"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?
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)