I'm glad somebody finally researched this urban legend: the Vietnam vet getting spat upon by hateful antiwar protesters. Good for SLATE for writing about it, even though it won't likely get touched in the mainstream press, because it too satisfyingly fits the rightist stereotypes of antiwar protesters. I do like how, while researching the story, the writer found that antiwar protesters were themselves spat upon by pro-war counter demonstrators. That fits their politics of hate approach better.
Next up (I hope), somebody disproving the urban legend of the loggers getting maimed and/or killed by spiked trees. I don't think it ever happened, although, once again, it falls neatly into rightist perceptions, the environmental bogeyman, the eco-terrorist. Loggers get maimed and/or killed by lots of things; it's dangerous work. I don't think tree spikes were ever the culprit. Never mind that, as a tactic, it wasn't the best, since it served as admirably useful PR against radical environmentalism.
I'm not a radical environmentalist, but I don't buy the tree-spiking story. I tried to get the Straight Dope to inquire about it, but Cecil blew me off. Dick.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Irresolute
Looks like those pro-escalation Senators are busy trying to round up votes against the antiwar resolution. Now, I think the resolution is pretty wussy, a purely symbolic vote (versus actually busting Bush's balls over his warmongering), but if even a symbolic vote is too much for some senators, well, I should hope that people follow those votes closely and know how their senator voted, and hold them to that in 2008.
Actively against the nonbinding resolution (and/or actively trying to kill it through other, competing legislation meant to siphon votes away from the resolution):
They're trying to round up 41 other votes to kill it, so keep an eye on it, and on them.
It's ludicrous to think that the "this will embolden our enemies" line would hold any weight -- our enemies are already emboldened. Or hadn't they noticed?
Actively against the nonbinding resolution (and/or actively trying to kill it through other, competing legislation meant to siphon votes away from the resolution):
- John McCain of Arizona (some "maverick")
- Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
- Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut (Traitor Joe strikes again!)
- Mitch McConnell of Kentucky
- John Cornyn of Texas
- David Vitter of Louisiana
- Jim DeMint of South Carolina
They're trying to round up 41 other votes to kill it, so keep an eye on it, and on them.
It's ludicrous to think that the "this will embolden our enemies" line would hold any weight -- our enemies are already emboldened. Or hadn't they noticed?
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Yo, Joe?
So, Joe Biden's really going to try to be President??! Buh?
It just confirms my contention that there should be a constitutional amendment banning anybody who wants to be President from running, because you'd have to be either insane or stupid to want to be President. Why should only people who can pay for the privilege have the office?
Biden's going to go up in smoke very early in the game, so why not fritter away some Biden bucks, right? I'll never forgive him for some of his confirmation votes before 2006, where he'd go on (and on and on) about how bad a given Bush appointee was, only to vote for them in the end. Way to go, Joe.
Anyway, he's crazy!
It just confirms my contention that there should be a constitutional amendment banning anybody who wants to be President from running, because you'd have to be either insane or stupid to want to be President. Why should only people who can pay for the privilege have the office?
Biden's going to go up in smoke very early in the game, so why not fritter away some Biden bucks, right? I'll never forgive him for some of his confirmation votes before 2006, where he'd go on (and on and on) about how bad a given Bush appointee was, only to vote for them in the end. Way to go, Joe.
Anyway, he's crazy!
Cooking the planet, Cooking the books
What, the Bushies putting financial/political interest ahead of scientific research? Never!
Bush pressure seen on climate experts
Lawmakers get survey of scientists, half of whom report political pressure
MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 2:07 p.m. CT Jan 30, 2007
WASHINGTON - The Democratic-controlled Congress on Tuesday stepped up its pressure on President Bush’s global warming strategy, hearing allegations of new political pressure on government scientists to downplay the threat of global warming.
Lawmakers received survey results of federal scientists that showed 46 percent felt pressure to eliminate the words “climate change,” “global warming” or similar terms from communications about their work.
The scientists also reported 435 instances of political interference in their work over the past five years.
Bush in his recent State of the Union address acknowledged that climate change needs to be addressed, but he opposes mandatory caps on carbon emissions, arguing that industry through new technologies can deal with the problem at less cost.
The intense interest about climate change comes as some 500 climate scientists gather in Paris this week to put the final touches on a United Nations report on how warming, as a result of a growing concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, is likely to affect sea levels.
The new allegations were made at a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
Waxman said he and the top Republican on the committee, Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, had sought documents from the administration on climate policy, but were repeatedly rebuffed.
"The committee isn't trying to obtain state secrets or documents that could affect our immediate national security," said Waxman, opening the hearing. "We are simply seeking answers to whether the White House's political staff is inappropriately censoring impartial government scientists."
"We know that the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimize the potential danger," Waxman added.
Waxman said his committee had not received documents it requested from the White House and other agencies, and that a handful of papers received on the eve of the hearing "add nothing to our inquiry."
Nearly half cited edits
The Union of Concerned Scientists, a private advocacy group, and the Government Accountability Project, a legal-assistance group that represents whistle-blowers, sent out the survey to 1,600 scientists. Surveys were returned by 308 scientists. Not all answered every question, but the survey found that:
# 43 percent of respondents reported edits during review of their work that changed the meaning of their findings.
# 46 percent felt administrative requirements that impaired climate-related work.
# 67 percent said the environment for federal government climate research is worse now than five years ago.
The groups urged lawmakers to ensure “scientists’ constitutional right to speak about any subject in their private lives and allowing scientists to make ultimate decisions about the communication of their research.”
“The new Congress must act to prevent the continued interference with science for political purposes,” said GAP attorney Tarek Maassarani. “A good first step would be for Congress to amend current whistle blower protections to specifically protect the rights of federal government scientists.”
Hearing witnesses included a NASA official and a former senior official of the office that coordinates the government’s climate programs. That former official, Rick Piltz, quit his job in 2005, charging that scientists’ climate documents were being edited by political appointees to tone them down.
Administration officials were not scheduled to testify. In the past, the White House has said it has only sought to inject balance into reports on climate change.
At the hearing, Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, criticized the survey as self-selecting and flawed.
Allegations of political pressure have been at the center of a controversy involving James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the country’s top experts on climate change. Hansen had accused NASA of trying to keep him from speaking publicly about global warming, and the agency later backed off.
Climate legislation coming
Since Democrats took control of Congress this month, there has been a rush to introduce climate legislation.
In the Senate, Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., was holding an open meeting Tuesday for her colleagues to express their views on climate change, in advance of a broader set of hearings on the issue.
Among those to make comments were two presidential hopefuls — Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Ill. Both lawmakers favor mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, something opposed by President Bush, who argues such requirements would threaten economic growth.
Boxer has offered the most aggressive bill, one that is touted as reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by mid-century.
Obama and McCain are sponsoring a bill along with Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., that would cut emissions by two-thirds by 2050. Another bill, offered by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., would halt the growth of carbon emissions by 2030 and then is expected to lead to reductions.
All three would require mandatory caps on greenhouse gas releases from power plants, cars and other sources. They also would have various forms of an emissions trading system to reduce the economic cost.
In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to create a new select-committee to hold hearings and recommend actions on climate change. That proposal has been met with resistance from chairmen of committees with jurisdiction over various aspects of the matter, but nevertheless has indicated the new importance the issue has taken in Congress.
Bush pressure seen on climate experts
Lawmakers get survey of scientists, half of whom report political pressure
MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 2:07 p.m. CT Jan 30, 2007
WASHINGTON - The Democratic-controlled Congress on Tuesday stepped up its pressure on President Bush’s global warming strategy, hearing allegations of new political pressure on government scientists to downplay the threat of global warming.
Lawmakers received survey results of federal scientists that showed 46 percent felt pressure to eliminate the words “climate change,” “global warming” or similar terms from communications about their work.
The scientists also reported 435 instances of political interference in their work over the past five years.
Bush in his recent State of the Union address acknowledged that climate change needs to be addressed, but he opposes mandatory caps on carbon emissions, arguing that industry through new technologies can deal with the problem at less cost.
The intense interest about climate change comes as some 500 climate scientists gather in Paris this week to put the final touches on a United Nations report on how warming, as a result of a growing concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, is likely to affect sea levels.
The new allegations were made at a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
Waxman said he and the top Republican on the committee, Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, had sought documents from the administration on climate policy, but were repeatedly rebuffed.
"The committee isn't trying to obtain state secrets or documents that could affect our immediate national security," said Waxman, opening the hearing. "We are simply seeking answers to whether the White House's political staff is inappropriately censoring impartial government scientists."
"We know that the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimize the potential danger," Waxman added.
Waxman said his committee had not received documents it requested from the White House and other agencies, and that a handful of papers received on the eve of the hearing "add nothing to our inquiry."
Nearly half cited edits
The Union of Concerned Scientists, a private advocacy group, and the Government Accountability Project, a legal-assistance group that represents whistle-blowers, sent out the survey to 1,600 scientists. Surveys were returned by 308 scientists. Not all answered every question, but the survey found that:
# 43 percent of respondents reported edits during review of their work that changed the meaning of their findings.
# 46 percent felt administrative requirements that impaired climate-related work.
# 67 percent said the environment for federal government climate research is worse now than five years ago.
The groups urged lawmakers to ensure “scientists’ constitutional right to speak about any subject in their private lives and allowing scientists to make ultimate decisions about the communication of their research.”
“The new Congress must act to prevent the continued interference with science for political purposes,” said GAP attorney Tarek Maassarani. “A good first step would be for Congress to amend current whistle blower protections to specifically protect the rights of federal government scientists.”
Hearing witnesses included a NASA official and a former senior official of the office that coordinates the government’s climate programs. That former official, Rick Piltz, quit his job in 2005, charging that scientists’ climate documents were being edited by political appointees to tone them down.
Administration officials were not scheduled to testify. In the past, the White House has said it has only sought to inject balance into reports on climate change.
At the hearing, Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, criticized the survey as self-selecting and flawed.
Allegations of political pressure have been at the center of a controversy involving James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the country’s top experts on climate change. Hansen had accused NASA of trying to keep him from speaking publicly about global warming, and the agency later backed off.
Climate legislation coming
Since Democrats took control of Congress this month, there has been a rush to introduce climate legislation.
In the Senate, Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., was holding an open meeting Tuesday for her colleagues to express their views on climate change, in advance of a broader set of hearings on the issue.
Among those to make comments were two presidential hopefuls — Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Ill. Both lawmakers favor mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, something opposed by President Bush, who argues such requirements would threaten economic growth.
Boxer has offered the most aggressive bill, one that is touted as reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by mid-century.
Obama and McCain are sponsoring a bill along with Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., that would cut emissions by two-thirds by 2050. Another bill, offered by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., would halt the growth of carbon emissions by 2030 and then is expected to lead to reductions.
All three would require mandatory caps on greenhouse gas releases from power plants, cars and other sources. They also would have various forms of an emissions trading system to reduce the economic cost.
In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to create a new select-committee to hold hearings and recommend actions on climate change. That proposal has been met with resistance from chairmen of committees with jurisdiction over various aspects of the matter, but nevertheless has indicated the new importance the issue has taken in Congress.
Star
Ding! Another star! Woo hoo! I figured they'd like it.
I think it's a good thing to go from monologue to dialogue. Theater actors, stand-up comics, and live bands have had to deal with that kind of instant feedback for centuries, and I think they've come out alright. Sure, there are lousy audiences and hecklers at times, but perhaps the writer just needs to have a thicker skin, and not let it get to them -- the good folks will get it, and the trolls will be out there, too. In showbiz, they say "break a leg" -- so, for you, I'd say "break a nail!" to reflect the different demands of a keyboard-driven gig.
For too long, the culture creators have come from a particular social class, embodying a standard set of values (you know, Ivy League-educated, upper-middle class background, etc.) -- meritocracy in action, or so we're to believe. And as a result, it shapes not only what they write about, but what they see, too, what they're even able to perceive (I'd loosely term that the David Brooks Effect, given his astounding cultural myopia). I think it reflects the lack of real diversity in the American intellectual class -- the Best and Brightest simply don't have all the right answers, but don't try telling them that! They matter, because, well, because they're content providers, that's why!
That disconnect between meritocrat and audience is probably why polls consistently show the American public to be ahead of their representatives on issues. So long as they're all hunkered down in DC, they're okay, but outside the Beltway, they're lacking, forced to deal with the rascal multitudes, and afraid of it -- no wonder Bush's handlers never have unstaged appearances for the man; he's afraid of that instant feedback.
Similarly, the culture creators operate from East and West Coasts, twin poles, and too often like to pretend that there's nothing in between. The voiceless majority are supposed to shut up and be passive recipients of received wisdom -- that's how it's been for too long. It's been done to death; the Net lets us all participate, and I think you shouldn't fear it or worry about it, just enjoy the ride. The medium is the message, right?
-- Slackie Onassis
Break a Nail!
I think it's a good thing to go from monologue to dialogue. Theater actors, stand-up comics, and live bands have had to deal with that kind of instant feedback for centuries, and I think they've come out alright. Sure, there are lousy audiences and hecklers at times, but perhaps the writer just needs to have a thicker skin, and not let it get to them -- the good folks will get it, and the trolls will be out there, too. In showbiz, they say "break a leg" -- so, for you, I'd say "break a nail!" to reflect the different demands of a keyboard-driven gig.
For too long, the culture creators have come from a particular social class, embodying a standard set of values (you know, Ivy League-educated, upper-middle class background, etc.) -- meritocracy in action, or so we're to believe. And as a result, it shapes not only what they write about, but what they see, too, what they're even able to perceive (I'd loosely term that the David Brooks Effect, given his astounding cultural myopia). I think it reflects the lack of real diversity in the American intellectual class -- the Best and Brightest simply don't have all the right answers, but don't try telling them that! They matter, because, well, because they're content providers, that's why!
That disconnect between meritocrat and audience is probably why polls consistently show the American public to be ahead of their representatives on issues. So long as they're all hunkered down in DC, they're okay, but outside the Beltway, they're lacking, forced to deal with the rascal multitudes, and afraid of it -- no wonder Bush's handlers never have unstaged appearances for the man; he's afraid of that instant feedback.
Similarly, the culture creators operate from East and West Coasts, twin poles, and too often like to pretend that there's nothing in between. The voiceless majority are supposed to shut up and be passive recipients of received wisdom -- that's how it's been for too long. It's been done to death; the Net lets us all participate, and I think you shouldn't fear it or worry about it, just enjoy the ride. The medium is the message, right?
-- Slackie Onassis
Still the loneliest profession?
Salon's Gary Kamiya is sort of complaining about the raucousness of the Web, like the tenor of the discussion being changed by the din of all the participants. It feels like he's smarting from some trollbites. But I think the democracy and anarchy of the Web are good things. The ivory towers are perhaps coming down, and many more people are involved in the conversations that are going on.
He laments how, as the cost of correspondence has moved from snail mail to click-and-send e-mail, the tone has shifted. Sure it has; that'll inevitably bring about more louts than saints, because louts are more numerous. But I think that kind of spontaneous feedback is useful, if you're prepared to deal with it.
Just like how, say, a rock band needs to get out and perform live to earn their chops, and how studio-centered bands lose something by virtue of their isolation, so I see it with writers, too. I'm a writer, myself, and I understand "the loneliest profession" more than most. But there's electricity in feedback, which is why writer's groups exist at all -- so often someone reads something I've written and they draw forth something entirely different from what I had in mind in creating it. Sometimes people read the wrong thing into something, too, but that's only from my perspective -- from their perspective, it's on the mark.
The usefulness of such feedback is that it's kind of like a straw poll -- if you immediately get a bunch of a particular type of feedback, it's possible that maybe you did get it wrong. That has to be humbling and off-putting for those in the culture-building business, who're used to being seen as authorities -- not necessarily because they're authorities, but because of their privileged perch as people permitted to offer comments on things (sorry for all the alliteration, there). There isn't a loss of power, but there is a loss of autonomy, if the writer pays attention to the comments made. There could be some dreadful accountability for one's words.
I think that's a good thing -- god knows that Rush Limbaugh O'Reilly and Hannity and Coulter and Carlson (and a thousand other reactionary pundits) desperately need to be accountable for their words, although they lack the character to own up to the monster they've created.
For all the talk of the "marketplace of ideas," in practice, it was a command economy, with the public as consumers of the media product. More directly, the press isn't free if you don't own one. But the Net (and blogtech) have lowered the startup costs that kept the vast majority of people out of the media game, so suddenly the marketplace of ideas has become a bustling, chaotic, lively place, when before it was a droning sameness -- just as the Big Three automakers are tottering because they can't compete with the new economy, so are the classic Mass Media outlets suffering because their mode of expression no longer meshes with what the consumers want.
Empowered, the everyday folk with blogs are suddenly able to play the content provider game, for better and worse all at once. Even the simple letter writers (myself included) come to expect that kind of interactivity with their chosen media outlets, and god help the content provider that doesn't let more people in to play; they'll wither and die on the vine.
The Big Three television networks are bleeding audience; the newspaper chains are wilting; magazines, I don't know about them -- they may be able to niche market themselves into long-term survival (?); movies are no longer a sure thing; spectator sports are losing spectators, slowly but surely (except for those willing to pay the premium for tickets). Kids like video games more than movies -- why? Because there's participation in it.
Participation is the coin of the new media realm. I think it's a good thing.
He laments how, as the cost of correspondence has moved from snail mail to click-and-send e-mail, the tone has shifted. Sure it has; that'll inevitably bring about more louts than saints, because louts are more numerous. But I think that kind of spontaneous feedback is useful, if you're prepared to deal with it.
Just like how, say, a rock band needs to get out and perform live to earn their chops, and how studio-centered bands lose something by virtue of their isolation, so I see it with writers, too. I'm a writer, myself, and I understand "the loneliest profession" more than most. But there's electricity in feedback, which is why writer's groups exist at all -- so often someone reads something I've written and they draw forth something entirely different from what I had in mind in creating it. Sometimes people read the wrong thing into something, too, but that's only from my perspective -- from their perspective, it's on the mark.
The usefulness of such feedback is that it's kind of like a straw poll -- if you immediately get a bunch of a particular type of feedback, it's possible that maybe you did get it wrong. That has to be humbling and off-putting for those in the culture-building business, who're used to being seen as authorities -- not necessarily because they're authorities, but because of their privileged perch as people permitted to offer comments on things (sorry for all the alliteration, there). There isn't a loss of power, but there is a loss of autonomy, if the writer pays attention to the comments made. There could be some dreadful accountability for one's words.
I think that's a good thing -- god knows that Rush Limbaugh O'Reilly and Hannity and Coulter and Carlson (and a thousand other reactionary pundits) desperately need to be accountable for their words, although they lack the character to own up to the monster they've created.
For all the talk of the "marketplace of ideas," in practice, it was a command economy, with the public as consumers of the media product. More directly, the press isn't free if you don't own one. But the Net (and blogtech) have lowered the startup costs that kept the vast majority of people out of the media game, so suddenly the marketplace of ideas has become a bustling, chaotic, lively place, when before it was a droning sameness -- just as the Big Three automakers are tottering because they can't compete with the new economy, so are the classic Mass Media outlets suffering because their mode of expression no longer meshes with what the consumers want.
Empowered, the everyday folk with blogs are suddenly able to play the content provider game, for better and worse all at once. Even the simple letter writers (myself included) come to expect that kind of interactivity with their chosen media outlets, and god help the content provider that doesn't let more people in to play; they'll wither and die on the vine.
The Big Three television networks are bleeding audience; the newspaper chains are wilting; magazines, I don't know about them -- they may be able to niche market themselves into long-term survival (?); movies are no longer a sure thing; spectator sports are losing spectators, slowly but surely (except for those willing to pay the premium for tickets). Kids like video games more than movies -- why? Because there's participation in it.
Participation is the coin of the new media realm. I think it's a good thing.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
I think
I think this one deserves a star; we'll see if it does...
The movement, and not the man
As much as I would enjoy seeing him in the dock, and eventually in prison, the above compromise would be worth it just to preserve the republic.
That's Gerald Ford-style talk, there. The republic has been poisoned by the Bush administration and the GOP at large, the damage has already been done, both in terms of the unconstitutional expansion of executive power, and in the more overt and above-board economic and political policies that are in place.
Until those things are reversed, no successor, however they appear on the scene, is going to be able (or, more frighteningly, willing) to undo the harm. People keep thinking that the Bushies are the source of the problem -- but GW himself has been guided by some very old hands at government, people who go all the way back to the Nixon administration. And they, themselves, are products of a political approach that hearkens back to the McCarthy years, way back in the early 1950s!
Is Bush an aberration, or the full and logical flowering of what the GOP has been steadily working on since the Barry Goldwater defeat of 1964?
Seems to me so long as people focus exclusively on Bush (or even just Dick Cheney), it lets them overlook the institutional structures that have created an anti-democratic culture in the GOP.
You take away the man (or the men, if you count Cheney in the mix), the problem remains: the approach -- the Unitary Executive Theory of power, the subordinate style of a GOP Congress, the acquiescent reactionary Judiciary -- these are all the consequences of a particular approach to governance the GOP favors, for specific political ends.
The Republicans who are speaking out against the Bush League are still beneficiaries of that same political approach, are still creatures of this movement, even as they engage in damage control to try to distance themselves from Bush.
If they abandoned their party in protest (either to become independents or Democrats), I would think they were more sincerely opposed to what's gone on; but they haven't -- they're still Republicans, and that's significant.
They are still part of the system that led to GW Bush. Bush was not an aberration -- he was the logical, inevitable expression of GOP politics from 1964 onward.
Cold warriors, indeed. Unfortunately, it appears that the cold war they were waging was against American democracy.
Friday, January 26, 2007
And yet another one
I need to start writing them articles, I think!
Ambushed
The Bush Presidency has always been on a suicide mission; stealing an election or two, the pace of their reactionary legislation, the milking of (inter)national sympathy after 9/11 to ramrod their ideological agenda through -- it always spoke to me of desperation on their part, a keen recognition that time wasn't on their side, and if they could just get their tax cuts for the wealthy codified into law, then nobody would be able to take them away without incurring political damage.
Gulf War II, what's to say, exactly? A gambit that failed? Then again, the usual scapegoats emerge -- we tried to bring them freedom, but those stupid Iraqis screwed it up; our noble ideals were tarnished in the cauldron of Baghdad. And those damned turncoats at home, sapping the will of the nation to make a war of opportunity work. Maybe nothing's been learned -- the Democrats paid a heavy price for the Vietnam War they inherited; I hope the Republicans pay as steep a price.
But as we see the sun setting on the Bush League, we also see another carrier group deployed to the Persian Gulf, even as the US tells Iran to "back off" -- akin to having somebody getting in your face and saying the same thing. There's still time for another crisis, a belated Gulf of Tonkin-style event, time for a war in Iran.
Bush has already demonstrated that the will of the people means jack to him, and only Fox Newsworthy hagiographers-in-waiting will find any silver lining in the dark cloud of this administration.
So, why not a war with Iran -- why not get while the getting's good? War forgives all sins to those who perpetuate it, so long as you win. The Decider has literally nothing to lose. Get us bogged down in the whole region, ensuring that all future presidents have to deal with the problem he created (sort of the way the deficit and the tax cuts have mortgaged America's future -- nice one, guys!)
I'm more scared of this administration now than ever. For all the talk of lame ducks, I think this administration has a more bestial aspect. Cornered, the beast will surely lash out.
Starstruck
Another star, this time me bitching about Chuck "the Fuck" Hagel, from some ill-considered comments people made about maybe him teaming up with a Democrat for a combined ticket...
Chuckwagon
Is this what it's come to, even in the wake of the 2006 battering of the GOP, that people try to figure out a dream Democratic ticket with a Republican? Hagel's stance on the Iraq War isn't noble or particularly wise -- it's common sense! And if the war was going well (whatever that means), he'd be on board with it like all the others. Are people so cowed that stating the obvious is what passes for political courage?
The American Conservative Union gives him a lifetime rating of 86 (putting him ahead of McCain and Bill Frist, who are themselves politically Pleistocene). Forget Third Way appeasement -- maybe Joe Lieberman would like to run with Hagel. Maybe Webb, or some other collaborator. Whatever.
We barely have two parties as it is! Let's not blur them together, please! Instead, let the Democrats run on a new New Deal, a real agenda that recognizes that national security is best achieved not by wars of opportunity abroad, but by opportunities for Americans at home, at school, at work. Through investing in a better America in a multitude of ways -- our success and security as a nation is better served through repairing our reputation abroad, and that means making America a better place, versus being the world's (corrupt) policeman.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Another star! And another!
I've been in the zone lately with SALON; this in response to their "Carnivores vs. Herbivores" article/book review...
With regard to the comment lambasting Bush's tepid stance on global warming...
Meating of the Minds
I don't get hung up on it, except with all the chemicals and drugs and how unsanitary the processes are -- you just need to ride past a chicken or pig farm to smell just how bad it is.
The concentration of agriculture into a few corporate hands is probably one of the biggest problems in the overall process -- their worst practices become the industry standard, instead of alternative processes being put into practice (whether free-range, organic, etc.)
I wonder if the quality of the produce were better, whether it would reduce intake of it, paradoxically enough. Just like how real sugar and butter satisfies more than corn syrup and margarine, so (I imagine) would meat from healthy, drug-and-hormone-free animals probably be healthier and more satisfying for those who choose to eat it.
Unfortunately, as currently constructed, the junk-food (meaning food that is mass-marketed with profit emphasized over quality -- e.g., what's good for the food producer, versus what's good for the food consumer) is cheaper than the quality food -- there's a market advantage in the way things are tipped toward the bottom feeders.
Lest vegetarians think they are immune to the problem of agribusiness, the concentration of agricultural capital ensures even a vegetarian a diet rich in petrochemical fertilizers, corn syrup, pesticides, toxic sewer sludge masquerading as healthy fertilizer (e.g., "biosolids"), GM-modified crops foisted on consumers without their consent, etc.
The whole American food production system needs an overhaul to reflect consumer health needs, versus the desire of the industry for maximum profits. So, let the vegetarians and the meat eaters put down their forks and knives and find common cause in the pursuit of better quality for the food they choose to eat.
With regard to the comment lambasting Bush's tepid stance on global warming...
Wind and Solar Farms?
What about taking agricultural subsidies that are paid out to farms to lie fallow and using it instead to develop wind and solar power on those farms, or else providing some additional incentive to farmers to develop wind and sun farms?
It's perhaps a way of helping out small farmers and the environment at the same time, and also would ideally decentralize the power generation industry, which could help make the country that much safer in the long-term (versus, say, proliferation of nuclear plants, which could be risky in the post-9/11 world).
Failing that, have those fallow farms grow trees -- just plant trees and let the land go wild where possible. Obviously this won't solve the entire problem, but it would have to help, when taken with other steps.
The Universal
Blur, "The Universal"
Yay, Obama! Go for it! So long overdue. It's time the US joined the rest of the industrialized First World and get national health care. The insurance industry fought it off for a long time, but they can't hold it off forever (same way the petrochem industries fought off anything related to global warming).
Obama Calls for Universal Health Care
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By NEDRA PICKLER Associated Press Writer
January 25,2007 | WASHINGTON -- Every American should have health care coverage within six years, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday as he set an ambitious goal soon after jumping into the 2008 presidential race.
"The time has come for universal health care in America," Obama said at a conference of Families USA, a health care advocacy group.
"I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country," the Illinois senator said.
Obama was previewing what is shaping up to be a theme of the 2008 Democratic primary. His chief rivals, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards, also are strong proponents of universal health care and have promised to offer their plans.
Obama said while plans are offered in every campaign season with "much fanfare and promise," they collapse under the weight of Washington politics, leaving citizens to struggle with the skyrocketing costs.
He said it's wrong that 46 million in this country are uninsured when the country spends more than any one else on health care. He said Americans pay $15 billion in taxes to help care for the uninsured.
"We can't afford another disappointing charade in 2008, 2009 and 2010," Obama said. "It's not only tiresome, it's wrong."
Obama's call was an echo of a speech he made last April when he said Democrats "need to cling to the core values that make us Democrats, the belief in universal health care, the belief in universal education, and then we should be agnostic in terms of how to achieve those values."
His argument Thursday not only will be considered through the prism of the presidential campaign, but weighed against rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's ill-fated plan to overhaul the health care insurance system when she was first lady.
Even after leading that calamitous attempt in 1993, Clinton remains in favor of universal health care and has made it a central theme of her presidential bid.
"One of the goals that I will be presenting ... is health insurance for every child and universal health care for every American," she said at a community health clinic in New York Sunday, the day after entering the 2008 Democratic field. "That's a very major part of my campaign and I want to hear people's ideas about how we can achieve that goal."
On Thursday, she criticized Bush's proposal to make health care more affordable through tax breaks, arguing that it would lead to less funding for hospitals.
Addressing the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Clinton was self-deprecating in describing her own experience in the health care debate and joked that Bush would need some heavy-duty protection as he wades into the fight.
"I welcome his participation in the health care debate. I'm going to send him a suit of armor because I know anybody who puts a foot in the health care debate is gonna need that. I've got the scars and experience to show for it," said the New York senator.
Another candidate, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, also backs universal health care.
Yay, Obama! Go for it! So long overdue. It's time the US joined the rest of the industrialized First World and get national health care. The insurance industry fought it off for a long time, but they can't hold it off forever (same way the petrochem industries fought off anything related to global warming).
Obama Calls for Universal Health Care
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By NEDRA PICKLER Associated Press Writer
January 25,2007 | WASHINGTON -- Every American should have health care coverage within six years, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday as he set an ambitious goal soon after jumping into the 2008 presidential race.
"The time has come for universal health care in America," Obama said at a conference of Families USA, a health care advocacy group.
"I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country," the Illinois senator said.
Obama was previewing what is shaping up to be a theme of the 2008 Democratic primary. His chief rivals, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards, also are strong proponents of universal health care and have promised to offer their plans.
Obama said while plans are offered in every campaign season with "much fanfare and promise," they collapse under the weight of Washington politics, leaving citizens to struggle with the skyrocketing costs.
He said it's wrong that 46 million in this country are uninsured when the country spends more than any one else on health care. He said Americans pay $15 billion in taxes to help care for the uninsured.
"We can't afford another disappointing charade in 2008, 2009 and 2010," Obama said. "It's not only tiresome, it's wrong."
Obama's call was an echo of a speech he made last April when he said Democrats "need to cling to the core values that make us Democrats, the belief in universal health care, the belief in universal education, and then we should be agnostic in terms of how to achieve those values."
His argument Thursday not only will be considered through the prism of the presidential campaign, but weighed against rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's ill-fated plan to overhaul the health care insurance system when she was first lady.
Even after leading that calamitous attempt in 1993, Clinton remains in favor of universal health care and has made it a central theme of her presidential bid.
"One of the goals that I will be presenting ... is health insurance for every child and universal health care for every American," she said at a community health clinic in New York Sunday, the day after entering the 2008 Democratic field. "That's a very major part of my campaign and I want to hear people's ideas about how we can achieve that goal."
On Thursday, she criticized Bush's proposal to make health care more affordable through tax breaks, arguing that it would lead to less funding for hospitals.
Addressing the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Clinton was self-deprecating in describing her own experience in the health care debate and joked that Bush would need some heavy-duty protection as he wades into the fight.
"I welcome his participation in the health care debate. I'm going to send him a suit of armor because I know anybody who puts a foot in the health care debate is gonna need that. I've got the scars and experience to show for it," said the New York senator.
Another candidate, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, also backs universal health care.
Enlist, already
All those GOPeons who are still bullish on the War on Terror and/or the War in Iraq (and Afghanistan) should enlist in the armed forces, already. If they don't, then they clearly don't have the courage of their convictions, and are a bunch of fucking hypocrites. I recommend the Army or the Marines, preferably -- front-line stuff.
But they aren't enlisting in droves, now are they? Given the Pentagon's ongoing enlistment woes, the gung-ho warmongers and their spawn just aren't walking their talk (which isn't surprising, given that the current GOP leadership almost completely avoided service during the Vietnam War).
C'mon, chickenhawks! Enlist, already! Go fight the War on Terror for real, instead of hanging back on the sidelines, playing cheerleader.
If you're a liberal (or even further to the left) and some wingding impugns your patriotism for opposing the war, ask them if they enlisted in the military. When they say that they didn't, tell them to shut the fuck up about patriotism, already.
But they aren't enlisting in droves, now are they? Given the Pentagon's ongoing enlistment woes, the gung-ho warmongers and their spawn just aren't walking their talk (which isn't surprising, given that the current GOP leadership almost completely avoided service during the Vietnam War).
C'mon, chickenhawks! Enlist, already! Go fight the War on Terror for real, instead of hanging back on the sidelines, playing cheerleader.
If you're a liberal (or even further to the left) and some wingding impugns your patriotism for opposing the war, ask them if they enlisted in the military. When they say that they didn't, tell them to shut the fuck up about patriotism, already.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
State of the Union
I really hate the State of the Union address. It really reinforces how clearly there is a political class in this country, and how far removed from the experience of everyday Americans our political "representatives" are.
I'd like to see a new form of national service, where everyday American voters get eventually elected to Congress, instead of it being the province of well-heeled political entrepreneurs and opportunists. Something to stir the pot, make our democracy (or republic) actually democratic and/or republican, instead of only embracing it in formal ways.
I'd like to see a new form of national service, where everyday American voters get eventually elected to Congress, instead of it being the province of well-heeled political entrepreneurs and opportunists. Something to stir the pot, make our democracy (or republic) actually democratic and/or republican, instead of only embracing it in formal ways.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Horse Racing
Let's look at that 2008 Presidential wannabes...
Republicans
Representative Tom Tancredo (CO) -- No chance
Senator Sam Brownback (KS) -- No chance
Senator George Allen (VA) -- Dead in the water
Representative Duncan Hunter (CA) -- No chance
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (GA) -- No chance
Senator Chuck Hagel (NE) -- Possible chance
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (TN) -- No chance
Senator John McCain (AZ) -- Slight chance
I think Hagel and McCain have the best shot; McCain's star has tarnished since he sided with Bush on the Iraq war. The rest just have no chance at all. Any GOP candidate has their work cut out for them, given how badly they've mangled the political landscape since 2000.
Democrats
Senator Evan Bayh (IN) -- Dead in the water
Senator Joseph Biden (DE) -- No chance
Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (SD) -- No chance
Senator Russ Feingold (WI) -- No chance
Former Senator John Edwards (NC) -- Doesn't even realize how little chance he has
Senator Hillary Clinton (NY) -- Very good chance
Former Vice President Al Gore (TN) -- Slight chance
Senator Barack Obama (IL) -- Good chance
Senator John Kerry (MA) -- No chance
I think it'll come down to Hillary and Barack, one way or another. Maybe the Clinton crowd will try to get Obama on their ticket, if they beat him in the primaries. That could be a strong ticket. I don't know if Al Gore's ego would let him ride the ticket with Hillary -- that'd be funny, "Clinton/Gore 2008." Hahah! Obama's strongest suit is appearing to be new politics, whereas the Clintonians are both benefitted and burdened by their past.
Republicans
Representative Tom Tancredo (CO) -- No chance
Senator Sam Brownback (KS) -- No chance
Senator George Allen (VA) -- Dead in the water
Representative Duncan Hunter (CA) -- No chance
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (GA) -- No chance
Senator Chuck Hagel (NE) -- Possible chance
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (TN) -- No chance
Senator John McCain (AZ) -- Slight chance
I think Hagel and McCain have the best shot; McCain's star has tarnished since he sided with Bush on the Iraq war. The rest just have no chance at all. Any GOP candidate has their work cut out for them, given how badly they've mangled the political landscape since 2000.
Democrats
Senator Evan Bayh (IN) -- Dead in the water
Senator Joseph Biden (DE) -- No chance
Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (SD) -- No chance
Senator Russ Feingold (WI) -- No chance
Former Senator John Edwards (NC) -- Doesn't even realize how little chance he has
Senator Hillary Clinton (NY) -- Very good chance
Former Vice President Al Gore (TN) -- Slight chance
Senator Barack Obama (IL) -- Good chance
Senator John Kerry (MA) -- No chance
I think it'll come down to Hillary and Barack, one way or another. Maybe the Clinton crowd will try to get Obama on their ticket, if they beat him in the primaries. That could be a strong ticket. I don't know if Al Gore's ego would let him ride the ticket with Hillary -- that'd be funny, "Clinton/Gore 2008." Hahah! Obama's strongest suit is appearing to be new politics, whereas the Clintonians are both benefitted and burdened by their past.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
I'm on a roll
SALON picked another of my letters as their "Editor's Choice!" I guess I should dig and find the other ones I wrote that got the little red star on them. Later, later...
McCain't do it!
McCain the War Hero(tm) embodies the cult of personality; or given the mainstream media's love of him, perhaps the cult of "pressonality" -- his undeserved reputation as a maverick invariably gets kicked under the rug when dealing with the man.
For the non-Republicans who like him, please examine his actual voting record, which is the best measure of the man, at least where Democrats, moderates, and independents are concerned, those people who mistakenly think McCain is on their side, or at least isn't as bad as the "real" conservatives.
The American Conservative Union gave McCain an 83 ranking on his lifetime votes -- Sam Brownback earned 95 (by comparison, Democrats Russ Feingold earned 12, Hillary Clinton 9, Barack Obama 8, Charles Schumer 6, and Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy 3). Many things McCain may be, but a maverick he's not.
McCain is a press product, an action figure, a cipher, a strawman, a figment, a mirage -- people project onto him what they want to see, and he and his handlers worked that angle so well, at least until after 9/11, when McCain had to step across the line in the sand drawn by Bush. It could be that circumstances have dimmed the media-cultivated aura that previously surrounded McCain. If 9/11 hadn't happened, if George II hadn't happened, McCain would have almost surely have been president. And that's scary.
Let's hope we're able to move past Potemkin Village politicking and into something more substantial. Or maybe Americans aren't yet tired of empty symbols, sly illusions, and cynical/creduluous houses of media mirrors.
Note to moderates, liberals, and fence-sitters: McCain isn't one of you, and never was. Vote for him at your peril.
-- Slackie Onassis
(later)
There's one or two others, but I can't find'em.
McCain't do it!
McCain the War Hero(tm) embodies the cult of personality; or given the mainstream media's love of him, perhaps the cult of "pressonality" -- his undeserved reputation as a maverick invariably gets kicked under the rug when dealing with the man.
For the non-Republicans who like him, please examine his actual voting record, which is the best measure of the man, at least where Democrats, moderates, and independents are concerned, those people who mistakenly think McCain is on their side, or at least isn't as bad as the "real" conservatives.
The American Conservative Union gave McCain an 83 ranking on his lifetime votes -- Sam Brownback earned 95 (by comparison, Democrats Russ Feingold earned 12, Hillary Clinton 9, Barack Obama 8, Charles Schumer 6, and Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy 3). Many things McCain may be, but a maverick he's not.
McCain is a press product, an action figure, a cipher, a strawman, a figment, a mirage -- people project onto him what they want to see, and he and his handlers worked that angle so well, at least until after 9/11, when McCain had to step across the line in the sand drawn by Bush. It could be that circumstances have dimmed the media-cultivated aura that previously surrounded McCain. If 9/11 hadn't happened, if George II hadn't happened, McCain would have almost surely have been president. And that's scary.
Let's hope we're able to move past Potemkin Village politicking and into something more substantial. Or maybe Americans aren't yet tired of empty symbols, sly illusions, and cynical/creduluous houses of media mirrors.
Note to moderates, liberals, and fence-sitters: McCain isn't one of you, and never was. Vote for him at your peril.
-- Slackie Onassis
(later)
Success is the best revenge?
I suppose the only cultural and/or political defense against fascism would be a widely-shared prosperity. If fascists feed on despair and fear and uncertainty, then democrats (small "d") would have to bring people to the table through solid increases in pay, better work conditions, investing in the community, and other classic economic populist moves that bring hope and prosperity to many people currently left on the margins of the American political process.
The Right's decades-long attack on the idea (to say nothing of the practice) of Good Government has only lent to the culture of despair, the tyranny of diminished expectations.
Fascists thrive on crises, which is why they seem to appear during times of unease. Not all crises can be prevented, but things like social inequality and concentration of wealth and opportunity can be legislatively addressed and can help offer the needed stability to weather the political threat posed by would-be fascists, who are the ultimate political opportunists.
A broadly expanded middle class is the recipe for social stability, which is why fascism seems so much a middle-class movement -- when the middle class feels threatened, it seems to turn to fascism, which offers something other than the complete overturning of the social order (ala Communism). Bolster the middle class, and the invidious appeal of fascism evaporates.
Shared prosperity just might pull the fangs on the fascist snake oil salesmen who are, at heart, hucksters and charlatans selling pretty lies to delude and mislead.
There's one or two others, but I can't find'em.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Population Bomb
Stupid Chinese policies are creating a time bomb...
More Chinese Men Than Women
I guess their army will become really huge, or else they'll have rampant crime or something.
More Chinese Men Than Women
I guess their army will become really huge, or else they'll have rampant crime or something.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
More of the same
So, the troop escalation, the dead horse Bush keeps flogging. Seems inevitable that the draft will be brought back, as Bush has decimated the all-volunteer army with his Middle Eastern adventure.
Funny how reactionaries place so much emphasis on loyalty. That is their cardinal virtue, like being willing to jump off the cliff with the Leader.
Funny how reactionaries place so much emphasis on loyalty. That is their cardinal virtue, like being willing to jump off the cliff with the Leader.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Double standard?
Music: Chavez, "The Guard Attacks"
You really get a sense of where the US's priorities are, given the recent squirming over Hugo Chávez's drive to nationalize telecomm and other industries in Venezuela, and the insistence of fair compensation for nationalized industries.
It's funny to me, because the privatization movement is always about getting public resources at the lowest possible price, plundering state resources for private profit. And many of Venezuela's previously public assets were privatized in the 90s. I know that "buy low, sell high" is the essence of business, but I find it funny how the minute nationalization of an industry is considered, the companies in question cry foul. Of course they will.
Never mind that privatization doesn't deliver any actual benefits to the consumers; privatization is about getting something valuable for cheap. The actual delivery of services is almost incidental to the process, because privatized industries are usually utilities that people have to make use of, regardless of who owns it.
Anyway, death squads can roam freely in Latin America without comment (or worse, with complicity by the Right, who fund them), but the minute there's talk of nationalizing an industry, then their attention is riveted to the country considering it. I hope Chávez have plenty of bodyguards, and sets up a provision where the changes he's proposing aren't just flowing through him, given the tendency of socialists to be shot in Latin America.
You really get a sense of where the US's priorities are, given the recent squirming over Hugo Chávez's drive to nationalize telecomm and other industries in Venezuela, and the insistence of fair compensation for nationalized industries.
It's funny to me, because the privatization movement is always about getting public resources at the lowest possible price, plundering state resources for private profit. And many of Venezuela's previously public assets were privatized in the 90s. I know that "buy low, sell high" is the essence of business, but I find it funny how the minute nationalization of an industry is considered, the companies in question cry foul. Of course they will.
Never mind that privatization doesn't deliver any actual benefits to the consumers; privatization is about getting something valuable for cheap. The actual delivery of services is almost incidental to the process, because privatized industries are usually utilities that people have to make use of, regardless of who owns it.
Anyway, death squads can roam freely in Latin America without comment (or worse, with complicity by the Right, who fund them), but the minute there's talk of nationalizing an industry, then their attention is riveted to the country considering it. I hope Chávez have plenty of bodyguards, and sets up a provision where the changes he's proposing aren't just flowing through him, given the tendency of socialists to be shot in Latin America.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
Biden his time?
Joe Biden is out of his mind. There's no way he'll ever be nominated for President, let alone elected. He reminds me of a blowhard coach from high school, always with a handy football metaphor to throw out in the middle of a serious policy discussion. He should just understand that sometimes people just stay Senators. For that matter, Senators rarely get a chance to become President.
Say it ain't so, Joe.
Say it ain't so, Joe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)