of the American Family Association) said just last month that the First Amendment doesn't apply to Mormons. So the New York Times asked the Romney's people to comment on that, but the campaign didn't reply.
Why is anyone surprised about that? It's Romney's people! How could they reply? They don't have the right!
Ought to be a short speech, though.
But this move of Romney's is only... interesting (you know - the polite way to say "pandering"). Other people are just outright stupid.
On ABC’s Top Line today, Rep. Paul Broun, a tea party Republican from Georgia, said the ("Occupy Wall Street") protests amount to an “attack upon freedom” — one that he said is now being hijacked by labor unions in attempt to reelect President Obama.“Attack upon freedom”? Exercising your right to peaceful assembly is now an “attack upon freedom”?
“They don’t know why they’re there. They’re just mad,” Broun told us. “This attack upon business, attack upon industry, attack upon freedom – and I think that’s what this is all about.”
Congressman, please define what you consider “freedom.” And for that matter, define “attack.”
Especially ironic that, having gotten everything bass-ackwards like that, he went on to say that the president’s policies were “ignorant and incompetent”...
Meanwhile, Eric Cantor tried to whip up anger against those same protesters that broke Rep. Broun's brain.
"If you read the newspapers today, I for one am increasingly concerned about the growing mobs occupying Wall Street and the other cities across the country," he said.And then, completely straight-faced, he found the perfect follow-up comment.
"Believe it or not, some in this town have actually condoned the pitting of Americans against Americans."You mean, like trying to pit Americans against working-class Americans who might be protesting economic injustice?
But, just because there are useless policians out there, that doesn't mean we have to pay attention to them all time, does it?
Instead, join me in wishing a happy birthday, on this late hour of October 7, to the brilliant Tim Minchin.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. ~~ Aesop.
Well, Chris Christie announced that he would not run for president, probably because he didn't want to spend a year taking hits from the right (saying he was a leftist elitist, and probably a closet Muslim), and the left (pointing out things like the fact that he was a known bully who, when he was working as a lobbyist for Bernie Madoff, got securities fraud exempted from New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act).
And, really, who wants to hear the phrase "morbidly obese" every day?
Sarah Palin, seeing someone else in the limelight, tried to upstage him, saying that she wasn't running either, but since only a handful of drooling nose-pickers still thought she might, she didn't garner nearly as much press as she felt she deserved. So, what does that leave us?
I have never seen a more stubbornly ignorant collection of elitist, pandering fuckknuckles than the current crop of GOP candidates; they’re a glittering panoply of thieves, liars, theocrats and delusional morons.
I mean, let’s take a quick look at these mean-spirited, misanthropic gasbags who believe, somewhere at the root of their overwhelmingly swollen egos, that they could lead this country to greatness by following the noble example of George W. Bush.
And, to be fair about it (because I’m the epitome of fairness, after all), let’s go alphabetically.
Michele Bachmann: This is a woman who is either certifiably insane, or she is openly trying to attract the paranoid constituency to her state, because she believes that there are enough of them to elect her to office.
(Technically, this idea isn't quite as idiotic as it sounds: after all, there are enough mouthbreathers in Minnesota’s 6th congressional district to get her reelected twice. This could, of course, easily be attributed to a genetic aberration. Minnesota's winters are hard; and sometimes you just can't get to town for your twenty-dollar whore, but your sister is right there in the next room.)
Her torch has dimmed a bit, because she has been saying openly ignorant and insane things for far too long. The American populace is beginning to notice that it isn’t a playful glint in her eyes, but the cold hard gleam of madness.
Herman Cain: You can’t say that Herman Cain is a complete idiot, but he is somewhat deluded about his personal magnetism. An idiot couldn't have come from the streets of Memphis, Tennessee (the son of a chauffeur and a cleaning woman) and become the CEO of a national pizza chain, with a personal net worth just south of five million dollars. So I'll cheerfully admit that the man has business acumen.
Americans have a tendency to canonize self-made millionaires, but this odd strain of hero-worship doesn't extend quite far enough to push Herman Cain into the White House. Cain has failed to notice the deep-seated racism in certain parts of the Republican Party, which makes him an unlikely choice to become Commander-in-Chief. There are too many members of the GOP who just cannot force themselves to vote for a black man, even if they’re offered a free order of Cheesy Bread to go with it.
I would suggest that Cain suffered brain damage from a very small stroke, which is not only manifesting as this gaping blind spot, but in the form of some significant tone-deafness. The man actually went on CNN’s The Situation Room and said:
That’s why Hermie is trying to push the “Rick Perry hates black people!” meme. He’s got nothing else. He’s a one-trick pony, just like Michael Steele: “Look at me! I’m a black republican!” (You know, Herm, Steele got fired for being too black... it’s an ugly road you’re travelling, dude. Good luck with that.)
Newt Gingrich: Good old Newtie. Why does this man think he can be elected? (Oh, right. He thinks he’s the center of the stinking universe. Don't mess with Gingrich: he shut down the entire government once because they asked him to move to the back of Air Force One.)
The man's entire campaign staff deserted this sinking ship - you'd think he'd take the hint. (Hell, half of Bachmann's ran away, too, but you expect her not to notice...)
I’ve dealt with this fucker before. Do I need to bother with him again?
Jon Huntsman: Huntsman is quite possibly the most sane of all the possible Republican candidates. Which makes him the odds-on favorite to be unemployed on January 21, 2013: for the same reason that a few scattered racists make Herman Cain less electable, Huntsman is going to have a problem with the Republican base. They can't accept those pesky sciencey things like global warming and evolution, and the fact that he does? Well, that just makes him a little suspicious, doesn't it?
Of course, as it turns out, Huntsman's status as the only candidate who isn’t actively trying to get his head wedged up Donald Trump’s ass might actually turn out to be a better idea than you’d think: it seems that Trump's endorsement actually harms a politician in the polls.
Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson: (Felt I should throw the his former job in there for two reasons. First, even if you’d ever heard of the man, it’s likely that you’ve forgotten. And two, I live in that particular state.)
The thing that's most likely to sink him is going to be that pro-gay marriage/pro-abortion stance of his. Johnson and Ron Paul will split the legalize-marijuana crowd (or possibly just pass them back and forth), but Johnson’s plan to "reform" (read "gut") Social Security and repeal healthcare reform will keep him from attracting too many independent voters who might be attracted to his vaguely human qualities.
Ron Paul: I’d say he’s huge, but, to be honest, he’s tiny. Apparently 5’9” tall (and potentially bulletproof). Most of the world admits that the man is unelectable, but Ron Paul isn't the kind of guy to back down from a challenge!
We call that a "Napoleon complex."
His biggest (heh) problem is that his followers are rabid, but there really aren't enough of them to get him into a higher office than the one he currently possesses. (Which is sad, because he might actually get my son out of Afghanistan, but there it is...)
Ron Paul seems to be a smart man - one of the few signs that there might actually be a glimmer of intelligence that hasn’t been extinguished in the Lone Star state. Which isn’t to say that he wouldn’t totally destroy the economy with his libertarian idiocy: I’m just trying to be objective, here.
Because that's me: fair, balanced, unbiased.
Rick Perry: Little Ricky is a crazed redneck weasel on meth; he's George W. Bush to the fourth power. The gleam of insanity deep in his eyes doesn't seem as bright as Bachmann's, but that's only because it gets dimmed by the clouds of abject stupidity swirling around in that great hollow area.
There is nothing good about Rick Perry - the more you learn about him, the less you like. He's a vicious theocrat with a tendency toward cronyism
And potentially a sex addict.
Mitt Romney: I've got to say, Mittens is nothing if not predictable. The man is whatever you want him to be. What is electable tomorrow? Vegetation? Then he's a cucumber. Porn stars? He'll rock that Viagra until it screams. He is what you want. No matter what you want.
No, really, it doesn't matter what you want. He doesn't care. Do you want a pro-choice pedophile? He'll yank the fetus out with his bare hands and start fucking it right in front of the camera if he thinks that'll play well in Hoboken.
Mittens literally doesn't care. He has no position that doesn't have a 20-page report from a focus group telling him that people like it. If White Supremacy began testing well with target audiences, he'd grab his pillowcases and start cutting eye-holes before the test results were out of the printer.
Mittens doesn't care that Mormonism is considered a cult by many of the Christian groups. Hell, if the focus groups tell him that Catholicism is on the rise, he'll be sucking off the pope by morning.
Rick "Frothy" Santorum: (speaking of sucking off the pope) It's hard to tell which is the bigger train wreck: Rick Santorum's campaign, or the simpering, shambling shell of a man himself. As one Salon editor put it, he is "the only one of the candidates to participate in all of the GOP debates and still not show any life. He’s at 2 percent in the ABC/Washington Post survey, almost exactly where he was last month and the month before that."
All Obama has to do between now and the election is improve his unemployment statistics, and he won’t even need to campaign. That’s why the congressional GOP is doing everything they can to kick the snot out of the American Jobs Plan.
The president needs to put away his “Let’s Compromise” checklist, and pick up the “You’re Destroying America” stick. Because the only way he’s not going to keep his job, is if the Republican Party can keep more people from getting one.
And, really, who wants to hear the phrase "morbidly obese" every day?
Sarah Palin, seeing someone else in the limelight, tried to upstage him, saying that she wasn't running either, but since only a handful of drooling nose-pickers still thought she might, she didn't garner nearly as much press as she felt she deserved. So, what does that leave us?
I have never seen a more stubbornly ignorant collection of elitist, pandering fuckknuckles than the current crop of GOP candidates; they’re a glittering panoply of thieves, liars, theocrats and delusional morons.
I mean, let’s take a quick look at these mean-spirited, misanthropic gasbags who believe, somewhere at the root of their overwhelmingly swollen egos, that they could lead this country to greatness by following the noble example of George W. Bush.
And, to be fair about it (because I’m the epitome of fairness, after all), let’s go alphabetically.
Michele Bachmann: This is a woman who is either certifiably insane, or she is openly trying to attract the paranoid constituency to her state, because she believes that there are enough of them to elect her to office.
(Technically, this idea isn't quite as idiotic as it sounds: after all, there are enough mouthbreathers in Minnesota’s 6th congressional district to get her reelected twice. This could, of course, easily be attributed to a genetic aberration. Minnesota's winters are hard; and sometimes you just can't get to town for your twenty-dollar whore, but your sister is right there in the next room.)
Her torch has dimmed a bit, because she has been saying openly ignorant and insane things for far too long. The American populace is beginning to notice that it isn’t a playful glint in her eyes, but the cold hard gleam of madness.
Herman Cain: You can’t say that Herman Cain is a complete idiot, but he is somewhat deluded about his personal magnetism. An idiot couldn't have come from the streets of Memphis, Tennessee (the son of a chauffeur and a cleaning woman) and become the CEO of a national pizza chain, with a personal net worth just south of five million dollars. So I'll cheerfully admit that the man has business acumen.
Americans have a tendency to canonize self-made millionaires, but this odd strain of hero-worship doesn't extend quite far enough to push Herman Cain into the White House. Cain has failed to notice the deep-seated racism in certain parts of the Republican Party, which makes him an unlikely choice to become Commander-in-Chief. There are too many members of the GOP who just cannot force themselves to vote for a black man, even if they’re offered a free order of Cheesy Bread to go with it.
I would suggest that Cain suffered brain damage from a very small stroke, which is not only manifesting as this gaping blind spot, but in the form of some significant tone-deafness. The man actually went on CNN’s The Situation Room and said:
Many African American voters “have been brainwashed into not being open-minded, not even considering a conservative point of view... I have received some of that same vitriol simply because I am running for the Republican nomination as a conservative. It’s just brainwashing and people not being open-minded, pure and simple.”“Hey, black people! You’re gullible and easily led! So vote for me!”
That’s why Hermie is trying to push the “Rick Perry hates black people!” meme. He’s got nothing else. He’s a one-trick pony, just like Michael Steele: “Look at me! I’m a black republican!” (You know, Herm, Steele got fired for being too black... it’s an ugly road you’re travelling, dude. Good luck with that.)
Newt Gingrich: Good old Newtie. Why does this man think he can be elected? (Oh, right. He thinks he’s the center of the stinking universe. Don't mess with Gingrich: he shut down the entire government once because they asked him to move to the back of Air Force One.)
The man's entire campaign staff deserted this sinking ship - you'd think he'd take the hint. (Hell, half of Bachmann's ran away, too, but you expect her not to notice...)
I’ve dealt with this fucker before. Do I need to bother with him again?
Jon Huntsman: Huntsman is quite possibly the most sane of all the possible Republican candidates. Which makes him the odds-on favorite to be unemployed on January 21, 2013: for the same reason that a few scattered racists make Herman Cain less electable, Huntsman is going to have a problem with the Republican base. They can't accept those pesky sciencey things like global warming and evolution, and the fact that he does? Well, that just makes him a little suspicious, doesn't it?
Of course, as it turns out, Huntsman's status as the only candidate who isn’t actively trying to get his head wedged up Donald Trump’s ass might actually turn out to be a better idea than you’d think: it seems that Trump's endorsement actually harms a politician in the polls.
Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson: (Felt I should throw the his former job in there for two reasons. First, even if you’d ever heard of the man, it’s likely that you’ve forgotten. And two, I live in that particular state.)
The thing that's most likely to sink him is going to be that pro-gay marriage/pro-abortion stance of his. Johnson and Ron Paul will split the legalize-marijuana crowd (or possibly just pass them back and forth), but Johnson’s plan to "reform" (read "gut") Social Security and repeal healthcare reform will keep him from attracting too many independent voters who might be attracted to his vaguely human qualities.
Ron Paul: I’d say he’s huge, but, to be honest, he’s tiny. Apparently 5’9” tall (and potentially bulletproof). Most of the world admits that the man is unelectable, but Ron Paul isn't the kind of guy to back down from a challenge!
We call that a "Napoleon complex."
His biggest (heh) problem is that his followers are rabid, but there really aren't enough of them to get him into a higher office than the one he currently possesses. (Which is sad, because he might actually get my son out of Afghanistan, but there it is...)
Ron Paul seems to be a smart man - one of the few signs that there might actually be a glimmer of intelligence that hasn’t been extinguished in the Lone Star state. Which isn’t to say that he wouldn’t totally destroy the economy with his libertarian idiocy: I’m just trying to be objective, here.
Because that's me: fair, balanced, unbiased.
Rick Perry: Little Ricky is a crazed redneck weasel on meth; he's George W. Bush to the fourth power. The gleam of insanity deep in his eyes doesn't seem as bright as Bachmann's, but that's only because it gets dimmed by the clouds of abject stupidity swirling around in that great hollow area.
There is nothing good about Rick Perry - the more you learn about him, the less you like. He's a vicious theocrat with a tendency toward cronyism
And potentially a sex addict.
Mitt Romney: I've got to say, Mittens is nothing if not predictable. The man is whatever you want him to be. What is electable tomorrow? Vegetation? Then he's a cucumber. Porn stars? He'll rock that Viagra until it screams. He is what you want. No matter what you want.
No, really, it doesn't matter what you want. He doesn't care. Do you want a pro-choice pedophile? He'll yank the fetus out with his bare hands and start fucking it right in front of the camera if he thinks that'll play well in Hoboken.
Mittens literally doesn't care. He has no position that doesn't have a 20-page report from a focus group telling him that people like it. If White Supremacy began testing well with target audiences, he'd grab his pillowcases and start cutting eye-holes before the test results were out of the printer.
Mittens doesn't care that Mormonism is considered a cult by many of the Christian groups. Hell, if the focus groups tell him that Catholicism is on the rise, he'll be sucking off the pope by morning.
Rick "Frothy" Santorum: (speaking of sucking off the pope) It's hard to tell which is the bigger train wreck: Rick Santorum's campaign, or the simpering, shambling shell of a man himself. As one Salon editor put it, he is "the only one of the candidates to participate in all of the GOP debates and still not show any life. He’s at 2 percent in the ABC/Washington Post survey, almost exactly where he was last month and the month before that."
All Obama has to do between now and the election is improve his unemployment statistics, and he won’t even need to campaign. That’s why the congressional GOP is doing everything they can to kick the snot out of the American Jobs Plan.
The president needs to put away his “Let’s Compromise” checklist, and pick up the “You’re Destroying America” stick. Because the only way he’s not going to keep his job, is if the Republican Party can keep more people from getting one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)