The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, from which the 'Invisible Hand' line comes, is online and you can read it for free here. It is also searchable.
Here is a site that has many Adam Smith quotes.
Enjoy.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Strangulation By The 'Invisible Hand'
(cross-posted at The Smirking Chimp)
Ain't nothin' like the 'free market', is there?
Yee haw.
For years now, we've heard conservatives go on and on and on ad nauseum about the miracle of the free market. Yes, that magical 'invisible hand' that leads to properity, prosperity and more prosperity! Why does it work? Uh, because it's supposed to, that's why! Of course it works! See how rich I am?
Call it 'faith-based economics'.
Conservatives are all about faith. The same people who pooh-pooh evolution as 'only a theory' and believe global warming is a hoax have an almost religious belief in laissez-faire capitalism. It is an article of faith with them that if the shackles of regulation and taxation were thrown off, a perfect economic miracle would occur. Everyone would be well-off – some more well-off than others, of course. The Market would ensure that competition was fair, and that therefore there would be no need of regulation! The Consumer would decide whether to buy a company’s products, and so the company would be forced to be ethical or else be punished by the Consumer. But the twin devils of Taxation and Regulation keep this miracle from happening.
This economic theory does not need any empirical evidence to be believed in fervently. The theory is more important than the results. If the results don't pan out, it only means that the theory has not been applied properly. More tax cuts! More deregulation!
You serfs who are losing your homes - it's all your own fault! If you can't afford the usurious interest rates, then you have no business buying houses. You mean you believed what your mortgage broker told you? Hey, not our fault. Caveat emptor, baby. Don't expect the government to come to your rescue, you freeloaders!
Yes indeed, it's all about taking risks - those CEOs deserve their zillion-dollar salaries because they take such big risks, and of course are completely reponsible for those risks. That is, unless they're not. Then it's Titty Time! Belly on up to the Big Government Boob! But only for the big guys. There's always a way to get someone else to pay for your mistakes when you're in the big leagues. The rest of us can go pound sand.
How come you don't hear anyone saying, "You shouldn't have taken on debt that you can't afford!" to Bear Stearns? These companies are, instead, fêted for their boldness and aggressiveness.
Here's what happened with the housing crisis.
How do you get Americans to spend money on consumer goods when their wages have stagnated? Business profits depend on consumer spending, but if consumers' wages have declined in real buying power while prices have gone up, how are businesses going to make profits after they've cut salaries as far as they can cut them?
Make up for the lack of wages by artificially inflating housing prices, then induce people to borrow against their equity. Did I say induce? How about force? Yes, force. When you suppress wages in order to fatten your bottom line while the cost of living continues to rise, then dangle out hope in the form of equity, and the only other alternative is bankruptcy (which, after the Bankruptcy Bill of 05, is even less available), then I would call that an 'offer you can't refuse' a la The Godfather.
But, consumers can be squeezed only so much, and eventually these vultures will pick every bit of flesh off of the bones of our carcasses. The 'invisible hand' has strangled the last breath out of us. The corporations have shifted all of the costs of their doing business onto us, and have kept the profits for themselves. And now that the top-heavy pyramid is about to crash, we're expected to pay for their sins even more by taking on the cost of their bailouts, and the CEOs who steered these companies into the iceberg float merrily away with their golden parachutes.
But those of us losing our homes, or in danger of losing our homes? That's a different story entirely. Bail us out? Oh, noes! Why, that would be enabling our irresponsibility! Moral hazard, don't you know! Hard-working, honest George Bush, who has been such a successful self-made businessman himself and has never needed a bailout or a handout, wouldn't consider it.
I understand the idea that to not bail out the big palookas would mean that the whole economy would come crashing down. So, if you're going to bail out these guys, why not bail out us as well? After all, we seem to be able to pony up three billion every week to keep on killing people. How about a few billion so regular Americans can stay out of the poorhouse? I sure could use a hand right about now.
That last one was a joke, I know. Who do I think I'm kidding?
But I sure wish I could get that 'Invisble Hand' from around my neck. It's hard to breathe.
Ain't nothin' like the 'free market', is there?
Yee haw.
For years now, we've heard conservatives go on and on and on ad nauseum about the miracle of the free market. Yes, that magical 'invisible hand' that leads to properity, prosperity and more prosperity! Why does it work? Uh, because it's supposed to, that's why! Of course it works! See how rich I am?
Call it 'faith-based economics'.
Conservatives are all about faith. The same people who pooh-pooh evolution as 'only a theory' and believe global warming is a hoax have an almost religious belief in laissez-faire capitalism. It is an article of faith with them that if the shackles of regulation and taxation were thrown off, a perfect economic miracle would occur. Everyone would be well-off – some more well-off than others, of course. The Market would ensure that competition was fair, and that therefore there would be no need of regulation! The Consumer would decide whether to buy a company’s products, and so the company would be forced to be ethical or else be punished by the Consumer. But the twin devils of Taxation and Regulation keep this miracle from happening.
This economic theory does not need any empirical evidence to be believed in fervently. The theory is more important than the results. If the results don't pan out, it only means that the theory has not been applied properly. More tax cuts! More deregulation!
You serfs who are losing your homes - it's all your own fault! If you can't afford the usurious interest rates, then you have no business buying houses. You mean you believed what your mortgage broker told you? Hey, not our fault. Caveat emptor, baby. Don't expect the government to come to your rescue, you freeloaders!
Yes indeed, it's all about taking risks - those CEOs deserve their zillion-dollar salaries because they take such big risks, and of course are completely reponsible for those risks. That is, unless they're not. Then it's Titty Time! Belly on up to the Big Government Boob! But only for the big guys. There's always a way to get someone else to pay for your mistakes when you're in the big leagues. The rest of us can go pound sand.
How come you don't hear anyone saying, "You shouldn't have taken on debt that you can't afford!" to Bear Stearns? These companies are, instead, fêted for their boldness and aggressiveness.
Here's what happened with the housing crisis.
How do you get Americans to spend money on consumer goods when their wages have stagnated? Business profits depend on consumer spending, but if consumers' wages have declined in real buying power while prices have gone up, how are businesses going to make profits after they've cut salaries as far as they can cut them?
Make up for the lack of wages by artificially inflating housing prices, then induce people to borrow against their equity. Did I say induce? How about force? Yes, force. When you suppress wages in order to fatten your bottom line while the cost of living continues to rise, then dangle out hope in the form of equity, and the only other alternative is bankruptcy (which, after the Bankruptcy Bill of 05, is even less available), then I would call that an 'offer you can't refuse' a la The Godfather.
But, consumers can be squeezed only so much, and eventually these vultures will pick every bit of flesh off of the bones of our carcasses. The 'invisible hand' has strangled the last breath out of us. The corporations have shifted all of the costs of their doing business onto us, and have kept the profits for themselves. And now that the top-heavy pyramid is about to crash, we're expected to pay for their sins even more by taking on the cost of their bailouts, and the CEOs who steered these companies into the iceberg float merrily away with their golden parachutes.
But those of us losing our homes, or in danger of losing our homes? That's a different story entirely. Bail us out? Oh, noes! Why, that would be enabling our irresponsibility! Moral hazard, don't you know! Hard-working, honest George Bush, who has been such a successful self-made businessman himself and has never needed a bailout or a handout, wouldn't consider it.
I understand the idea that to not bail out the big palookas would mean that the whole economy would come crashing down. So, if you're going to bail out these guys, why not bail out us as well? After all, we seem to be able to pony up three billion every week to keep on killing people. How about a few billion so regular Americans can stay out of the poorhouse? I sure could use a hand right about now.
That last one was a joke, I know. Who do I think I'm kidding?
But I sure wish I could get that 'Invisble Hand' from around my neck. It's hard to breathe.
Monday, March 17, 2008
And You Wonder Why Spitzer Got Popped? Read What He Wrote On Valentine's Day
I don't usually just paste entire articles verbatim, but I think this article that Spitzer wrote for the Washington Post speaks for itself:
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers
By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; Page A25
Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.
Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.
When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.
The writer (is) was governor of New York.
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers
By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; Page A25
Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.
Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.
When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.
The writer (is) was governor of New York.
Men Bite Dogs - Novakula, Ben Stein Say Something That Isn't Completely Asinine!
Whew! Give me a moment to catch my breath! It appears that Ben Stein, he of "Expelled" fame, who wants to use his formidable academic reputation to support faith-based science, and Bob 'No-Facts' Novak, have actually come out with pronouncements that do not appear to have been pulled directly out of their asses!
Raw Story reports, from an appearance on CBS' Sunday Morning:
Yeah, yeah; I get the argument - "It's not the crime, it's the hypocrisy!" But the hypocrisy only matters if you are a Democrat. Republicans embrace the hypocrisy; they proudly own the hypocrisy.
Head spins.
When these guys are starting to make sense, you know that the Apocalypse is upon us.
Raw Story reports, from an appearance on CBS' Sunday Morning:
And from Novakula:
Stein is troubled by what he calls the actions of a few "nosy civil servants" using evidence gained from wiretaps to unravel the career of the outgoing New York Governor, and undo a majority vote by the people of New York.
"Something sinister is happening," he says, "and it scares me."
"Men hire prostitutes by the thousands," Stein continues, "maybe tens of thousands, every day. They also bring women across state lines for sex every day.
"The punishment for the men who hire hookers is usually nil, or at most, a small fine, close to what you'd get for a traffic ticket."
Spitzer, on the other hand, was humiliated and run out of office as punishment, with Stein protesting a small number of federal officials having what he essentially calls veto power over the electoral process. Spitzer, he continues, has been stripped of his career for something picked up on a wiretap that was not a high crime like terrorism or treason.
"Having elected officials kicked out of office by appointed officials is a very dicey proposition," argues Stein.
He concludes: "Elections are a lot more important than call girls."
"Republican political operative Roger Stone, Eliot Spitzer's longtime antagonist, predicted his political demise more than three months in advance," Novak writes. "Spitzer's entrapment by federal authorities investigating a prostitution ring raised speculation that Stone, with a 40-year record as a political hit man, somehow was behind it."Also, Alan Dershowitz, writing last week in the Wall Street Journal, averred that the story of Spitzer's 'capture' doesn't entirely ring true to career prosecutors.
"Eliot Spitzer will not serve out his term as governor of the state of New York,'' Stone said Dec. 6 on Michael Smerconish's radio talk show," Novak added. "He gave no details."
Novak's post was titled "GOP strategists at work."
In an interview last week, Stone cheered the governor's demise, and hinted further that he'd known about the governor's fall.
"There is no hard evidence that Eliot Spitzer was targeted for investigation, but the story of how he was caught does not ring entirely true to many experienced former prosecutors and current criminal lawyers," Dershowitz wrote. "The New York Times reported that the revelations began with a routine tax inquiry by revenue agents 'conducting a routine examination of suspicious financial transactions reported to them by banks.' This investigation allegedly found 'several unusual movements of cash involving the Governor of New York.' But the movement of the amounts of cash required to pay prostitutes, even high-priced prostitutes over a long period of time, does not commonly generate a full-scale investigation."That last paragraph makes a lot of sense to me.
"We are talking about thousands, not millions, of dollars. We are also talking about a man who is a multimillionaire with numerous investments and purchases," he added. "The idea that federal investigators would focus on a few transactions to corporations -- that were not themselves under investigation -- raises as many questions as answers."
Yeah, yeah; I get the argument - "It's not the crime, it's the hypocrisy!" But the hypocrisy only matters if you are a Democrat. Republicans embrace the hypocrisy; they proudly own the hypocrisy.
Head spins.
When these guys are starting to make sense, you know that the Apocalypse is upon us.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
For the Record...
I'm not going to be blathering on about the primary race. I know it's going to be sucking up bandwidth for the next couple of months, but since I will be voting for a Democrat no matter what, the particulars of the race are, for me, a distraction from what the Bush Administration is doing while the rest of the country is all het up about name-calling.
So if you want a respite from the primaries, come hang out with me!
So if you want a respite from the primaries, come hang out with me!
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Bush: "We'll Spy On You Whenever We Feel Like It - And You'd Better Be Grateful!"
(cross-posted at The Smirking Chimp)
Just when I think George W. Bush can't get any more insulting, condescending, arrogant, and despotic, I hear this, about telecom immunity:
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick.
It's times like these that, I swear to God, I would vote for a stinking, sweaty, soiled jock strap if that jock strap were the alternative to Bush.
"Defend America?" We need to defend America from the likes of Bush and Co. We need to defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which this administration has treated like Charmin.
What is it about the Bush family that insists upon gratitude from those it screws over? This is a consistent pattern with them. They seem to feel that not only are they entitled to destroy, steal from and trample on anyone they choose - but their victims must be grateful into the bargain!
From the invasion of Iraq (Bush: "I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude"), to the imposition of his will upon poorer countries (Bush, during his visit to Latin America:“I don’t think America gets enough credit for trying to help improve people’s lives”), to the suffering of those left homeless by Katrina (Barbara Bush:"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this is working very well for them."), the hallmark of the Bush family seems to be imperialism. This assumption of superiority is evidenced in every word that spews out of Dubya's pie-hole. His smug, smirking frat-boy bonhommie turns into annoyed petulance in a flash if he does not receive what he considers his 'due' from anyone he perceives to be below him, which pretty much amounts to anyone who isn't a Bush or a member of his 'base', the "haves and have-mores". To be fair, that was a joke told at a fund-raiser; Al Gore was also in attendance and poked fun at himself in a similar manner. Nevertheless, it's a joke with more that a grain of truth - more like a wheelbarrow-full. As the scion of four generations of wealthy international power-brokers and string-pullers, his sense of entitlement is simply gargantuan. He has always attempted to mask it with his faux-Texan bumptiousness, but his Eastern-elite prep-school peevishness surfaces every time he is crossed in any way.
Bush's attitude of "L'etat, c'est moi" is painfully obvious. When he says others should be grateful to America, what he really means is that they should be grateful to him. There is no distinction in his mind between America's interests and wants, and his own. His interests are America's, so by proxy, anyone who opposes his will opposes America. He truly carries the 'White Man's Burden'. Like imperialist Britain, he believes that those he tramples upon are his inferiors, who should be thankful for the opportunity to be of service to him.
He is also a bully, and those that have the temerity to oppose his will must be not only vanquished but humiliated in the process. It is not enough for him to get his way; like a dog, he lifts his leg on those that he triumphs over. Witness the craven and embarrassing John McCain 2000 embrace after Bush used the lowest, most loathsome dirty tricks to smear him in South Carolina. With Bush, it's all about dominance and submission. It is not enough to obey Big Brother; you have to love Big Brother.
In the words of the ultimate frat-boy (sorry, Chris!): "Thank you, sir - may I have another?"
And here we are, on the brink of giving Bush a 'get out of jail free' card. Four simple words: Telecom immunity=Bush immunity.
He knows it; we know it; everyone knows it. This business about "punishing the telecoms for keeping Americans safe" is a gigantic, stinking sack of horseshit. Don't tell me that these obscenely wealthy corporations don't have the best lawyers that money can buy - no doubt better than the lackeys in the government - and somehow didn't know they were being asked to do something illegal - even before 9/11! And they "won't be so cooperative if they're going to be sued"? More shit. If they had a warrant, they wouldn't have a choice - and would be immune to prosecution!
The most secretive, unaccountable President in American history - the man who told reporters in the haughtiest manner imaginable that
My 'personal stuff' is fair game, to be stolen and sold without my knowledge or consent.
This 'personal stuff'? It's called data. As in data-mining. Information about me has a monetary value as well as a personal value. Big businesses pay huge sums to buy lists that have every transaction I make, every person I call or e-mail, every place I travel to, my school records, my medical history, my financial and credit history, my political preferences and every single detail about my life, in a nice, organized, cross-referenced file. This file can be used by companies to increase their business, target their advertising, fine-tune their audience and in a host of ways, add to their bottom line. It can also be used to deny me medical coverage, jobs and a home, throw me in jail, and it can be sold to other 'interested parties' for still more profit.
And this treasure-trove, that makes others wealthy - where did they get this from? Did they purchase it from me? Do I receive even a penny of the money that my 'personal stuff' is generating?
Hell to the no.
In fact, not only is it taken from me without my knowledge and without compensation, to be used against me, but here's the kicker:
I am paying them!
Yes, friends, you heard me right.
You and I pay these companies to steal information which brings them even more profit, and can be detrimental to our own interests. Do these companies share any of their ill-gotten wealth with the parties they took it from?
Hell to the no.
They use that information to their benefit and my detriment. And when they sell, not give (remember, the oh-so-imperative and life-saving wiretapping was cut off at one point for non-payment! And Al-Qaeda didn't manage to swoop in and take over America during that time?), that information to the government, again without our knowledge, permission or compensation, what does the government buy that information with?
Tax dollars. Our tax dollars.
I know I harp on this a lot, but I think it bears repeating: we are paying - on both ends - to be stolen from and spied upon! And on top of that, we're supposed to be grateful for it!
But even that, as grotesque as it is, is only a smokescreen. FBI director Robert Mueller inadvertently tips the White House's hand when he opines that telecoms should be granted immunity even if they acted in bad faith! The real issue is that Bush is immunizing himself and his thugs from culpability for crimes they have knowingly committed. They began immediately upon seizing office, when Dick Cheney convened his energy cronies to decide how to divvy up the future spoils, and told the American people, "Go fuck yourself. It's none of your goddamned business." They sealed Presidential records, lied us into an illegal, but hugely profitable (for them - it has been devastating to the rest of America, and the world) occupation of a sovereign nation, and generally told America to STFU and do as we're told.
Right now I couldn't care less about the goddamn primaries, or who said what about who. I don't care about delegates, or super-delegates, or super-duper-delegates. Not when the Kommander-in-Thief, the Kowboy Koward of Krawford, is about to neatly let himself off the hook, aided and abetted by this shameful excuse for a Democratic Congress.
Telecom immunity=Bush immunity.
"I believe we ought to say thank you"?
I believe we ought to say, "Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect 2 trillion dollars."
But I'm not holding my breath.
Just when I think George W. Bush can't get any more insulting, condescending, arrogant, and despotic, I hear this, about telecom immunity:
"Now the question is, should these lawsuits be allowed to proceed, or should any company that may have helped save American lives be thanked for performing a patriotic service; should those who stepped forward to say we're going to help defend America have to go to the courthouse to defend themselves, or should the Congress and the President say thank you for doing your patriotic duty? I believe we ought to say thank you.""Thank You?!?"
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick.
It's times like these that, I swear to God, I would vote for a stinking, sweaty, soiled jock strap if that jock strap were the alternative to Bush.
"Defend America?" We need to defend America from the likes of Bush and Co. We need to defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which this administration has treated like Charmin.
What is it about the Bush family that insists upon gratitude from those it screws over? This is a consistent pattern with them. They seem to feel that not only are they entitled to destroy, steal from and trample on anyone they choose - but their victims must be grateful into the bargain!
From the invasion of Iraq (Bush: "I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude"), to the imposition of his will upon poorer countries (Bush, during his visit to Latin America:“I don’t think America gets enough credit for trying to help improve people’s lives”), to the suffering of those left homeless by Katrina (Barbara Bush:"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this is working very well for them."), the hallmark of the Bush family seems to be imperialism. This assumption of superiority is evidenced in every word that spews out of Dubya's pie-hole. His smug, smirking frat-boy bonhommie turns into annoyed petulance in a flash if he does not receive what he considers his 'due' from anyone he perceives to be below him, which pretty much amounts to anyone who isn't a Bush or a member of his 'base', the "haves and have-mores". To be fair, that was a joke told at a fund-raiser; Al Gore was also in attendance and poked fun at himself in a similar manner. Nevertheless, it's a joke with more that a grain of truth - more like a wheelbarrow-full. As the scion of four generations of wealthy international power-brokers and string-pullers, his sense of entitlement is simply gargantuan. He has always attempted to mask it with his faux-Texan bumptiousness, but his Eastern-elite prep-school peevishness surfaces every time he is crossed in any way.
Bush's attitude of "L'etat, c'est moi" is painfully obvious. When he says others should be grateful to America, what he really means is that they should be grateful to him. There is no distinction in his mind between America's interests and wants, and his own. His interests are America's, so by proxy, anyone who opposes his will opposes America. He truly carries the 'White Man's Burden'. Like imperialist Britain, he believes that those he tramples upon are his inferiors, who should be thankful for the opportunity to be of service to him.
He is also a bully, and those that have the temerity to oppose his will must be not only vanquished but humiliated in the process. It is not enough for him to get his way; like a dog, he lifts his leg on those that he triumphs over. Witness the craven and embarrassing John McCain 2000 embrace after Bush used the lowest, most loathsome dirty tricks to smear him in South Carolina. With Bush, it's all about dominance and submission. It is not enough to obey Big Brother; you have to love Big Brother.
In the words of the ultimate frat-boy (sorry, Chris!): "Thank you, sir - may I have another?"
And here we are, on the brink of giving Bush a 'get out of jail free' card. Four simple words: Telecom immunity=Bush immunity.
He knows it; we know it; everyone knows it. This business about "punishing the telecoms for keeping Americans safe" is a gigantic, stinking sack of horseshit. Don't tell me that these obscenely wealthy corporations don't have the best lawyers that money can buy - no doubt better than the lackeys in the government - and somehow didn't know they were being asked to do something illegal - even before 9/11! And they "won't be so cooperative if they're going to be sued"? More shit. If they had a warrant, they wouldn't have a choice - and would be immune to prosecution!
The most secretive, unaccountable President in American history - the man who told reporters in the haughtiest manner imaginable that
"I don't email, however. And there's a reason. I don't want you reading my personal stuff. There has got to be a certain sense of privacy. You know, you're entitled to how I make decisions. And you're entitled to ask questions, which I answer. I don't think you're entitled to be able to read my mail between my daughters and me."feels perfectly entitled to deep-six the most basic privacy that ordinary Americans are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. Guess what, asshole? I don't want you reading my personal stuff, either. But I'm just a citizen, a lowly peon, not the Divinely-Ordained King of America™.
My 'personal stuff' is fair game, to be stolen and sold without my knowledge or consent.
This 'personal stuff'? It's called data. As in data-mining. Information about me has a monetary value as well as a personal value. Big businesses pay huge sums to buy lists that have every transaction I make, every person I call or e-mail, every place I travel to, my school records, my medical history, my financial and credit history, my political preferences and every single detail about my life, in a nice, organized, cross-referenced file. This file can be used by companies to increase their business, target their advertising, fine-tune their audience and in a host of ways, add to their bottom line. It can also be used to deny me medical coverage, jobs and a home, throw me in jail, and it can be sold to other 'interested parties' for still more profit.
And this treasure-trove, that makes others wealthy - where did they get this from? Did they purchase it from me? Do I receive even a penny of the money that my 'personal stuff' is generating?
Hell to the no.
In fact, not only is it taken from me without my knowledge and without compensation, to be used against me, but here's the kicker:
I am paying them!
Yes, friends, you heard me right.
You and I pay these companies to steal information which brings them even more profit, and can be detrimental to our own interests. Do these companies share any of their ill-gotten wealth with the parties they took it from?
Hell to the no.
They use that information to their benefit and my detriment. And when they sell, not give (remember, the oh-so-imperative and life-saving wiretapping was cut off at one point for non-payment! And Al-Qaeda didn't manage to swoop in and take over America during that time?), that information to the government, again without our knowledge, permission or compensation, what does the government buy that information with?
Tax dollars. Our tax dollars.
I know I harp on this a lot, but I think it bears repeating: we are paying - on both ends - to be stolen from and spied upon! And on top of that, we're supposed to be grateful for it!
But even that, as grotesque as it is, is only a smokescreen. FBI director Robert Mueller inadvertently tips the White House's hand when he opines that telecoms should be granted immunity even if they acted in bad faith! The real issue is that Bush is immunizing himself and his thugs from culpability for crimes they have knowingly committed. They began immediately upon seizing office, when Dick Cheney convened his energy cronies to decide how to divvy up the future spoils, and told the American people, "Go fuck yourself. It's none of your goddamned business." They sealed Presidential records, lied us into an illegal, but hugely profitable (for them - it has been devastating to the rest of America, and the world) occupation of a sovereign nation, and generally told America to STFU and do as we're told.
Right now I couldn't care less about the goddamn primaries, or who said what about who. I don't care about delegates, or super-delegates, or super-duper-delegates. Not when the Kommander-in-Thief, the Kowboy Koward of Krawford, is about to neatly let himself off the hook, aided and abetted by this shameful excuse for a Democratic Congress.
Telecom immunity=Bush immunity.
"I believe we ought to say thank you"?
I believe we ought to say, "Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect 2 trillion dollars."
But I'm not holding my breath.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Say It Loud - I'm Liberal and I'm Proud!
(cross-posted at The Smirking Chimp)
In Austin last week, Barack Obama spoke these words to his supporters:
"Oh, he's liberal,” he said. “He's liberal. Let me tell you something. There's nothing liberal about wanting to reduce money in politics that is common sense. There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure [our soldiers] are treated properly when they come home. There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure that everybody has healthcare, but we are spending more on healthcare in this country than any other advanced country. We got more uninsured. There's nothing liberal about saying that doesn't make sense, and we should do something smarter with our health care system. Don't let them run that okie doke on you!"
Begging your pardon, Barack, but there is something liberal about all of these things.
These are liberal policies, liberal goals.
It's a crying shame that one of the contenders for the Democratic nomination (and, at this point at least, the likely nominee) feels as if he must deny the word liberal - even as he advances liberal policies!
As Obama goes on with his 'nothing liberal' rant - "Who, me? Liberal? No way! Uh-uh - not me!", the Republicans are falling all over themselves trying to 'out-conservative' each other. To them, 'conservative' is a badge of honor; in fact, if you don't embrace conservatism, you're not even worthy of consideration. As I've said before, the worst epithet one Republican can hurl at another is 'liberal'. Crazy-ass John McCain has been called that by his detractors.
He should be so fortunate.
What has this wonderful conservatism brought us over the last forty years? A black hole of war and war profiteering that is sucking our nation dry as it kills millions? An economy that has taken money from the poorest to give to the richest and decimated a once-thriving middle class? A social climate of bigotry and division, where discrimination is not just morally acceptable, but divinely ordained? A place where the 'Golden Rule' is "He who has the gold makes the rules"? Where we kill others to force 'freedoms' upon them while eviscerating our own freedoms at home? It has turned a once-respected country into the most feared and reviled country in the world, run by lawless thugs who have no aspirations beyond their own enrichment and power.
Some legacy. How proud they must be.
The Sixties brought the Republican party to a place of crisis. The defeat of Goldwater, the civil rights movement, the explosion of social and cultural upheaval – riots, assassinations, hippies, feminists - all these left conservatives floundering like a fish out of water. Scornfully branded ‘the Establishment’, their traditional way of life had gotten away from them, and they were determined to get it back. Capitalism itself was under attack. Everything that was wrong with the world, it seemed, could be directly attributed to liberalism. It was time for serious measures.
In 1968, a group of conservative millionaires and corporate heavyweights convened to discuss this alarming state of affairs. There had been a seismic cultural shift, and conservatives were on the wrong side of it. Lewis H. Lapham, editor emeritus of Harper's Magazine, tells the story:
And so the conservative movement began its climb up from the abyss. They knew that it would take many years and billions of dollars to build their machine. They put into place an interlocking series of organizations designed to produce a new generation of scholars, pundits, and intellectual leaders, supported by think tanks, scholarships, internships, and media outlets. Promising young college Republicans were nurtured and cultivated, and the path to prominence made smooth as they were escorted to high-profile jobs to establish them as leading lights and deep thinkers. The overriding idea was to denigrate liberalism in every way possible – the ‘liberal media’, liberal education, liberal values. This was not a natural ‘swing of the pendulum’ – it was bought and paid for. It was slow-growing, but inexorable, and soon the term ‘liberal’, which only a few years before was how most people described themselves; which stood for society’s values – a safety net for the poorest, tolerance, intelligence, inquiry, progress – became an epithet. Liberals were irresponsible, unrealistic, immature, decadent, and wasteful of other people’s money. They were immoral, licentious, hedonistic, irrational and self-indulgent. With the concerted efforts of the new think tanks, newspaper and magazine articles, and pundits-for-hire, these ideas seeped into the national consciousness.
Forty years later, it is time to understand that the assault against liberalism did not just happen. It was planned, financed, and implemented, and we are living with the results today. This is what happens when unregulated capitalism is allowed to rampage without the checks and balances that liberal policies foster.
Conservatives have spent billions and billions of dollars to make 'liberal' into a dirty word, and they have succeeded when people who should be calling themselves liberal emphatically deny the word in the same breath as they espouse liberal policies and values. Even the word 'progressive', which is nothing to be ashamed of, and represents the idea that society should be improved upon through action, is used by liberals who want to express their values without using the 'L' word.
I think this has to stop.
I've done it myself - I have called myself both liberal and progressive interchangeably, and I feel that both terms express my value system. However, when I choose not to use the word 'liberal', I am making sure that the conservative movement's money has been well-spent. If I back off of the word 'liberal', they win!
I don't know about you, but I am ready to take back that word. Wouldn't it be great if all that conservative smear money was wasted? We need to get back to what liberalism really means.Yes, we made mistakes as liberals (notice I'm not saying 'mistakes were made'?) but instead of scrapping the policies that brought us back from the Depression and gave us a middle class, we should learn from our mistakes and work towards making our great country the best it can be. We can't let fear of being called 'liberal' stop us from claiming our great legacy. Conservatives will revile us no matter what we do, and abandoning our values and moving towards theirs is not the correct response. It only makes them more arrogant, and we validate their position if we pander to them in the name of bipartisanship and compromise. You sure won't see them reaching across the aisle in the spirit of moving forward. As we saw just last week over the FISA issue, if they don't get their way, they simply walk out.
Senator Obama, there is something liberal about wanting to reduce money in politics that is common sense. There is something liberal about wanting to make sure our soldiers are treated properly when they come home. There is something liberal about wanting to make sure that everybody has healthcare, but we are spending more on healthcare in this country than any other advanced country. And the sooner that some candidate has the sack to stand up and say that proudly, the sooner we'll start down the path of getting our country back.
Being called a liberal is 'okie-doke' with me, Senator.
Say it loud: I'm liberal and I'm proud!
In Austin last week, Barack Obama spoke these words to his supporters:
"Oh, he's liberal,” he said. “He's liberal. Let me tell you something. There's nothing liberal about wanting to reduce money in politics that is common sense. There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure [our soldiers] are treated properly when they come home. There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure that everybody has healthcare, but we are spending more on healthcare in this country than any other advanced country. We got more uninsured. There's nothing liberal about saying that doesn't make sense, and we should do something smarter with our health care system. Don't let them run that okie doke on you!"
Begging your pardon, Barack, but there is something liberal about all of these things.
These are liberal policies, liberal goals.
It's a crying shame that one of the contenders for the Democratic nomination (and, at this point at least, the likely nominee) feels as if he must deny the word liberal - even as he advances liberal policies!
As Obama goes on with his 'nothing liberal' rant - "Who, me? Liberal? No way! Uh-uh - not me!", the Republicans are falling all over themselves trying to 'out-conservative' each other. To them, 'conservative' is a badge of honor; in fact, if you don't embrace conservatism, you're not even worthy of consideration. As I've said before, the worst epithet one Republican can hurl at another is 'liberal'. Crazy-ass John McCain has been called that by his detractors.
He should be so fortunate.
What has this wonderful conservatism brought us over the last forty years? A black hole of war and war profiteering that is sucking our nation dry as it kills millions? An economy that has taken money from the poorest to give to the richest and decimated a once-thriving middle class? A social climate of bigotry and division, where discrimination is not just morally acceptable, but divinely ordained? A place where the 'Golden Rule' is "He who has the gold makes the rules"? Where we kill others to force 'freedoms' upon them while eviscerating our own freedoms at home? It has turned a once-respected country into the most feared and reviled country in the world, run by lawless thugs who have no aspirations beyond their own enrichment and power.
Some legacy. How proud they must be.
The Sixties brought the Republican party to a place of crisis. The defeat of Goldwater, the civil rights movement, the explosion of social and cultural upheaval – riots, assassinations, hippies, feminists - all these left conservatives floundering like a fish out of water. Scornfully branded ‘the Establishment’, their traditional way of life had gotten away from them, and they were determined to get it back. Capitalism itself was under attack. Everything that was wrong with the world, it seemed, could be directly attributed to liberalism. It was time for serious measures.
In 1968, a group of conservative millionaires and corporate heavyweights convened to discuss this alarming state of affairs. There had been a seismic cultural shift, and conservatives were on the wrong side of it. Lewis H. Lapham, editor emeritus of Harper's Magazine, tells the story:
The hope of their salvation found its voice in a 5,000-word manifesto written by Lewis Powell, a Richmond corporation lawyer, and circulated in August 1971 by the United States Chamber of Commerce under the heading Confidential Memorandum; Attack on the American Free Enterprise System. Soon to be appointed to the Supreme Court, lawyer Powell was a man well-known and much respected by the country's business community; within the legal profession he was regarded as a prophet. His heavy word of warning fell upon the legions of reaction with the force of Holy Scripture: "Survival of what we call the free enterprise system," he said, "lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations."
The venture capital for the task at hand was provided by a small sewing circle of rich philanthropists—Richard Mellon Scaife in Pittsburgh, Lynde and Harry Bradley in Milwaukee, John Olin in New York City, the Smith Richardson family in North Carolina, Joseph Coors in Denver, David and Charles Koch in Wichita—who entertained visions of an America restored to the safety of its mythological past—small towns like those seen in prints by Currier and Ives, cheerful factory workers whistling while they worked, politicians as wise as Abraham Lincoln and as brave as Teddy Roosevelt, benevolent millionaires presenting Christmas turkeys to deserving elevator operators, the sins of the flesh deported to Mexico or France. Suspicious of any fact that they hadn't known before the age of six, the wealthy saviors of the Republic also possessed large reserves of paranoia, and if the world was going rapidly to rot (as any fool could plainly see) the fault was to be found in everything and anything tainted with a stamp of liberal origin—the news media and the universities, income taxes, Warren Beatty, transfer payments to the undeserving poor, restraints of trade, Jane Fonda, low interest rates, civil liberties for unappreciative minorities, movies made in Poland, public schools.*
*The various philanthropic foundations under the control of the six families possess assets estimated in 2001 at $1.7 billion. Harry Bradley was an early and enthusiastic member of the John Birch Society; Koch Industries in the winter of 2000 agreed to pay $30 million (the largest civil fine ever imposed on a private American company under any federal environmental law) to settle claims related to 300 oil spills from its pipelines in six states.
Although small in comparison with the sums distributed by the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, the money was ideologically sound, and it was put to work leveraging additional contributions (from corporations as well as from other like-minded foundations), acquiring radio stations, newspapers, and journals of opinion, bankrolling intellectual sweatshops for the making of political and socioeconomic theory. Joseph Coors established The Heritage Foundation with an initial gift of $250,000 in 1973, the sum augmented over the next few years with $900,000 from Richard Scaife; the American Enterprise Institute was revived and fortified in the late seventies with $6 million from the Howard Pew Freedom Trust; the Cato Institute was set up by the Koch family in 1977 with a gift of $500,000. If in 1971 the friends of American free enterprise could turn for comfort to no more than seven not very competent sources of inspiration, by the end of the decade they could look to eight additional installations committed to "joint effort" and "united action." The senior officers of the Fortune 500 companies meanwhile organized the Business Roundtable, providing it by 1979 with a rich endowment for the hiring of resident scholars loyal in their opposition to the tax and antitrust laws.
And so the conservative movement began its climb up from the abyss. They knew that it would take many years and billions of dollars to build their machine. They put into place an interlocking series of organizations designed to produce a new generation of scholars, pundits, and intellectual leaders, supported by think tanks, scholarships, internships, and media outlets. Promising young college Republicans were nurtured and cultivated, and the path to prominence made smooth as they were escorted to high-profile jobs to establish them as leading lights and deep thinkers. The overriding idea was to denigrate liberalism in every way possible – the ‘liberal media’, liberal education, liberal values. This was not a natural ‘swing of the pendulum’ – it was bought and paid for. It was slow-growing, but inexorable, and soon the term ‘liberal’, which only a few years before was how most people described themselves; which stood for society’s values – a safety net for the poorest, tolerance, intelligence, inquiry, progress – became an epithet. Liberals were irresponsible, unrealistic, immature, decadent, and wasteful of other people’s money. They were immoral, licentious, hedonistic, irrational and self-indulgent. With the concerted efforts of the new think tanks, newspaper and magazine articles, and pundits-for-hire, these ideas seeped into the national consciousness.
Forty years later, it is time to understand that the assault against liberalism did not just happen. It was planned, financed, and implemented, and we are living with the results today. This is what happens when unregulated capitalism is allowed to rampage without the checks and balances that liberal policies foster.
Conservatives have spent billions and billions of dollars to make 'liberal' into a dirty word, and they have succeeded when people who should be calling themselves liberal emphatically deny the word in the same breath as they espouse liberal policies and values. Even the word 'progressive', which is nothing to be ashamed of, and represents the idea that society should be improved upon through action, is used by liberals who want to express their values without using the 'L' word.
I think this has to stop.
I've done it myself - I have called myself both liberal and progressive interchangeably, and I feel that both terms express my value system. However, when I choose not to use the word 'liberal', I am making sure that the conservative movement's money has been well-spent. If I back off of the word 'liberal', they win!
I don't know about you, but I am ready to take back that word. Wouldn't it be great if all that conservative smear money was wasted? We need to get back to what liberalism really means.Yes, we made mistakes as liberals (notice I'm not saying 'mistakes were made'?) but instead of scrapping the policies that brought us back from the Depression and gave us a middle class, we should learn from our mistakes and work towards making our great country the best it can be. We can't let fear of being called 'liberal' stop us from claiming our great legacy. Conservatives will revile us no matter what we do, and abandoning our values and moving towards theirs is not the correct response. It only makes them more arrogant, and we validate their position if we pander to them in the name of bipartisanship and compromise. You sure won't see them reaching across the aisle in the spirit of moving forward. As we saw just last week over the FISA issue, if they don't get their way, they simply walk out.
Senator Obama, there is something liberal about wanting to reduce money in politics that is common sense. There is something liberal about wanting to make sure our soldiers are treated properly when they come home. There is something liberal about wanting to make sure that everybody has healthcare, but we are spending more on healthcare in this country than any other advanced country. And the sooner that some candidate has the sack to stand up and say that proudly, the sooner we'll start down the path of getting our country back.
Being called a liberal is 'okie-doke' with me, Senator.
Say it loud: I'm liberal and I'm proud!
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thanks for the E-ward, Suzanne!
Suzanne from TwoTonGreenBlog (who also hosts and/or moderates Late Night at Firedoglake) has been kind enough to tag me with an Excellence in Blogging award, which I will be happy to pass along. Suzanne has a great heart, a feisty spirit, fabulously eclectic taste in music and a 'take no prisoners' point of view (which no doubt comes in handy as a mod!) She has become a friend who helped me get through losing one of my beloved cats with a sympathetic shoulder and a listening ear.I will be passing this on to:
Rainbow Demon from Coffee House Studio - a wild ride you'll never forget
Texas Betsy from Head-On Radio Network - an inexhaustible fount of up-to-the-minute info
Mutant Poodle at Mutant Poodle - one of my homies, smart and informed
Phoenix Woman at Mercury Rising - writes at Firedoglake; this is her own blog
Quaker Dave at Quaker Agitator - a unique perspective
The folks at Les Enragés - great group blog
Distributorcap at distributorcap NY - a man brave enough to watch Dubya on TV (more than I can do!)
Station Agent at Ice Station Tango - because Canada is not far enough
Comments from Left Field - where my blogfather lives
Catherine from PovertyBarn - commentary from a SF perspective (take that, BillO!)
You all rock.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
Monday's "Hooterville Hall O' Fame"
Mixing it up with old friends and new:
Karlo at Swerve Left
Mock, Paper, Scissors
ddjango at P!
Preemptive Karma
Cap'n Dyke, Lesbian Pirate Queen and Rogue Blogger
Lydia Cornell
and a hearty Hooterville 'hi' to TomCat from Politics Plus!
Karlo at Swerve Left
Mock, Paper, Scissors
ddjango at P!
Preemptive Karma
Cap'n Dyke, Lesbian Pirate Queen and Rogue Blogger
Lydia Cornell
and a hearty Hooterville 'hi' to TomCat from Politics Plus!
Saturday, February 23, 2008
'Inspiration', 'Cult of Personality' A Crock? Tell It To St. Ronnie!
(cross-posted at the Smirking Chimp)
It seems that Barack Obama is drawing heat from the right and the left because he's 'inspirational'. John McCain says about Obama's message, "It's no more than an eloquent, but empty call for change." Hillary Clinton touts her own experience and toughness as superior to Barack Obama's call for unity and optimism.
The point seems to be that Obama's message of hope and inspiration that has galvanized so many Americans (even a few Republicans, or 'Obamicans' as they're now known) is a bunch of hogwash, and that Obama's appeal is superficial and insubstantive. 'Hope'? That's nothing to base a presidential campaign on!
While the Republicans are busy vilifying Obama for his inspirational speeches and call him an 'empty suit' and a perpetrator of the 'Cult of Personality', they seem to have forgotten about the Ultimate Republican Hero, whom the Repub candidates have practically come to blows over as they each claim to be the 'absolutely most Reagan-y'. John McCain called himself a 'Foot-soldier in the Reagan Revolution'. The basis of Ronald Reagan's appeal (to both Republicans and the 'Reagan Democrats') was that, instead of endlessly droning on about the problems we faced as a nation and the unpleasant medicine we'd have to swallow if we wanted things to get better like that grumpy old Jimmy Carter did (gosh, who wants to vote for someone who tells you things you don't want to hear? Conserving energy? Turning down our thermostats? Yuck!), Reagan burst forth like sunshine from behind a cloud and pooh-poohed away all those worries with a dismissive wave of his hand as he told Americans not to believe their lying eyes or their dwindling bankbooks, but to cheer up; because we were the Best Nation Ever™, and to say otherwise was tantamount to treason.
And who didn't want to believe him? Americans were tired of sacrifice and penny-pinching, inflation and gas lines, hostages and humiliation. So when Reagan promised that he was going to wipe the slate clean and make Americans proud once more, he held out something that could not be quantified or qualified - he held out hope. He told Americans what they wanted to hear, not what they needed to hear, and his 'feel-good' rhetoric catapulted him into the White House. His emphasis on supply-side economics (or 'voodoo economics' as his future VP Bush Senior called it during the race for the nomination), the idea that 'deficits don't matter' and complete rollback of the New Deal went unchallenged in the desire to put the 'bad stuff' behind us.
Reagan, however, really was a 'tabula rasa' - an actor who could be counted on to do his corporate masters' bidding with zeal and true belief, which was how he got Americans to trust him. The public can sniff out inauthenticity, and, as an actor, he immersed himself in the biggest role of his career until he really did believe. A former Democrat, former New Deal supporter, former labor union president (Screen Actors Guild), Reagan’s years with GE as not only a television host but a traveling ‘good-will ambassador’ for GE, changed his viewpoint as he spent the bulk of his time with corporate and defense contractor honchos and became convinced that government regulation was interfering with the free market. He was passionate, as are most born-agains, and the sincerity of his convictions resonated with the electorate, winning him a whole new constituency of ‘Reagan Democrats’. Believing as he did that government was the problem, not the solution, he cut off funding for arts and education, busted unions (beginning with the air traffic controllers strike, which caused a sharp upturn in airplane accidents), and slashed programs to assist mothers, children, and minorities, while pouring money into defense and running up huge deficits.
Yes, old Saint Ronnie was quite the salesman, and his customers just couldn't get enough of the snake-oil. Reagan was groomed and prepped by the political star-makers of the right to be the popular face of their movement, and in that sense he was a brilliant success. He got a laugh when he said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'” Actually, to me the nine most terrifying words in the English language are “An actor with Alzheimer’s was once our Nation’s President”. But I digress. His witty little quips and avuncular folksiness obscured the fact that he was launching a war against the middle class and the poor, and putting forth the incredible idea that 'Government is the enemy and Big Business is your friend."
Reagan was, indeed, the triumph of 'style over substance', and it was the force of his personality that earned him the label "The Great Communicator". But he has been ensconced in conseravtive minds as the greatest president ever, while ostensibly 'running the country' in the throes of Alzheimer's.
Barack Obama is far more qualified to be President than Reagan ever was. Like Schwarzenegger after him, Reagan was an actor who had been recruited by big money interests to lend their on-screen persona to the agenda of the big businesses who, for obvious reasons, could not be elected on their own recognizance. Obama has the drive and the charisma, but he also has the goods. He's his own man, for whatever that's worth.
This may be what drives the Repubs crazy. The purpose of an empty suit is for it to be worn by someone else. They have deified Reagan for the same thing that they are crucifying Obama for - for inspiring, uplifting, instilling hope in the hopeless. But when you compare the two, there's a difference. Reagan's feel-good, yay-America, look-at-the-pretty-birdie-over-there rhetorical sleight-of-hand was meant to distract Americans from reality while the real operatives did their work behind the scenes. Obama is a gifted, passionate and persuasive speaker who has touched a nerve in America. But he has also spent his lifetime involved in public service. He is highly educated and skilled. Whatever else he may be, he is not a mouthpiece for those who would rather stay in the shadows and pull strings from behind the curtains.
I am not saying this, by the way, as someone who is particularly under the sway of Obama's charisma. He was not my first choice Democrat, or my second. I think he is a good, qualified candidate whom I will support if he becomes the Democratic nominee. But I do not discount the power of the Obama phenomenon, and anything that motivates young people to get excited about a candidate and get involved in the electoral process is something worth paying attention to. The biggest problem I think we face as progressives is apathy, and Obama is shaking people up in a way that hasn't been seen in a generation. Hopelessness breeds apathy and disengagement, and to inspire hope and energy and involvement in people who have been on the sidelines politically is a gift, not just to Obama's campaign, but to the whole (small 'd') democratic process. We all owe Obama a 'thank you' for that.
Republicans like McCain who worship Reagan for his 'hopeful, uplifting' optimism are the same ones who sneer at Obama's message. The self-described 'foot-soldier of the Reagan Revolution' now says, “to encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude.”
Yeah - a platitude like "Morning in America".
I guess that 'inspiration' is only useful to Republicans when it is a smokescreen instead of a searchlight.
It seems that Barack Obama is drawing heat from the right and the left because he's 'inspirational'. John McCain says about Obama's message, "It's no more than an eloquent, but empty call for change." Hillary Clinton touts her own experience and toughness as superior to Barack Obama's call for unity and optimism.
The point seems to be that Obama's message of hope and inspiration that has galvanized so many Americans (even a few Republicans, or 'Obamicans' as they're now known) is a bunch of hogwash, and that Obama's appeal is superficial and insubstantive. 'Hope'? That's nothing to base a presidential campaign on!
While the Republicans are busy vilifying Obama for his inspirational speeches and call him an 'empty suit' and a perpetrator of the 'Cult of Personality', they seem to have forgotten about the Ultimate Republican Hero, whom the Repub candidates have practically come to blows over as they each claim to be the 'absolutely most Reagan-y'. John McCain called himself a 'Foot-soldier in the Reagan Revolution'. The basis of Ronald Reagan's appeal (to both Republicans and the 'Reagan Democrats') was that, instead of endlessly droning on about the problems we faced as a nation and the unpleasant medicine we'd have to swallow if we wanted things to get better like that grumpy old Jimmy Carter did (gosh, who wants to vote for someone who tells you things you don't want to hear? Conserving energy? Turning down our thermostats? Yuck!), Reagan burst forth like sunshine from behind a cloud and pooh-poohed away all those worries with a dismissive wave of his hand as he told Americans not to believe their lying eyes or their dwindling bankbooks, but to cheer up; because we were the Best Nation Ever™, and to say otherwise was tantamount to treason.
And who didn't want to believe him? Americans were tired of sacrifice and penny-pinching, inflation and gas lines, hostages and humiliation. So when Reagan promised that he was going to wipe the slate clean and make Americans proud once more, he held out something that could not be quantified or qualified - he held out hope. He told Americans what they wanted to hear, not what they needed to hear, and his 'feel-good' rhetoric catapulted him into the White House. His emphasis on supply-side economics (or 'voodoo economics' as his future VP Bush Senior called it during the race for the nomination), the idea that 'deficits don't matter' and complete rollback of the New Deal went unchallenged in the desire to put the 'bad stuff' behind us.
Reagan, however, really was a 'tabula rasa' - an actor who could be counted on to do his corporate masters' bidding with zeal and true belief, which was how he got Americans to trust him. The public can sniff out inauthenticity, and, as an actor, he immersed himself in the biggest role of his career until he really did believe. A former Democrat, former New Deal supporter, former labor union president (Screen Actors Guild), Reagan’s years with GE as not only a television host but a traveling ‘good-will ambassador’ for GE, changed his viewpoint as he spent the bulk of his time with corporate and defense contractor honchos and became convinced that government regulation was interfering with the free market. He was passionate, as are most born-agains, and the sincerity of his convictions resonated with the electorate, winning him a whole new constituency of ‘Reagan Democrats’. Believing as he did that government was the problem, not the solution, he cut off funding for arts and education, busted unions (beginning with the air traffic controllers strike, which caused a sharp upturn in airplane accidents), and slashed programs to assist mothers, children, and minorities, while pouring money into defense and running up huge deficits.
Yes, old Saint Ronnie was quite the salesman, and his customers just couldn't get enough of the snake-oil. Reagan was groomed and prepped by the political star-makers of the right to be the popular face of their movement, and in that sense he was a brilliant success. He got a laugh when he said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'” Actually, to me the nine most terrifying words in the English language are “An actor with Alzheimer’s was once our Nation’s President”. But I digress. His witty little quips and avuncular folksiness obscured the fact that he was launching a war against the middle class and the poor, and putting forth the incredible idea that 'Government is the enemy and Big Business is your friend."
Reagan was, indeed, the triumph of 'style over substance', and it was the force of his personality that earned him the label "The Great Communicator". But he has been ensconced in conseravtive minds as the greatest president ever, while ostensibly 'running the country' in the throes of Alzheimer's.
Barack Obama is far more qualified to be President than Reagan ever was. Like Schwarzenegger after him, Reagan was an actor who had been recruited by big money interests to lend their on-screen persona to the agenda of the big businesses who, for obvious reasons, could not be elected on their own recognizance. Obama has the drive and the charisma, but he also has the goods. He's his own man, for whatever that's worth.
This may be what drives the Repubs crazy. The purpose of an empty suit is for it to be worn by someone else. They have deified Reagan for the same thing that they are crucifying Obama for - for inspiring, uplifting, instilling hope in the hopeless. But when you compare the two, there's a difference. Reagan's feel-good, yay-America, look-at-the-pretty-birdie-over-there rhetorical sleight-of-hand was meant to distract Americans from reality while the real operatives did their work behind the scenes. Obama is a gifted, passionate and persuasive speaker who has touched a nerve in America. But he has also spent his lifetime involved in public service. He is highly educated and skilled. Whatever else he may be, he is not a mouthpiece for those who would rather stay in the shadows and pull strings from behind the curtains.
I am not saying this, by the way, as someone who is particularly under the sway of Obama's charisma. He was not my first choice Democrat, or my second. I think he is a good, qualified candidate whom I will support if he becomes the Democratic nominee. But I do not discount the power of the Obama phenomenon, and anything that motivates young people to get excited about a candidate and get involved in the electoral process is something worth paying attention to. The biggest problem I think we face as progressives is apathy, and Obama is shaking people up in a way that hasn't been seen in a generation. Hopelessness breeds apathy and disengagement, and to inspire hope and energy and involvement in people who have been on the sidelines politically is a gift, not just to Obama's campaign, but to the whole (small 'd') democratic process. We all owe Obama a 'thank you' for that.
Republicans like McCain who worship Reagan for his 'hopeful, uplifting' optimism are the same ones who sneer at Obama's message. The self-described 'foot-soldier of the Reagan Revolution' now says, “to encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude.”
Yeah - a platitude like "Morning in America".
I guess that 'inspiration' is only useful to Republicans when it is a smokescreen instead of a searchlight.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Belated Wednesday Weekly World News - Atlantis Found!
(I normally post this on Wednesday, but my little daughter got a last-minute slot for the eye surgery she's been waiting for when there was a cancellation, so everything's been on hold for yesterday and today. It was successful and she's resting at home and being spoiled by one and all!)
(Read over at Eli's Multi-Medium...)
The Lost Continent of Atlantis Has Been Found - and it's the Answer to the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis!
DUBUQUE, Iowa -- In an astounding discovery, a scientist has announced the most amazing archaeological find of the twenty-first century - the Lost Continent of Atlantis!
Dr. Oliver Icklemyer, an archaeologist at the University of Phoenix, unveiled his astonishing news at a recent press conference in Dubuque, Iowa. First mentioned by Plato in Timaeus around 360 B.C., Atlantis was a magnificent continent-sized island empire which was destroyed in 9000 B.C. in the span of 24 hours by earthquakes and floods, and was subsequently lost in the bottom of the ocean, its advanced civilization lost forever - or so it has been believed. For centuries the location of the fabled Atlantis has been hotly debated, but Dr. Icklemyer has stunned experts by claiming that Atlantis is actually about half a mile out from the Jersey Shore.
"It stands to reason," the professor modestly explained. "When I connected the dots - 'Atlantic Ocean', 'Atlantic City', 'Atlantis' - it all fell into place."
And now, the Lost Continent of Atlantis has not only been discovered, but will soon be inhabited once again for the first time in eleven thousand years - by the victims of the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis!
The White House is hailing this as a 'win-win'. A spokesman for the Administration is quoted as saying, "This is a red-letter day for the Americans who have lost their homes due to fraudulent and deceptive marketing practices by banks and mortgage brokers. Each and every family that has been bilked out of their house will receive, practically free of charge, a beautiful 1/16-acre plot in the exclusive Atlantis: Phase II 'lifestyle community' subdivision - and an air tank for each member of the family! Every home is equipped with running water. There are recreational activities galore, including fishing and swimming."
Already real-estate developers are scrambling to get first dibs on this remarkable bonanza of untapped investment potential. An unnamed real-estate mogul calls it the real 'final frontier', saying, "Space, shmace! That's so last century! You wanna talk about your 'Manifest Destiny' - this is it, baby!" He plans on changing the name to 'Trump-lantis'.
In a statement to the Weekly World News, the President's mother Barbara Bush notes,"And so many of the people in Atlantis here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (she chuckles slightly) is working very well for them."
Monday, February 18, 2008
Monday's "Hooterville Hall O' Fame"
This week's inductees in the Hooterville Hall O' Fame are:
Kelso's Nuts
Much That Is Hidden
When Will I Use This?
The Democratic Daily
TPC-CultureVultures
A warm welcome to all of you!
Kelso's Nuts
Much That Is Hidden
When Will I Use This?
The Democratic Daily
TPC-CultureVultures
A warm welcome to all of you!
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Thoughts on Blog Amnesty and the Mainstream Media
(cross-posted at The Smirking Chimp)
I enjoyed last week's Blog Amnesty. I don't get to spend a lot of time reading and commenting on other people's blogs, certainly not as much as I'd like, so it was a great opportunity for me to expand my blog horizons. Like many people, my life is filled up with family, work, friends and obligations, and I always feel 'behind the eight-ball' in regards to keeping up with my favorite bloggers, and discovering new blogs. Having a designated 'Blog Amnesty Day' made it easier to do that.
It also got me thinking about the phenomenon of blogging, and how it differs from the mainstream media. In the wake of the consolidation of media that has been going on for the last 20 years, blogging has stepped up as the 'adversarial' press envisioned by our founders in the First Amendment. The fact that bloggers are mostly unpaid and uncontrolled has freed them to a large extent from incestuous relationships with those they are supposed to be covering for the people. As the lines between 'journalism' and infotainment have blurred, it has become more difficult to separate truth from opinion on television, which is still where the majority of Americans get their news.
For many years, news was not obligated to support itself financially. A company fortunate enough to get a license to use a portion of the broadcast spectrum had practically a license to print money. As the spectrum is limited, only a lucky few were able to obtain these licenses. The broadcast spectrum, however, is a part of the 'commons' - common resources belonging to the people of the United States. No corporation is allowed to own the airwaves; they may only rent space on the spectrum. In return for the great privilege of being allowed to rent this access to the people of the United States for a trifling sum, the broadcast companies were expected to 'donate' news coverage as a public service. This news coverage was expected to adhere to strict journalistic standards, and was not to be responsible for 'paying its own way' through ratings and advertising, unlike other television and radio shows. However, in the last few years this has been dropped - but no one saw fit to inform Americans of this.
'News' is now expected to hold its own, financially and ratings-wise against entertainment - sitcoms, gossip shows, game shows, reality programming, night-time dramas, etc. - although its purpose is not entertainment. What has been true for other entertainment programs (that they are chosen by the networks to maximize ad revenue and target the advertisers' preferred demographic - young white males) has now been required of news, resulting in info-tainment rather than the obligation to inform the public. This means (and has meant for a while now) that the media and the press, specifically protected by the First Amendment for the purpose of advocating for the people rather than the establishment, are now beholden and obligated to the very institutions they have been entrusted with criticizing. But, somehow, no one got around to telling us that. Many people are still under the misapprehension that what we see on television news is unbiased, and must be by law. "They're not allowed to lie on TV!"
The reason that the press is singled out in the First Amendment is that they were expected to be advocating for the people who do not have access to the information that has an impact upon their lives. Can I be in Washington in the halls of Congress every day? Can you? I can't be where the decisions are being made. That's what the press is supposed to do for me. But when it's more important to sell products than give me unbiased information, my rights as a citizen are being infringed upon. The press is protected only upon the assumption that it is advocating for me; doing what I cannot do. The press is supposed to be adversarial, not complicit with power. But that is not the case any more.
One more time: the press is supposed to be adversarial to the powers-that-be.
That concept has been stood upon its head, and never more egregiously than during the Bush Administration. As media become more consolidated and power over it concentrated in a mere five corporations, the idea of media independence is a thing of the past. Opinions are being disseminated by only a handful of people, all in the same club.
Blogging has become a powerful antidote to the consolidation of media. While it is not always appropriate to call it 'journalism', it has become a voice for the voiceless. It is able to take an adversarial position precisely because it is mostly unpaid and therefore uncontrollable, and with the wide variety of opinion available, it's possible to compare different points of view and come to your own conclusion. If you read something that sounds like BS to you, you can search for other articles on that topic and see what the other arguments for and against it are. No one is prevented from saying anything they want, no matter how false or misleading or vile, but it has to stand up to the scrutiny of the rest of the blogosphere and will stand or fall upon its merits.
And, unlike traditional media, the aim of blogging is not to contract, but to expand. Blogroll Amnesty is a great example of this principle, and as some of the so-called 'A-list' blogs become more and more exclusive, and closer to the issues and people they cover, the rest of the blog community seeks to become more inclusive. Instead of jockeying for dominance and pushing little blogs aside, the spirit of the blog community attempts to broaden the range of voices. And a blog is judged on its own quality, rather than how much money has been put into it. If you have something to say that resonates with other people, you will find an audience.
To me, this is the democratic way, and closer to the meaning of what the First Amendment was written for. No, most of us aren't 'journalists'. But everything we say is subject to public scrutiny and debate, and if a post is flawed, you can be sure that someone will point it out. The beauty of blogging is that nothing is just accepted as gospel. If you want to make an assertion, it will not be uncritically swallowed. And any commenter worth paying attention to will have to demonstrate his or her competence in order to be taken seriously. It's a self-correcting system - a true 'meritocracy' of ideas.
It's also a community of people, personalities and relationships. We are often partisan and biased, but as humans the partisanship and bias are on the table, not hidden under a mask of false 'impartiality'. Then you can consider the source in making your decision as to whether you accept or reject that person's argument.
I treasure the friends I've met through blogging - people whose paths I would never have crossed in my daily life. I'm proud to be a citizen of Blogtopia, and I love the fact that it's our ideas and writing that give me and my cohorts a seat at the table, not money or influence. The very fact that I have gotten a book publishing contract from someone hearing something I wrote and e-mailing me out of the blue, and not because I 'knew somebody', had the 'right contacts' or was high-profile in any way, is a testament to the collective power of blogging. It wasn't the number of 'hits' on my site (which aren't huge), or advertising, or anything else but doing the work. 'Wingnut welfare' notwithstanding, so many of us are getting our voices heard based on our hard work and commitment to speaking out, instead of novelty, nepotism, notoriety or the lowest common denominator.
Your voices count. And we are changing things - not overnight, but we are changing things; you can be assured of that.
So, write on, my brothers and sisters! Enquiring Minds want to know!
I enjoyed last week's Blog Amnesty. I don't get to spend a lot of time reading and commenting on other people's blogs, certainly not as much as I'd like, so it was a great opportunity for me to expand my blog horizons. Like many people, my life is filled up with family, work, friends and obligations, and I always feel 'behind the eight-ball' in regards to keeping up with my favorite bloggers, and discovering new blogs. Having a designated 'Blog Amnesty Day' made it easier to do that.
It also got me thinking about the phenomenon of blogging, and how it differs from the mainstream media. In the wake of the consolidation of media that has been going on for the last 20 years, blogging has stepped up as the 'adversarial' press envisioned by our founders in the First Amendment. The fact that bloggers are mostly unpaid and uncontrolled has freed them to a large extent from incestuous relationships with those they are supposed to be covering for the people. As the lines between 'journalism' and infotainment have blurred, it has become more difficult to separate truth from opinion on television, which is still where the majority of Americans get their news.
For many years, news was not obligated to support itself financially. A company fortunate enough to get a license to use a portion of the broadcast spectrum had practically a license to print money. As the spectrum is limited, only a lucky few were able to obtain these licenses. The broadcast spectrum, however, is a part of the 'commons' - common resources belonging to the people of the United States. No corporation is allowed to own the airwaves; they may only rent space on the spectrum. In return for the great privilege of being allowed to rent this access to the people of the United States for a trifling sum, the broadcast companies were expected to 'donate' news coverage as a public service. This news coverage was expected to adhere to strict journalistic standards, and was not to be responsible for 'paying its own way' through ratings and advertising, unlike other television and radio shows. However, in the last few years this has been dropped - but no one saw fit to inform Americans of this.
'News' is now expected to hold its own, financially and ratings-wise against entertainment - sitcoms, gossip shows, game shows, reality programming, night-time dramas, etc. - although its purpose is not entertainment. What has been true for other entertainment programs (that they are chosen by the networks to maximize ad revenue and target the advertisers' preferred demographic - young white males) has now been required of news, resulting in info-tainment rather than the obligation to inform the public. This means (and has meant for a while now) that the media and the press, specifically protected by the First Amendment for the purpose of advocating for the people rather than the establishment, are now beholden and obligated to the very institutions they have been entrusted with criticizing. But, somehow, no one got around to telling us that. Many people are still under the misapprehension that what we see on television news is unbiased, and must be by law. "They're not allowed to lie on TV!"
The reason that the press is singled out in the First Amendment is that they were expected to be advocating for the people who do not have access to the information that has an impact upon their lives. Can I be in Washington in the halls of Congress every day? Can you? I can't be where the decisions are being made. That's what the press is supposed to do for me. But when it's more important to sell products than give me unbiased information, my rights as a citizen are being infringed upon. The press is protected only upon the assumption that it is advocating for me; doing what I cannot do. The press is supposed to be adversarial, not complicit with power. But that is not the case any more.
One more time: the press is supposed to be adversarial to the powers-that-be.
That concept has been stood upon its head, and never more egregiously than during the Bush Administration. As media become more consolidated and power over it concentrated in a mere five corporations, the idea of media independence is a thing of the past. Opinions are being disseminated by only a handful of people, all in the same club.
Blogging has become a powerful antidote to the consolidation of media. While it is not always appropriate to call it 'journalism', it has become a voice for the voiceless. It is able to take an adversarial position precisely because it is mostly unpaid and therefore uncontrollable, and with the wide variety of opinion available, it's possible to compare different points of view and come to your own conclusion. If you read something that sounds like BS to you, you can search for other articles on that topic and see what the other arguments for and against it are. No one is prevented from saying anything they want, no matter how false or misleading or vile, but it has to stand up to the scrutiny of the rest of the blogosphere and will stand or fall upon its merits.
And, unlike traditional media, the aim of blogging is not to contract, but to expand. Blogroll Amnesty is a great example of this principle, and as some of the so-called 'A-list' blogs become more and more exclusive, and closer to the issues and people they cover, the rest of the blog community seeks to become more inclusive. Instead of jockeying for dominance and pushing little blogs aside, the spirit of the blog community attempts to broaden the range of voices. And a blog is judged on its own quality, rather than how much money has been put into it. If you have something to say that resonates with other people, you will find an audience.
To me, this is the democratic way, and closer to the meaning of what the First Amendment was written for. No, most of us aren't 'journalists'. But everything we say is subject to public scrutiny and debate, and if a post is flawed, you can be sure that someone will point it out. The beauty of blogging is that nothing is just accepted as gospel. If you want to make an assertion, it will not be uncritically swallowed. And any commenter worth paying attention to will have to demonstrate his or her competence in order to be taken seriously. It's a self-correcting system - a true 'meritocracy' of ideas.
It's also a community of people, personalities and relationships. We are often partisan and biased, but as humans the partisanship and bias are on the table, not hidden under a mask of false 'impartiality'. Then you can consider the source in making your decision as to whether you accept or reject that person's argument.
I treasure the friends I've met through blogging - people whose paths I would never have crossed in my daily life. I'm proud to be a citizen of Blogtopia, and I love the fact that it's our ideas and writing that give me and my cohorts a seat at the table, not money or influence. The very fact that I have gotten a book publishing contract from someone hearing something I wrote and e-mailing me out of the blue, and not because I 'knew somebody', had the 'right contacts' or was high-profile in any way, is a testament to the collective power of blogging. It wasn't the number of 'hits' on my site (which aren't huge), or advertising, or anything else but doing the work. 'Wingnut welfare' notwithstanding, so many of us are getting our voices heard based on our hard work and commitment to speaking out, instead of novelty, nepotism, notoriety or the lowest common denominator.
Your voices count. And we are changing things - not overnight, but we are changing things; you can be assured of that.
So, write on, my brothers and sisters! Enquiring Minds want to know!
Friday, February 15, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Bat Boy to Dick Cheney: "Don't You Love Me, Daddy?"
Over at Eli's -
Bat Boy To Dick Cheney: "Don't You Love Me, Daddy?"
MORGANTOWN, West Virginia - In the small mining town of Ticksville, West Virginia, population 357, a lonely little boy cries for the daddy he’s never seen. While other little boys he knows have fathers that play catch, take them fishing, and coach their Little League teams, this little boy has never known the love of the man responsible for bringing him into the world.
A fatherless boy is not unusual in this impoverished mountain town; a succession of unfortunate mining accidents has seen to that, and the difficulty in finding work in this once-booming area has driven many men away from their families in search of bigger and better things. But this particular boy is not like other boys, and the father he has never seen is not like other fathers.
This little boy’s name is Bat Boy, and his mother now claims that the father he has never seen is Vice-President Dick Cheney.
Little Bat Boy, part human, part bat, first gained national attention when he was found in a West Virginia cave in 1992. At first thought to be an abandoned orphan, his mother, Susan Boy, was subsequently located in a bar in Morgantown three weeks later, where she had “stopped on the way home from work, and just lost track of time.”
Professional recycler Susan Boy has refused to comment on the subject of her son’s father up until now, but in a sensational statement has named Vice-President Cheney as the real father of Bat Boy.
“I never wanted to make no trouble for Batty’s pa,” she said in an exclusive interview with the Weekly World News. “I figured my boy had enough unwanted attention as it was, and him and me have always made our own way. It ain’t that unusual round these parts to be a single mom anyhow, and I always told him his daddy was a no-account drunken bum. That seemed to satisfy him for a while. But now that he’s older, he’s askin’ more questions, and since his daddy is almost done being Vice-President, I think my son deserves to know who his father is.”
Ms. Boy asserts that there is no financial angle in seeking to reunite Batty with his dad. “I never asked Dick for no money. Even when times was tough, me and Batty had our pride. But it broke my heart to watch poor Batty trying to ‘prove himself’ to a daddy he’s never known. All he ever wanted was a father’s love, and I think it’s time he had it.”
Susan Boy claimed to have had a long affair with the Vice-President in the late seventies and early eighties. “We met in a bar in Morgantown,” she said. “The chemistry was undeniable after five boilermakers, and Dickie put me up in a motel room for the next four years. He came to see me every time he could get away from that ball-busting harpy he was married to.”
She asserted that the real Dick Cheney was very different from the public’s perception of him. “He was just the sweetest thing,” she said. “Always bringing me flowers and Jack Daniels. He’d cry and cry about how no one really understood him except me. He was always crying around me, now that I think back on it. You might not know it, but my Dickie was a very emotional guy. Sometimes all he’d do when he came over would be to stay up all night, crying and cleaning his shotgun. He was sensitive like that. I think he could only be his real self around me.”
She claimed that one of the great disappointments of Cheney’s life was that he never had a son.
“I loved Dickie so much that I decided to make his dream come true and give him the son he always wanted.” But by the time she found ot she was pregnant with Bat Boy, she said, Cheney was “long gone. Lynne found out about me, and threatened to make a public spectacle and destroy his career if he didn’t break it off with me. It broke both our hearts, but I knew he was destined for greatness, so I let him go.” By that time Susan Boy was pregnant and homeless, and took up residency in a deserted cave.
“Times was hard, all right - real hard. But somehow I managed to get by and make a home for Batty. When he was born, it was all I could do to keep from calling his daddy and telling him that his fondest wish had come true. But I knew that I had to keep our secret.”
She kept that secret for twenty-five years, but now she feels that it’s time to break her silence.
“Batty did everything he could to impress his dad - he even joined the Marines and was a war hero in Iraq. He only did it hoping to make his daddy proud.”
She believes that the Vice-President will be proud when he meets his son at last.
“I just know that Dickie will be crazy about him,” she says. “What father wouldn’t be proud of a son like Batty? He’s a big celebrity now in his own right who made his own way without any help from his father, unlike those sorry coat-tail-riding daughters of his. He tried to make the second one into the son he never thought he’d have and look how that turned out. And the older Batty gets, the more you can tell that he’s Dickie’s son. He’s never without his shotgun, and he cries a lot, too.”
Bat Boy has a message for his father, too. “Daddy, I love you,” he said in a statement to the Weekly World News. “All I ever wanted was to make you proud of me, Daddy. I don’t want your money. Just a phone call, a hug, a father-and-son hunting trip - that’s all I want from you. I don’t need anything else - just my Daddy’s love.”
Both Bat Boy and his mother are willing to undergo DNA testing to prove that the Vice-President is Batty’s father. “Any time, any where,” says Ms. Boy. “Dickie, do the right thing. Don’t lose out on the love of the son you always wanted! If you need me to kick Lynne’s dried-up old ass, I will. I’m here for you, Dickie!”
When contacted for a response by our reporter, Vice-President Cheney neither confirmed nor denied the allegation, but in a statement said, “Go f*** yourself.”
Monday, February 11, 2008
New Feature - Monday Is Hooterville Hall O' Fame Day!
Blogroll Amnesty Day was so delightful that I have decided to make it a regular feature here at Hooterville. Every Monday, I'll welcome the new additions to the blogroll. How does one get included in the Hall O' Fame, you may ask? Easy as pie. You just request to be added, or comment and leave your blog address. A link back is appreciated but not required. Nothing could be simpler here at Hooterville, where 'simple' is our middle name!
And with that, let's kick off Monday Hooterville Hall O' Fame Day by welcoming Boxer Rebellion, ThePoliticalCat, Mad In the Middle and One Pissed Off Veteran!
Don't be shy about reminding me, as ThePoliticalCat did - I'm forgetful sometimes. And if you have linked to me and by some gross oversight I have not linked back, please know that it's just that - a gross oversight. Remind me and I'll fix it immediately.
Happy Hall O' Fame Day, y'all!
Update: Say hi to Bridget from ShortWoman (gotta love that name! There must be millions of envious 'shorties' out there that wish they had gotten that web name.)
Speaking of great names...the s.n.a.f.u. principle
Please welcome my homie from FL - RonD is the Man in the Street
and fellow bucolics from Heaven on the Hill
And with that, let's kick off Monday Hooterville Hall O' Fame Day by welcoming Boxer Rebellion, ThePoliticalCat, Mad In the Middle and One Pissed Off Veteran!
Don't be shy about reminding me, as ThePoliticalCat did - I'm forgetful sometimes. And if you have linked to me and by some gross oversight I have not linked back, please know that it's just that - a gross oversight. Remind me and I'll fix it immediately.
Happy Hall O' Fame Day, y'all!
Update: Say hi to Bridget from ShortWoman (gotta love that name! There must be millions of envious 'shorties' out there that wish they had gotten that web name.)
Speaking of great names...the s.n.a.f.u. principle
Please welcome my homie from FL - RonD is the Man in the Street
and fellow bucolics from Heaven on the Hill
Bush is the Symptom - Conservatism is the Disease
As many of us have predicted, the Republican presidential candidates are in a knock-down, drag-out battle to claim the mantle of 'the most conservative ever'. McCain, indeed, is labeled by the other candidates as a 'liberal', the pinnacle of epithets. 'Pedophile' would not be a more derogatory, insulting term. You might as well call him a 'Satanist who bites the heads off of blastocysts' and get it over with.
Conservatives revere and revel in the label 'conservative' in a way that liberals ceased to do in the sixties, when conservatives began blaming liberalism for every evil under the sun. Before that, the majority of Americans self-identified as liberals; liberalism represented the things in society that Americans valued - equality, diversity, making sure that everyone had a chance at the "American Dream". The economic programs that gave us a middle class - strong unions, the GI Bill, Social Security, Medicare - are liberal programs. Liberals believe that you can't sacrifice people so that corporations can grow fat. Liberals know that the 'trickle down theory' is, as Dubya's father once rightly said, 'voodoo economics', and that the only boats that a 'rising tide lifts' are yachts. Liberals believe that we as a nation have a responsibility, not for, but to all of our citizens (there's a difference) and that government is not the enemy, but 'We the People'. It's not 'them', it's 'us'. But when conservatives, backed by the limitless coffers of Big Business Republican think-tanks who saw their vision of conservative financial and social dominance slipping away, decided to attack liberalism as the symbol of all that's wrong with America, liberals did not challenge this assertion and it became part of the national narrative without liberals quite knowing what happened.
So, while statistics show that the economy does better under Democratic leadership and worse under Republican leadership, conservatives brag about belonging to the party of 'fiscal responsibility.' While Republicans accuse Democrats of being 'soft on terror', their party and their President have increased and encouraged terrorism by attacking and occupying a sovereign nation without the resources to defend themselves, and created terrorism where there was none before. While Republicans consider themselves to be the party of Morality and accuse Democrats of having no values, in the most egregious examples of 'do as I say, not as I do', the overwhelming majority of sex and corruption scandals have involved Republicans, not Democrats. The party that supposedly believes in 'small government' inevitably bloats it to unprecedented numbers. The party that harps upon Personal Responsibility seems congenitally incapable of accepting responsibility for its failings, always blaming them on others.
Please note that I am not giving Dems a free pass here - no one can be in politics and keep their hands perfectly clean - no one. It's the way the system is set up. But the ones who claim to be more moral than everyone else because of their high religious principles and who are constantly pointing their fingers at others seem to be the ones that are doing every immoral thing they condemn others for.
And these are the people who are proudly claiming the mantle of conservatism.
For those conservatives who have reluctantly admitted that the Bush Administrtion has been, shall we say, less than stellar - is the reason for George W.'s failure as President simply that he is not conservative enough? Is that his problem? For the true believers, conservatism never fails - it is only failed.
Somehow, with a Republican president, complete Republican control of Congress, and a majority of conservative Supreme Court justices - as well as a religious right that has been calling the shots in Washington for almost eight years - conservatism has not been given a real chance!
Please pardon me if I'm not hopping on that particular bandwagon. Yes, the party with absolute control of everything, that left Democrats completely shut out and voiceless for six years and when they got the tiniest sliver of a majority back, filibusters them into irrelevance without a murmur of dissent - that party has not had a fair shot at giving conservatism a chance.
I beg to differ, comrades.
We have had the implementation of unfettered conservatism for the past twenty-five years. In my upcoming book the Price of Right I've set myself the task to make clear why it is not just George W. Bush that is the problem - it is the ideology of conservatism itself.
Bush is the symptom; conservatism is the disease.
Even as liberals debate conservatives, we cede them the ‘rightness’ of their basic tenets, which I think is a mistake. I hope to show that conservatism – both social and economic – is detrimental to a democratic society. By ‘conservatism’ I do not mean prudence and moderation - which is what many people take conservatism to mean – but the political and social meaning which includes the myth of the ‘free market’, the elimination of as much regulation and taxes as can be gotten away with, the myth that privatization is the best way to deal with society’s needs, and that government is in itself a bad thing. The (usually) unspoken corollary to this is the ‘Conservative Golden Rule’ – he who has the gold makes the rules. In other words, the people with money and power are the best and most deserving – simply because they have the money and power! This is a strongly-held belief of many people, but it is not acceptable to say in so many words, so there are many euphemisms to describe it - ‘meritocracy’, ‘pulling yourself up by your bootstraps’, ‘reverse discrimination’, and so on. Conservatism’s message is connected to some very powerful societal myths that resonate deeply in the subconscious mind, making it easier to believe in the myths than the facts.
But America as a nation was built on liberal and progressive values, rather than conservative ones. If by ‘conservative’ you mean the status quo – keeping things the way they are, rather than changing, then conservatives would be the Royalists and liberals would be the Revolutionaries. The United States of America was not founded by people who did as they were told by the authority in power – in this case George III, who considered his power directly God-given. In fact, every significant advance in this country for the betterment of its people – freedom for slaves, women’s rights, child-labor laws, civil rights, the American 20th-century middle class itself – came about as a result of liberal ideals and policies.
For much of the 20th century after World War II, American values were liberal values. The New Deal gave us the American Dream – a thriving middle class. But the paradigm began shifting in the sixties, when the plan to rebuild conservatism intersected with the disappointment of Vietnam, which put a damper on what it meant to be liberal. Powerful changes were beginning, but they were under the radar of American consciousness.
We began feeling the rumbles of this seismic shift in the late seventies, when Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority injected politics into religion, ushering in the so-called “Reagan Revolution”. The admixture of moral righteousness with conservative economic tenets begat a Republican mindset that allowed for little or no consideration of other points of view. With this new majority, conservatives could afford to ignore the bipartisanship which would normally force it to mitigate or dilute its objectives. The liberal view became, not just incorrect, but morally flawed as well in the eyes of this new political meld, the Christian conservatives. Each group had its own reasons for criticizing liberalism before, but, fused together as a political unit, the two groups reinforced each other’s beliefs synergistically. Traditional liberal values such as tolerance, diversity, empathy and compassion became evils to be rooted out instead of solutions to the ills of society.
This set of 'values' insists that "Government is the enemy and Big Business is your friend." They believe, incredibly, that tax cuts plus borrowing and spending equal prosperity! The sad truth is that our government (and the rest of the world) is run, not by Democrats, or even Republicans, but by multinational corporations. These corporations want Republicans in power because they fit the most easily into the authoritarian nature of conservatism, and are thus much easier to bend to their will.
I don't believe that most conservatives (our family and friends, many of whom are affected as adversely as the rest of us by unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism) understand what their policies really mean in terms of the economy, the so-called "War on Terror", jobs, education, health care, the deficit, civil liberties, and our relationships with the rest of the world. But, as most people know by now, the Republicans have been positioning themselves for this complete takeover of government for forty years. It has been carefully planned and massively funded. And the way they have captured the hearts and minds of the American fiscal and religious conservatives was not an accident. It has been done by playing into the deepest wants, needs, and fears of people who are the most comfortable with authoritarian structure. It has been done systematically through the use of language and framing, and using the same subliminal techniques that advertisers use when they want you to choose their product over a competitor's; not because of inherent differences between the products, but by applying motivational 'triggers' which have nothing to do with the product itself. That's where the media comes in, The average American, who works harder and longer for less and less, sits down for an hour, exhausted, in front of the television set and takes it on faith that what he or she is seeing on the news is true. And when the narrative is skewed to promote the ideas that those in power wish to have the public believe, most people are not in a position to judge how much is true and how much is spin. The line between 'news' and 'commentary' has been completely blurred to boost advertising revenue, and the American people - you and I - are paying the price.
George W. Bush certainly is the worst president in American history, but he could not have achieved that distinction without the conservative philosophy that says "What's good for business is good for America." It is conservatism that has created the monster that is George W. Bush, not the other way around.
I believe it is time for liberals to call themselves liberals, and be proud of being liberal. It is time to stop ceding conservatives the moral high ground and start pointing out where conservatism has had a direct and destructive effect on the United States and the rest of the world.
Conservatism is inherently anti-democratic. Conservatives do not believe that all men (and women) are created equal. Conservatives believe that some people are more equal, more deserving, more entitled than others, and it's the fault of the 'others' if they are shut out.
Folks, the principles that our nation was founded on are the exact principles that conservatives oppose! We as liberals need to begin pointing that out. Nothing would make me happier than to see a Democratic candidate boast about what a liberal he or she was. That would give me hope for our country.
Remember - Bush is only the symptom - conservatism is the disease. Let's work togther for a cure.
Conservatives revere and revel in the label 'conservative' in a way that liberals ceased to do in the sixties, when conservatives began blaming liberalism for every evil under the sun. Before that, the majority of Americans self-identified as liberals; liberalism represented the things in society that Americans valued - equality, diversity, making sure that everyone had a chance at the "American Dream". The economic programs that gave us a middle class - strong unions, the GI Bill, Social Security, Medicare - are liberal programs. Liberals believe that you can't sacrifice people so that corporations can grow fat. Liberals know that the 'trickle down theory' is, as Dubya's father once rightly said, 'voodoo economics', and that the only boats that a 'rising tide lifts' are yachts. Liberals believe that we as a nation have a responsibility, not for, but to all of our citizens (there's a difference) and that government is not the enemy, but 'We the People'. It's not 'them', it's 'us'. But when conservatives, backed by the limitless coffers of Big Business Republican think-tanks who saw their vision of conservative financial and social dominance slipping away, decided to attack liberalism as the symbol of all that's wrong with America, liberals did not challenge this assertion and it became part of the national narrative without liberals quite knowing what happened.
So, while statistics show that the economy does better under Democratic leadership and worse under Republican leadership, conservatives brag about belonging to the party of 'fiscal responsibility.' While Republicans accuse Democrats of being 'soft on terror', their party and their President have increased and encouraged terrorism by attacking and occupying a sovereign nation without the resources to defend themselves, and created terrorism where there was none before. While Republicans consider themselves to be the party of Morality and accuse Democrats of having no values, in the most egregious examples of 'do as I say, not as I do', the overwhelming majority of sex and corruption scandals have involved Republicans, not Democrats. The party that supposedly believes in 'small government' inevitably bloats it to unprecedented numbers. The party that harps upon Personal Responsibility seems congenitally incapable of accepting responsibility for its failings, always blaming them on others.
Please note that I am not giving Dems a free pass here - no one can be in politics and keep their hands perfectly clean - no one. It's the way the system is set up. But the ones who claim to be more moral than everyone else because of their high religious principles and who are constantly pointing their fingers at others seem to be the ones that are doing every immoral thing they condemn others for.
And these are the people who are proudly claiming the mantle of conservatism.
For those conservatives who have reluctantly admitted that the Bush Administrtion has been, shall we say, less than stellar - is the reason for George W.'s failure as President simply that he is not conservative enough? Is that his problem? For the true believers, conservatism never fails - it is only failed.
Somehow, with a Republican president, complete Republican control of Congress, and a majority of conservative Supreme Court justices - as well as a religious right that has been calling the shots in Washington for almost eight years - conservatism has not been given a real chance!
Please pardon me if I'm not hopping on that particular bandwagon. Yes, the party with absolute control of everything, that left Democrats completely shut out and voiceless for six years and when they got the tiniest sliver of a majority back, filibusters them into irrelevance without a murmur of dissent - that party has not had a fair shot at giving conservatism a chance.
I beg to differ, comrades.
We have had the implementation of unfettered conservatism for the past twenty-five years. In my upcoming book the Price of Right I've set myself the task to make clear why it is not just George W. Bush that is the problem - it is the ideology of conservatism itself.
Bush is the symptom; conservatism is the disease.
Even as liberals debate conservatives, we cede them the ‘rightness’ of their basic tenets, which I think is a mistake. I hope to show that conservatism – both social and economic – is detrimental to a democratic society. By ‘conservatism’ I do not mean prudence and moderation - which is what many people take conservatism to mean – but the political and social meaning which includes the myth of the ‘free market’, the elimination of as much regulation and taxes as can be gotten away with, the myth that privatization is the best way to deal with society’s needs, and that government is in itself a bad thing. The (usually) unspoken corollary to this is the ‘Conservative Golden Rule’ – he who has the gold makes the rules. In other words, the people with money and power are the best and most deserving – simply because they have the money and power! This is a strongly-held belief of many people, but it is not acceptable to say in so many words, so there are many euphemisms to describe it - ‘meritocracy’, ‘pulling yourself up by your bootstraps’, ‘reverse discrimination’, and so on. Conservatism’s message is connected to some very powerful societal myths that resonate deeply in the subconscious mind, making it easier to believe in the myths than the facts.
But America as a nation was built on liberal and progressive values, rather than conservative ones. If by ‘conservative’ you mean the status quo – keeping things the way they are, rather than changing, then conservatives would be the Royalists and liberals would be the Revolutionaries. The United States of America was not founded by people who did as they were told by the authority in power – in this case George III, who considered his power directly God-given. In fact, every significant advance in this country for the betterment of its people – freedom for slaves, women’s rights, child-labor laws, civil rights, the American 20th-century middle class itself – came about as a result of liberal ideals and policies.
For much of the 20th century after World War II, American values were liberal values. The New Deal gave us the American Dream – a thriving middle class. But the paradigm began shifting in the sixties, when the plan to rebuild conservatism intersected with the disappointment of Vietnam, which put a damper on what it meant to be liberal. Powerful changes were beginning, but they were under the radar of American consciousness.
We began feeling the rumbles of this seismic shift in the late seventies, when Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority injected politics into religion, ushering in the so-called “Reagan Revolution”. The admixture of moral righteousness with conservative economic tenets begat a Republican mindset that allowed for little or no consideration of other points of view. With this new majority, conservatives could afford to ignore the bipartisanship which would normally force it to mitigate or dilute its objectives. The liberal view became, not just incorrect, but morally flawed as well in the eyes of this new political meld, the Christian conservatives. Each group had its own reasons for criticizing liberalism before, but, fused together as a political unit, the two groups reinforced each other’s beliefs synergistically. Traditional liberal values such as tolerance, diversity, empathy and compassion became evils to be rooted out instead of solutions to the ills of society.
This set of 'values' insists that "Government is the enemy and Big Business is your friend." They believe, incredibly, that tax cuts plus borrowing and spending equal prosperity! The sad truth is that our government (and the rest of the world) is run, not by Democrats, or even Republicans, but by multinational corporations. These corporations want Republicans in power because they fit the most easily into the authoritarian nature of conservatism, and are thus much easier to bend to their will.
I don't believe that most conservatives (our family and friends, many of whom are affected as adversely as the rest of us by unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism) understand what their policies really mean in terms of the economy, the so-called "War on Terror", jobs, education, health care, the deficit, civil liberties, and our relationships with the rest of the world. But, as most people know by now, the Republicans have been positioning themselves for this complete takeover of government for forty years. It has been carefully planned and massively funded. And the way they have captured the hearts and minds of the American fiscal and religious conservatives was not an accident. It has been done by playing into the deepest wants, needs, and fears of people who are the most comfortable with authoritarian structure. It has been done systematically through the use of language and framing, and using the same subliminal techniques that advertisers use when they want you to choose their product over a competitor's; not because of inherent differences between the products, but by applying motivational 'triggers' which have nothing to do with the product itself. That's where the media comes in, The average American, who works harder and longer for less and less, sits down for an hour, exhausted, in front of the television set and takes it on faith that what he or she is seeing on the news is true. And when the narrative is skewed to promote the ideas that those in power wish to have the public believe, most people are not in a position to judge how much is true and how much is spin. The line between 'news' and 'commentary' has been completely blurred to boost advertising revenue, and the American people - you and I - are paying the price.
George W. Bush certainly is the worst president in American history, but he could not have achieved that distinction without the conservative philosophy that says "What's good for business is good for America." It is conservatism that has created the monster that is George W. Bush, not the other way around.
I believe it is time for liberals to call themselves liberals, and be proud of being liberal. It is time to stop ceding conservatives the moral high ground and start pointing out where conservatism has had a direct and destructive effect on the United States and the rest of the world.
Conservatism is inherently anti-democratic. Conservatives do not believe that all men (and women) are created equal. Conservatives believe that some people are more equal, more deserving, more entitled than others, and it's the fault of the 'others' if they are shut out.
Folks, the principles that our nation was founded on are the exact principles that conservatives oppose! We as liberals need to begin pointing that out. Nothing would make me happier than to see a Democratic candidate boast about what a liberal he or she was. That would give me hope for our country.
Remember - Bush is only the symptom - conservatism is the disease. Let's work togther for a cure.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
New Wednesday Feature at Multi Medium!
I've been graciously invited to write a Wednesday feature over at Eli's blog Multi Medium, which focuses on the role of media in our democracy, and why it is so imperative that it be held accountable to its First Amendment duty as truth-teller instead of the propaganda arm of the powers-that-be. Eli also is a front-pager over at Firedoglake.
I will be carrying on a feature that, alas, due to the demise of America's greatest newspaper, is in short supply these days. But America deserves to know the truth, no matter how few media outlets have the sack to tell it.
I am speaking, of course, of the Weekly World News, "The World's Only Reliable Newspaper."
Ever since its inception in 1979, it has been my dream to write for this forthright and formidable paper, to which I subscribed for many years. Although the WWN is no longer with us, Eli has allowed me to live that dream. Each Wednesday I will be bringing you the news no other paper has the courage to print courtesy of Eli's "Why-I-Love-The-Weekly-World-News Blogging" feature. In the spirit of the First Amendment, it is my great privilege to carry on this tradition.
Check out the first installation here!
I will be carrying on a feature that, alas, due to the demise of America's greatest newspaper, is in short supply these days. But America deserves to know the truth, no matter how few media outlets have the sack to tell it.
I am speaking, of course, of the Weekly World News, "The World's Only Reliable Newspaper."
Ever since its inception in 1979, it has been my dream to write for this forthright and formidable paper, to which I subscribed for many years. Although the WWN is no longer with us, Eli has allowed me to live that dream. Each Wednesday I will be bringing you the news no other paper has the courage to print courtesy of Eli's "Why-I-Love-The-Weekly-World-News Blogging" feature. In the spirit of the First Amendment, it is my great privilege to carry on this tradition.
Check out the first installation here!
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Gig Alert - Sunday, Feb. 10
Hi all - here's more info about my Sunday night gig at Cozy's in Sherman Oaks.
It's basically a songwriter-in-the-round thing, with people in groups of 4 doing a round-robin for 45 minutes. I'll be going on between 9:00 and 9:45, then at 11:00 there will be a free-for-all jam with all the performers.
If you get there too much past 9 you'll miss me, so come early - the show starts at 8, and I'll be there listening to everyone else. The $5 cover is going to help special-needs kids, and it's going to be an amazing show. I hope to see you there. Just look for the big ol' blonde with the pink glasses!
(double-click on the flyer to see it full-size)
Monday, February 04, 2008
Mea Culpa
I'm so ashamed.
The lovely and talented Jon Swift, who has done yeoman's work on Blogroll Amnesty Day (actually Blogroll Amnesty Weekend, but 'BAW' just doesn't have the same punch) had to email me today to request a place on my blogroll. My only excuse is that I thought I already had; and while I was busy adding my many new friends whose acquaintance I have made due to hard work on Jon's part (as well as a lovely link on his post), I overlooked his own excellent and insightful blog.
So I would like to make a public apology, Jon, and beg your pardon. I am not worthy. You are now firmly ensconced in the Hooterville Hall o' Fame.
The lovely and talented Jon Swift, who has done yeoman's work on Blogroll Amnesty Day (actually Blogroll Amnesty Weekend, but 'BAW' just doesn't have the same punch) had to email me today to request a place on my blogroll. My only excuse is that I thought I already had; and while I was busy adding my many new friends whose acquaintance I have made due to hard work on Jon's part (as well as a lovely link on his post), I overlooked his own excellent and insightful blog.
So I would like to make a public apology, Jon, and beg your pardon. I am not worthy. You are now firmly ensconced in the Hooterville Hall o' Fame.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Bedlam for Bozo, or, Repub Debate at the Reagan Library
Wow - just wow.
I don't watch much Repub stuff firsthand, just because it's so damn crazy-making.
I'm watching the debate on the TV, and it's just plain nuts.
John McCain thinks we're better off now than we were eight years ago. Things have been peachy except for just lately - low unemployment, plenty of new jobs, a booming economy. Everything's been swell - except for the...the, uh sub-prime...uh - the housing problem. But he knows the answer to that - make the Bush tax cuts permanent! Look how well it's worked so far. Smoove, John!
Mitt Romney doesn't think that we are better off, but he wouldn't dream of blaming it on Bush. No, it's that lazy Congress that's been screwing up everything. "Facts are stubborn things" - name checking the Gipper. I'm the most conservative - John McCain is a liberal! The 'ultimate conservative', he calls himself. No more free rides, you lazy health freeloaders! Health care=creeping socialism.
Huckabee - no, I'm the most conservative! Even though Rush hates me, I can't afford to diss him. Hey - I'm here! Looky over here! I'm the conserviest! I hate the Democrats the most! He does talk about infrastructure. Bridges falling on people, and parents can't get to their kids' soccer games!
Ron Paul - hello? Who? He wants to talk but keeps getting shunted aside - "We'll get back to you, I promise!" Going on about "faith that the market works". Great. Faith-based economics - a Repub staple.
They're all going on about states' rights. Great - until a state claims a right they don't like, like medical marijuana or right-to-die - then listen to the tune change.
One thing I have to say that I would give anything to hear from our side is the pride they take in being conservative. I would love to hear liberals and progressives each try to out-progressive the other. I'd like to hear them bragging about how liberal they are. I'm proud to be a liberal, and I wish other liberals would stand up and say that, too.
McCain - I was a foot-soldier in the Reagan Revolution! (get it? Soldier? Warrior?)
Mitt Romney - the Bush Revolution - when Bush came into office, he was fighting off a downturn. Thank God Bush cut taxes and gave us these glorious eight years! What alternate universe does Max Headroom live in? Yeah, who needs all that crummy old peace and prosperity that Clinton dumped on his successor in the White House?
Huckabee on immmigration - build a fence - a big fence! Quickly!
(other candidates eyeing him and smirking)
Looking out on the crowd at the Reagan Library, it's pretty much what Rick Nelson used to call a 'skull orchard'. Dour and silent.
I don't watch much Repub stuff firsthand, just because it's so damn crazy-making.
I'm watching the debate on the TV, and it's just plain nuts.
John McCain thinks we're better off now than we were eight years ago. Things have been peachy except for just lately - low unemployment, plenty of new jobs, a booming economy. Everything's been swell - except for the...the, uh sub-prime...uh - the housing problem. But he knows the answer to that - make the Bush tax cuts permanent! Look how well it's worked so far. Smoove, John!
Mitt Romney doesn't think that we are better off, but he wouldn't dream of blaming it on Bush. No, it's that lazy Congress that's been screwing up everything. "Facts are stubborn things" - name checking the Gipper. I'm the most conservative - John McCain is a liberal! The 'ultimate conservative', he calls himself. No more free rides, you lazy health freeloaders! Health care=creeping socialism.
Huckabee - no, I'm the most conservative! Even though Rush hates me, I can't afford to diss him. Hey - I'm here! Looky over here! I'm the conserviest! I hate the Democrats the most! He does talk about infrastructure. Bridges falling on people, and parents can't get to their kids' soccer games!
Ron Paul - hello? Who? He wants to talk but keeps getting shunted aside - "We'll get back to you, I promise!" Going on about "faith that the market works". Great. Faith-based economics - a Repub staple.
They're all going on about states' rights. Great - until a state claims a right they don't like, like medical marijuana or right-to-die - then listen to the tune change.
One thing I have to say that I would give anything to hear from our side is the pride they take in being conservative. I would love to hear liberals and progressives each try to out-progressive the other. I'd like to hear them bragging about how liberal they are. I'm proud to be a liberal, and I wish other liberals would stand up and say that, too.
McCain - I was a foot-soldier in the Reagan Revolution! (get it? Soldier? Warrior?)
Mitt Romney - the Bush Revolution - when Bush came into office, he was fighting off a downturn. Thank God Bush cut taxes and gave us these glorious eight years! What alternate universe does Max Headroom live in? Yeah, who needs all that crummy old peace and prosperity that Clinton dumped on his successor in the White House?
Huckabee on immmigration - build a fence - a big fence! Quickly!
(other candidates eyeing him and smirking)
Looking out on the crowd at the Reagan Library, it's pretty much what Rick Nelson used to call a 'skull orchard'. Dour and silent.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
February's Hooterville Post Office Newsletter
Hi friends and fam,
February is an interesting month this year. This first weekend coincides with Blog Amnesty Day, where bloggers link to off-the-beaten-path blogs and spread the linky love to encourage each other, get to know writers they wouldn't have known about, and keep the blogosphere from becoming 'corporatized' - dominated by a few huge blogs and off-limits for all practical purposes to the lesser-known or smaller blogs, like what has happened to our national media. And we see what happens, at least in the political arena, when media consolidates. I do read a few large blogs, and some of them, like Mike Finnigan at Crooks and Liars, make a point of calling attention to a few smaller blogs every day. They've been nice enough to give me a shout-out every once in a while, and it means a whole new bunch of people who have never read my stuff before. Of course, then it's up to me to give them a reason to come back.
But, in all honesty, I do like having a small blog. The main reason is that I can get to know every commenter that drops by for a visit, and I like the sense of community that it brings. I don't get troll-bombed. I don't get into flame wars. I can keep my place the way I like it - friendly, supportive, passionate about the issues I care about, snarky and fun sometimes - and I don't have to worry about pleasing (or pissing off) a bunch of different people or jumping through hoops to get my 'stats' up. I can curse if I need to - or not. I'm not looking for confrontation. And the readers and commenters I do have I consider friends. There are other blogs that thrive on the rough-and-tumble of battling ideas, but that's not my thing. Of course, I'm interested in other points of view than my own - I'm just not looking for drama. In the wide, wide world o' blogs, there's something for everyone and you can find a fight if you're looking for one, but that's not how I roll. I take my fights where they'll make a difference - in the real world. As Digby says, if you don't like what you read, you're free to go elsewhere.
About my book - right now, it's being edited - that's all the news I have. It's a strange feeling to have finished with a year and a half of work, and then be in limbo - my part is done for now, and I'm not sure what to expect next. I still have this nagging feeling that I should be working on it - force of habit, I guess. And something about not working on it makes it feel as if it no longer exists. When I have any more news about it you all will be the first to know. Right now, it's available for pre-order on Amazon, and I keep going there to look at it and say to myself, "I have a book! I have a book!" I may just faint when I have it in my hands for real.
February is also Black History Month, Valentine's Day, President's Day. There's a meeting on the 7th for the San Fernando Valley chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, if any locals would be interested in checking out this fine organization. Email me for info.
Gig alert! On February 10, I've been invited to participate in a Songwriter's Night at Cozy's in Sherman Oaks, for a great organization called Livin' the Music. They raise funds and awareness for a charity called the Lili Claire Foundation, which helps children with neuro-development conditions. The $5 cover goes directly to the Lili Claire Foundation. I hope to see some of you there - it's a little more notice than the last gig!
You can find out more at www.liliclairefoundation.org and myspace.com/livethemusictoday.
And of course, can't forget Super Tuesday. I was working at the Musicians Institute the day of the Democratic debate in Hollywood at the Kodak Theater - one block from my school. They had Hollywood Blvd. cordoned off and choked with satellite trucks - then across the street from us they were giving Suzanne Pleshette a posthumous star, which is always a major clusterf***. Sucked to be you if you were driving in Hollywood that day. I didn't really want to go to the debate anyway because it's still too soon after Edwards suspended his campaign for me to be interested in another Thrilla in Manila. But I'll be voting Tuesday and then after work heading on over to my local Drinking Liberally to hang out with my liberal buds and holler at the big-screen TV.
So, in conclusion - have a great February! Vote early and often! Come out to see me at Cozy's! Link to some bloggers that could use a boost if you blog. Support the Constitution - call your Congresscritters and don't let them roll over for telecom immunity. Show your love on V-Day - if you don't have a valentine, take yourself out and be sweet to you! Stand up and be somebody!
Or something like that.
February is an interesting month this year. This first weekend coincides with Blog Amnesty Day, where bloggers link to off-the-beaten-path blogs and spread the linky love to encourage each other, get to know writers they wouldn't have known about, and keep the blogosphere from becoming 'corporatized' - dominated by a few huge blogs and off-limits for all practical purposes to the lesser-known or smaller blogs, like what has happened to our national media. And we see what happens, at least in the political arena, when media consolidates. I do read a few large blogs, and some of them, like Mike Finnigan at Crooks and Liars, make a point of calling attention to a few smaller blogs every day. They've been nice enough to give me a shout-out every once in a while, and it means a whole new bunch of people who have never read my stuff before. Of course, then it's up to me to give them a reason to come back.
But, in all honesty, I do like having a small blog. The main reason is that I can get to know every commenter that drops by for a visit, and I like the sense of community that it brings. I don't get troll-bombed. I don't get into flame wars. I can keep my place the way I like it - friendly, supportive, passionate about the issues I care about, snarky and fun sometimes - and I don't have to worry about pleasing (or pissing off) a bunch of different people or jumping through hoops to get my 'stats' up. I can curse if I need to - or not. I'm not looking for confrontation. And the readers and commenters I do have I consider friends. There are other blogs that thrive on the rough-and-tumble of battling ideas, but that's not my thing. Of course, I'm interested in other points of view than my own - I'm just not looking for drama. In the wide, wide world o' blogs, there's something for everyone and you can find a fight if you're looking for one, but that's not how I roll. I take my fights where they'll make a difference - in the real world. As Digby says, if you don't like what you read, you're free to go elsewhere.
*So What's Up With the Book?*
About my book - right now, it's being edited - that's all the news I have. It's a strange feeling to have finished with a year and a half of work, and then be in limbo - my part is done for now, and I'm not sure what to expect next. I still have this nagging feeling that I should be working on it - force of habit, I guess. And something about not working on it makes it feel as if it no longer exists. When I have any more news about it you all will be the first to know. Right now, it's available for pre-order on Amazon, and I keep going there to look at it and say to myself, "I have a book! I have a book!" I may just faint when I have it in my hands for real.
February is also Black History Month, Valentine's Day, President's Day. There's a meeting on the 7th for the San Fernando Valley chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, if any locals would be interested in checking out this fine organization. Email me for info.
* Gig Alert * Gig Alert * Gig Alert *
Gig alert! On February 10, I've been invited to participate in a Songwriter's Night at Cozy's in Sherman Oaks, for a great organization called Livin' the Music. They raise funds and awareness for a charity called the Lili Claire Foundation, which helps children with neuro-development conditions. The $5 cover goes directly to the Lili Claire Foundation. I hope to see some of you there - it's a little more notice than the last gig!
You can find out more at www.liliclairefoundation.org and myspace.com/livethemusictoday.
And of course, can't forget Super Tuesday. I was working at the Musicians Institute the day of the Democratic debate in Hollywood at the Kodak Theater - one block from my school. They had Hollywood Blvd. cordoned off and choked with satellite trucks - then across the street from us they were giving Suzanne Pleshette a posthumous star, which is always a major clusterf***. Sucked to be you if you were driving in Hollywood that day. I didn't really want to go to the debate anyway because it's still too soon after Edwards suspended his campaign for me to be interested in another Thrilla in Manila. But I'll be voting Tuesday and then after work heading on over to my local Drinking Liberally to hang out with my liberal buds and holler at the big-screen TV.
So, in conclusion - have a great February! Vote early and often! Come out to see me at Cozy's! Link to some bloggers that could use a boost if you blog. Support the Constitution - call your Congresscritters and don't let them roll over for telecom immunity. Show your love on V-Day - if you don't have a valentine, take yourself out and be sweet to you! Stand up and be somebody!
Or something like that.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Blogroll Amnesty Blowout!
Blue Gal sent me a heads-up that this weekend is designated as Blogroll Amnesty Weekend. It's a long story, and I'll let Skippy and Jon Swift tell you the details, but suffice it to say that it's the time of year that we give linky love to blogs that are smaller than we are. Now, you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find a blog with less traffic than mine. I don't advertise, I don't have a tip jar, I don't use tags or keywords and time constraints don't allow me to network and comment on other blogs as much as I'd like to. But, like Skippy, my policy is that I will link to anyone who links to me. In fact, I'll go further - I link to anyone who comments and leaves a website to link to!
I feel that the beauty of the blogosphere is that it doesn't matter who you are or how high-profile your blog is, there's a place for everyone. If you have something to say, there's a very good chance that there are readers out there to appreciate it. My blogroll has a few big kahunas on it, but that's because I read them and get something out of them, and would like to pass them on to others who might enjoy them also. I don't expect them to link to me. But we little blogs can help each other out by trading links, which is the coin of the realm here in Outer Blogistan.
I'm going to list a few of my favorites (it doesn't necessarily mean that they have less traffic than I do; I have no way of knowing!) and if you're not on my blogroll yet and would like to be, please leave your info on a comment.
Library Bitch
Mauigirl
Welcome to Pottersville
Physioprof
TwoTonGreenBlog
Political Teen Tidbits
TexBetsy's Blog
Crabbi
terryfaceplace
That's just a start, but feel free to peruse my blogroll, and if you'd like to be added there's always room at Hooterville!
Update: Meet my new friends!
Bad Attitudes - good writing!
The Crone Speaks - a sharp liberal, feminist blog
The Democratic Daily - the name says it all
Moue Magazine - a new and interesting blog
Kittywampus - another cool new blog with a great name (luv the kittehs!)
politickybitch - acerbic, aware and awake in San Diego
OB Rag - kickin' it old-school style, also from San Diego
Dyre Portents - a radical moderate! And a Texan!
Ragebot - my old friend Kvatch from Blognonymous with a fierce new blog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)