I am not a member of any political party--like the founders, I think that "factions" are the arch enemy of our republican form of government. I am a registered non-partisan who would support a ticket of Mark Twain and H.L. Mencken--but only if they promised to appoint Lenny Bruce as attorney general. I might also support a Marxist--Lennonist (Groucho Marx and John Lennon) ticket but, again, not without Lenny Bruce along to keep them real.
That said-----it's Congressman Wiener's turn on the spit I have to laugh when the Chairman of the Republican National Committee calls him a creep and demands his resignation. Good for the news person who, upon hearing Reince Priebus say that, asked if he considered Senator Vitter (R. Louisiana) (who very frequently committed the crime of frequenting prostitutes) to also be a creep. Mr. Priebus declined to answer and, it seemed to me, didn't even get the gist of the rhetorical question he had been asked..
But what about Eric Cantor? It's one thing to hear from an unelected party chairman but what about House leadership? Well, back when asked about Senator Vitter--back when Larry Flint uncovered and published the Louisiana Republican's sex crimes--Representative Cantor said it should be up to Senator Vitter's constituents whether he stayed or left the Senate. (Bonus points if you knew, by the way about how ironic it is for Senator Vitter's karma to work out as it did--given how Republican sexual acting out--at the height of the Clinton impeachment pageant--opened the door for Vitter to get to the House of Representatives prior to his election to the Senate). Shock: in the case of Democratic Congressman Wiener Mr. Cantor says that he should to resign.
I dunno if Mr. Wiener's "high crimes and misdemeanors" (none of which--at least those of which we know presently--was against the law as, say, Senator Vitter's frequenting prostitutes was and remains against the law) merit his resigning or not. I do know, though, that if I were consulting with Mr. Wiener about how to stay in Congress after all this I'd tell him, whenever anyone gives him any static, to just say "If Senator Vitter gets to stay how come I have to go?"
So, the Lily goes to the Republicans, today, who are singing in the "send Anthony back to Brooklyn in disgrace" Choir. But it was really close--the latest RF in Wisconsin (which even the National Review is having a hard time keeping down) re postponing the recall elections really deserves mention...maybe I'll pretend I didn't hear about that one until tomorrow. After all, if we are paying attention we know that we will run out of days on which to confer this award far sooner than we will run out of people who are worthy of having their names inscribed on the trophy.
Remember the criterion: No matter how cynical I get it's hard to keep up. Perhaps there should be a bronze, a silver and a gold every day.
Thursday, June 09, 2011
Saturday, May 21, 2011
oh, this is too easy...
reminder: this blog is about being cynical and how hard it is to keep up with how cynical one needs to be to get by...
So there is a special election going on in New York and a Republican and a Tea Party candidate are splitting the conservative and reactionary Republican vote and giving a conservative Democrat a sliver of hope.
The "traditional Republican" candidate endorsed the Ryan plan, including the replacement of Medicare with a voucher plan. Realizing that this is a problem for her, someone thought it would be a good idea for Representative Allen West (R Florida) to do "robo calls" to voters assuring them that their Medicare is safe in the hands of the Republican candidate.
Is anyone going to also point out to those voters that Rep West, back home, answered the chant of "Hands off my Medicare" with the taunt that he will take his hands off of Medicare when there is no longer a Medicare program.
So there is a special election going on in New York and a Republican and a Tea Party candidate are splitting the conservative and reactionary Republican vote and giving a conservative Democrat a sliver of hope.
The "traditional Republican" candidate endorsed the Ryan plan, including the replacement of Medicare with a voucher plan. Realizing that this is a problem for her, someone thought it would be a good idea for Representative Allen West (R Florida) to do "robo calls" to voters assuring them that their Medicare is safe in the hands of the Republican candidate.
Is anyone going to also point out to those voters that Rep West, back home, answered the chant of "Hands off my Medicare" with the taunt that he will take his hands off of Medicare when there is no longer a Medicare program.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
The Constitution is WHAT?
Sometimes saying what is real seems like cynicism but I just can't help it.
The Constitution of the United States sometimes gets talked about like this:
We can not hold the constitution in our hands and stand by it to fit our own agenda and then throw it on the ground and step on it when it does not fit our agenda and thoughts. Freedom is a two edge sword that cuts both ways. It provides the freedom we all enjoy and also protects people that do things that is revolting to us. That is why it is freedom!
This is not true, of course.
The Constitution has long been molded to fit our own agendas and, in fact, that's what is supposed to happen.
Take the current fad of Constitutional interpretation called "original intent of the founders." This is a relatively new and radical approach to the document, one that would have many of the people who wrote and ratified it scratching their heads about where it came from. Not all, of course, because there was no single intent of the founders--their work product does not reflect a unity of thought. They barely reached a consensus.
The original intent doctrine was souped up to its current horsepower in the Federalist Society--the Neo Conservative legal organization that reflects the thinking of Robert Bork and Justice Rhenquist (who are succeeded in our time by Justices Thomas and Roberts).
This is a part of the revolutionary movement that has been at work pushing this country to the right since the Reagan era and its work is well described in the book The Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank. The agenda of the Neo Conservative movement is to transfer wealth from the middle class to the wealthy and to concentrate it there.
As this movement has taken over the judicial branch of government doctrines that facilitate this enriching of the rich have been elaborated upon and extended. Among these are the idea of a corporation as having the same rights as human beings and equating political giving and spending with speech and therefore prohibiting limitations.
Good or bad, this taking over of the judiciary--along with the taking over of the other branches of government--is part of the design of the Constitution. It is meant to be used to lay out the rules for gaining power and for using it. While the legislative and the executive branches can be taken over more quickly, through the electoral process, the judiciary falls into the hands of the dominant political power more slowly--but still it does.
The Constitution makes it more difficult for one particular movement to take power but it does not prohibit that. The Constitution is not intended to create political gridlock and stalemate, although that results at times.
The most crucial problem, in my own view, with the way the Constitution has been shaped over the last 100 or so years is that the republican form of government has been turning into a democracy. The founders were serious about wanting to prevent that but, despite the "republican form of government" clause we have given way to things like recall, referendum and initiatives (to name a few of direct democracy's manifestations).
The attitude that we should vote for people who agree with us is one manifestation of this pernicious underlying democratic principle. In a republic voters realize that situations are more nuanced and balance and compromise are needed sometimes for us to all live together. Therefore we want to elect people who judgment we trust to consider all the facts and, in the process of legislation to do that balancing and compromising--even if it means they don't respond slavishly to slogans.
This democratic principle has led to a form of mob rule. Responding to such slogans (that pay no heed to the nuances and the complications of decisions) people are whipped up when needed (mostly at election time, but on other occasions) to do Neo Conservative bidding, egged on by commentators and politicians who are funded by those concentrating the wealth.
Through manipulation of symbols and slogans, mostly playing on the emotion of fear and emphasizing divisions among us, the current Neo Conservative powers that be are extending the power of the federal (and state) government when it suits their purposes, on the one hand, and limiting it on the other, when it serves the interests of others.
The federal tax code is an example of how federal power is harnessed and enhanced by Neo Conservatives to serve the concentration of wealth. Increase middle class taxes--tax shelters and subsidies for the wealthy--as well as lower tax rates.
The stripping away of regulation over such things as mining and oil drilling is an example of how limiting the power of the government serves that same end of concentrating wealth. The repeal of Depression era laws to regulate financial transactions, of course, turned Wall Street into a casino that made people there rich by bankrupting the system and then had the power to make the middle class recapitalize that system while blaming teachers for the economic catastrophe.
When it makes the wealthy more wealthy the Neo Conservatives will say that using federal power to get 'er done is required by the Constitution. When restraint of federal power makes the wealthy more wealthy then the Neo Conservatives will argue that the Constitution requires restraint.
This is not new and the Liberals did the same thing, as the Jacksonian Democrats did, as the slave holding (and segregationist) state's rights types did, as the Reconstruction era Republicans did . Evangelical Christians play this same game with the Constitution--trying to use it to promote their religion and even to force it on others. It's how it's set up to work although, for those who do not understand that, or don't want others to understand it, rosier sentiments about the Constitution will always be available to cloud the reality.
For them, at least for those who know and don't want others to know, a Lily is in order. For the rest of us it's not cynicism--it's just how things are and how they are supposed to be.
The Constitution of the United States sometimes gets talked about like this:
We can not hold the constitution in our hands and stand by it to fit our own agenda and then throw it on the ground and step on it when it does not fit our agenda and thoughts. Freedom is a two edge sword that cuts both ways. It provides the freedom we all enjoy and also protects people that do things that is revolting to us. That is why it is freedom!
This is not true, of course.
The Constitution has long been molded to fit our own agendas and, in fact, that's what is supposed to happen.
Take the current fad of Constitutional interpretation called "original intent of the founders." This is a relatively new and radical approach to the document, one that would have many of the people who wrote and ratified it scratching their heads about where it came from. Not all, of course, because there was no single intent of the founders--their work product does not reflect a unity of thought. They barely reached a consensus.
The original intent doctrine was souped up to its current horsepower in the Federalist Society--the Neo Conservative legal organization that reflects the thinking of Robert Bork and Justice Rhenquist (who are succeeded in our time by Justices Thomas and Roberts).
This is a part of the revolutionary movement that has been at work pushing this country to the right since the Reagan era and its work is well described in the book The Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank. The agenda of the Neo Conservative movement is to transfer wealth from the middle class to the wealthy and to concentrate it there.
As this movement has taken over the judicial branch of government doctrines that facilitate this enriching of the rich have been elaborated upon and extended. Among these are the idea of a corporation as having the same rights as human beings and equating political giving and spending with speech and therefore prohibiting limitations.
Good or bad, this taking over of the judiciary--along with the taking over of the other branches of government--is part of the design of the Constitution. It is meant to be used to lay out the rules for gaining power and for using it. While the legislative and the executive branches can be taken over more quickly, through the electoral process, the judiciary falls into the hands of the dominant political power more slowly--but still it does.
The Constitution makes it more difficult for one particular movement to take power but it does not prohibit that. The Constitution is not intended to create political gridlock and stalemate, although that results at times.
The most crucial problem, in my own view, with the way the Constitution has been shaped over the last 100 or so years is that the republican form of government has been turning into a democracy. The founders were serious about wanting to prevent that but, despite the "republican form of government" clause we have given way to things like recall, referendum and initiatives (to name a few of direct democracy's manifestations).
The attitude that we should vote for people who agree with us is one manifestation of this pernicious underlying democratic principle. In a republic voters realize that situations are more nuanced and balance and compromise are needed sometimes for us to all live together. Therefore we want to elect people who judgment we trust to consider all the facts and, in the process of legislation to do that balancing and compromising--even if it means they don't respond slavishly to slogans.
This democratic principle has led to a form of mob rule. Responding to such slogans (that pay no heed to the nuances and the complications of decisions) people are whipped up when needed (mostly at election time, but on other occasions) to do Neo Conservative bidding, egged on by commentators and politicians who are funded by those concentrating the wealth.
Through manipulation of symbols and slogans, mostly playing on the emotion of fear and emphasizing divisions among us, the current Neo Conservative powers that be are extending the power of the federal (and state) government when it suits their purposes, on the one hand, and limiting it on the other, when it serves the interests of others.
The federal tax code is an example of how federal power is harnessed and enhanced by Neo Conservatives to serve the concentration of wealth. Increase middle class taxes--tax shelters and subsidies for the wealthy--as well as lower tax rates.
The stripping away of regulation over such things as mining and oil drilling is an example of how limiting the power of the government serves that same end of concentrating wealth. The repeal of Depression era laws to regulate financial transactions, of course, turned Wall Street into a casino that made people there rich by bankrupting the system and then had the power to make the middle class recapitalize that system while blaming teachers for the economic catastrophe.
When it makes the wealthy more wealthy the Neo Conservatives will say that using federal power to get 'er done is required by the Constitution. When restraint of federal power makes the wealthy more wealthy then the Neo Conservatives will argue that the Constitution requires restraint.
This is not new and the Liberals did the same thing, as the Jacksonian Democrats did, as the slave holding (and segregationist) state's rights types did, as the Reconstruction era Republicans did . Evangelical Christians play this same game with the Constitution--trying to use it to promote their religion and even to force it on others. It's how it's set up to work although, for those who do not understand that, or don't want others to understand it, rosier sentiments about the Constitution will always be available to cloud the reality.
For them, at least for those who know and don't want others to know, a Lily is in order. For the rest of us it's not cynicism--it's just how things are and how they are supposed to be.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Lillies in the Budget Cuts -- No, seriously, we're just trying to reign in uncontrolled spending
So here is a little list of "cuts" and "keeps" in the proposed Congressional budget cuts of interest to those interested in keeping their reality/cynicism mechanisms in tune:
WASTEFUL SPENDING INTACT:
$19 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry.
PUBLIC PRIORITIES SLASHED:
A 44% cut in funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to police the big banks, mortgage and credit card companies and guard against deceptive practices.
WASTEFUL SPENDING INTACT:
$500 billion in tax loopholes that permit companies to ship their profits overseas and hide them in offshore tax havens—including 83 of the top 100 publicly traded companies.
PUBLIC PRIORITIES SLASHED:
Funding eliminated for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to track and inform the public about dangerous products.
WASTEFUL SPENDING INTACT:
$185 billion in orders for obsolete military equipment.
PUBLIC PRIORITIES SLASHED:
$88.4 million less for food safety inspectors who ensure that the nation’s egg, poultry, and meat supply is safe and wholesome.
WASTEFUL SPENDING INTACT:
$1 billion for trade associations for multinational corporations to market their products overseas.
PUBLIC PRIORITIES SLASHED:
Pell Grants to increase access to college for 9.4 million Americans cut by $5.7 billion.
WASTEFUL SPENDING INTACT:
$34 billion in Homeland Security contracts that have been plagued with waste, abuse and mismanagement going back to 2001.
PUBLIC PRIORITIES SLASHED:
All funding for high-speed rail eliminated.
WASTEFUL SPENDING INTACT:
$19 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry.
PUBLIC PRIORITIES SLASHED:
A 44% cut in funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to police the big banks, mortgage and credit card companies and guard against deceptive practices.
WASTEFUL SPENDING INTACT:
$500 billion in tax loopholes that permit companies to ship their profits overseas and hide them in offshore tax havens—including 83 of the top 100 publicly traded companies.
PUBLIC PRIORITIES SLASHED:
Funding eliminated for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to track and inform the public about dangerous products.
WASTEFUL SPENDING INTACT:
$185 billion in orders for obsolete military equipment.
PUBLIC PRIORITIES SLASHED:
$88.4 million less for food safety inspectors who ensure that the nation’s egg, poultry, and meat supply is safe and wholesome.
WASTEFUL SPENDING INTACT:
$1 billion for trade associations for multinational corporations to market their products overseas.
PUBLIC PRIORITIES SLASHED:
Pell Grants to increase access to college for 9.4 million Americans cut by $5.7 billion.
WASTEFUL SPENDING INTACT:
$34 billion in Homeland Security contracts that have been plagued with waste, abuse and mismanagement going back to 2001.
PUBLIC PRIORITIES SLASHED:
All funding for high-speed rail eliminated.
Friday, February 18, 2011
It's a hard rain is gonna fall ... is falling ... in Wisconsin
I think Wisconsin is much less about unions that it is about fair.
Why should one part of the American people pay to fix this economic/budget mess we all created while others are held harmless?
I was once a public school teacher and when we were hit up for budget "give backs" it was hard for me because others in my community weren't giving back a thing to support the benefit they got from living in a broadly educated society.
My employers were the taxpayers of the school district. While many of them (and I was one, too), were having a hard time economically many were doing very well. It's still that way.
For these the capital gains tax preference remains--even when those capital gains end up as ordinary income and are not invested, when interest income in general is being taxed at a much lower rate than salaried income, when there is a ceiling on Social Security payments of many of them, while every nickle I ever made got taxed for that, while benefits of all kinds shift the burden of funding government from corporate/dividend income and on to people like me who get a paycheck (and not much of paycheck, at that) and don't live off of bonus money.
By the way, much of that corporate/dividend income is "earned" from US government contracts, including contracts given to American companies to provide "foreign aid." Most "foreign aid" goes abroad in the form of American military hardware. It goes to places like Egypt and Israel. In other words, the US government buys arms from American corporations--increasing the stock value and the dividends of those American corporations--and ships the arms to "aid" people in other countries.
Foreign aid, then, is just a scheme to make American corporations and stock holders more money--funded by tax dollars.
I don't think there will be a solution as long as some people just blame others for the problem and are unwilling to do a part to solve it. If I am one who gets a haircut while others don't have to why should I support the "bargain?"
I am not jazzed about privatizing Social Security but if I am convinced that investments are safe from things like the dot-com and housing bubbles then I am willing to talk about that. Send Barney Frank and Elizabeth Warren around to tell me it's safe and I'll talk. Imagine where we would be if the Bush attempt to privatize Social Security had passed just before what we are going through now.
If people see that everyone is getting a share of the suffering they will take their own suffering with a (more) mature attitude.
Doesn't everyone live in this country and share in the benefits and the responsibilities?
We will solve this stalemate when we realize we live in a country so closely divided that no one is going to get enough power to force one side to pay the whole price while the other side goes on its merry way.
Even if some of us, even those among us who are Christians, sneer at the idea of "fairness" if we do not spread the hurt we are all going to go down scratching and clawing one another to pieces--like two cats, tied together, thrown over a clothes line.
Why should one part of the American people pay to fix this economic/budget mess we all created while others are held harmless?
I was once a public school teacher and when we were hit up for budget "give backs" it was hard for me because others in my community weren't giving back a thing to support the benefit they got from living in a broadly educated society.
My employers were the taxpayers of the school district. While many of them (and I was one, too), were having a hard time economically many were doing very well. It's still that way.
For these the capital gains tax preference remains--even when those capital gains end up as ordinary income and are not invested, when interest income in general is being taxed at a much lower rate than salaried income, when there is a ceiling on Social Security payments of many of them, while every nickle I ever made got taxed for that, while benefits of all kinds shift the burden of funding government from corporate/dividend income and on to people like me who get a paycheck (and not much of paycheck, at that) and don't live off of bonus money.
By the way, much of that corporate/dividend income is "earned" from US government contracts, including contracts given to American companies to provide "foreign aid." Most "foreign aid" goes abroad in the form of American military hardware. It goes to places like Egypt and Israel. In other words, the US government buys arms from American corporations--increasing the stock value and the dividends of those American corporations--and ships the arms to "aid" people in other countries.
Foreign aid, then, is just a scheme to make American corporations and stock holders more money--funded by tax dollars.
I don't think there will be a solution as long as some people just blame others for the problem and are unwilling to do a part to solve it. If I am one who gets a haircut while others don't have to why should I support the "bargain?"
I am not jazzed about privatizing Social Security but if I am convinced that investments are safe from things like the dot-com and housing bubbles then I am willing to talk about that. Send Barney Frank and Elizabeth Warren around to tell me it's safe and I'll talk. Imagine where we would be if the Bush attempt to privatize Social Security had passed just before what we are going through now.
If people see that everyone is getting a share of the suffering they will take their own suffering with a (more) mature attitude.
Doesn't everyone live in this country and share in the benefits and the responsibilities?
We will solve this stalemate when we realize we live in a country so closely divided that no one is going to get enough power to force one side to pay the whole price while the other side goes on its merry way.
Even if some of us, even those among us who are Christians, sneer at the idea of "fairness" if we do not spread the hurt we are all going to go down scratching and clawing one another to pieces--like two cats, tied together, thrown over a clothes line.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Pakistan as a Safe Haven -- A Lily for Obama
It's making us all nuts--money poured into Pakistan to be a US "partner" in settling down Afghanistan and yet the Taliban lives there, goes across the border to fight, and then goes home to their safe haven.
The Pakistani military and intelligence agencies know where they are but seem unable to do anything to disrupt their operations.
The way to resolve this is not to bluster, bully, beg and wheedle with the Pakistani government or to give them more money, weapons or anything else.
From what "they" let me know, it appears that the solution to this problem lies in resolving the Pakistanis and the Indian struggle that rivals--no, actually surpasses--the tenure of that of the Palestinians and the Israelis. This allows Al Qaeda, the Taliban and anyone else who finds it in their interest to do so, to play off one of these nuclear powers against the other. This is dangerous.
Again, from the information that we have, the Pakistanis find it in their interest to keep India occupied with "Muslim extremists" of the type who attacked Mumbai. This is a perilous strategy for the Pakistanis, of course, as the existence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda on their soil not only impugns their international integrity, it undermines their own internal security.
I don't know how the Indian-Pakistani "crisis" can be resolved, or even whether it can. But I do think that trying to somehow convince the Pakistanis turn loose of their unsavory non-allies any other way than to eliminate the advantage they see in cleaving to them is an example of us pursuing a goal that seems reasonable, even though it is ineffective.
Maybe the President knows something I am not allowed to know about this dynamic, but until I figure out what that could possibly be I have to be cynical about American policy vis a vis both Afghanistan and Pakistan. If one wanted a "bulwark" against Iran, wouldn't peace between Pakistan and India be something to think about?
Or, how about just dismantling our empire in the Middle East and ...
Sorry, Mr. Obama, a Lily for you.
The Pakistani military and intelligence agencies know where they are but seem unable to do anything to disrupt their operations.
The way to resolve this is not to bluster, bully, beg and wheedle with the Pakistani government or to give them more money, weapons or anything else.
From what "they" let me know, it appears that the solution to this problem lies in resolving the Pakistanis and the Indian struggle that rivals--no, actually surpasses--the tenure of that of the Palestinians and the Israelis. This allows Al Qaeda, the Taliban and anyone else who finds it in their interest to do so, to play off one of these nuclear powers against the other. This is dangerous.
Again, from the information that we have, the Pakistanis find it in their interest to keep India occupied with "Muslim extremists" of the type who attacked Mumbai. This is a perilous strategy for the Pakistanis, of course, as the existence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda on their soil not only impugns their international integrity, it undermines their own internal security.
I don't know how the Indian-Pakistani "crisis" can be resolved, or even whether it can. But I do think that trying to somehow convince the Pakistanis turn loose of their unsavory non-allies any other way than to eliminate the advantage they see in cleaving to them is an example of us pursuing a goal that seems reasonable, even though it is ineffective.
Maybe the President knows something I am not allowed to know about this dynamic, but until I figure out what that could possibly be I have to be cynical about American policy vis a vis both Afghanistan and Pakistan. If one wanted a "bulwark" against Iran, wouldn't peace between Pakistan and India be something to think about?
Or, how about just dismantling our empire in the Middle East and ...
Sorry, Mr. Obama, a Lily for you.
Thursday, December 02, 2010
Where's My Right of Conscience?
So, it's been on my mind for a while now: how is it that "pro-lifers" get to make the government jump through hoops to ensure that none of their tax money gets used for abortion? Most recently, we watched Congress go up and over the top on this during the health care debate without anyone asking how come they get to make those kinds of demands.
I am morally opposed to war on conscientious grounds and it is certainly clear to me where God is at on that--especially considering the amount of rationalizing theological notions and notional holidays our imperial priesthood has to lay down to obscure the issue to condition and manipulate us into going off to kill total strangers for the most secular ends.
Millions and millions of tax dollars spent by my government to kill innocent people--and some that those who prosecute wars want to dub "guilty" to make their deaths OK.
So, when do I get to make the government guarantee that my tax money isn't spent for war because it's "against my religion?"
And if I don't get that guarantee why do to the "pro-lifers" get it?
This is about integrity, of course, but it's also about equality. Why are some people's religious views "more equal" than those of others? And, in this country, given the First Amendment, why is "it's against my religion" a cogent argument in how tax money gets spent?
I think there's a big Cynical Lily Award to give out here, I am just not sure to whom it should be given.
I am morally opposed to war on conscientious grounds and it is certainly clear to me where God is at on that--especially considering the amount of rationalizing theological notions and notional holidays our imperial priesthood has to lay down to obscure the issue to condition and manipulate us into going off to kill total strangers for the most secular ends.
Millions and millions of tax dollars spent by my government to kill innocent people--and some that those who prosecute wars want to dub "guilty" to make their deaths OK.
So, when do I get to make the government guarantee that my tax money isn't spent for war because it's "against my religion?"
And if I don't get that guarantee why do to the "pro-lifers" get it?
This is about integrity, of course, but it's also about equality. Why are some people's religious views "more equal" than those of others? And, in this country, given the First Amendment, why is "it's against my religion" a cogent argument in how tax money gets spent?
I think there's a big Cynical Lily Award to give out here, I am just not sure to whom it should be given.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
integrity
I do not defend the use of drones to attack leaders of Taliban inside of Pakistan, or any attacks on anyone at any time.
I do, though, want to say a little something about the integrity of the government and people of Pakistan.
Their condemnation of those attacks comes as they receive millions (billions?) from the United States government to support the effort in Afghanistan and, while doing so, they are tolerating and even supporting the activities of the Taliban in Pakistan that are part of their effort to topple the Afghan government.
If the Pakistani military and intelligence folks were doing what the United States is paying them to do the drone attacks of which they complain might not be happening, or might not be so extensive.
The government of Pakistan is playing this duplicitous game because it has to. The government of Pakistan does not really exercise sovereignty over the territory inside its boundaries. The government of Pakistan is as afraid of Al Qaeda as it is of that of India. Most of all, the government of Pakistan should be afraid of the United States--afraid that the money will stop.
Should we be afraid of that? Should we be afraid that the government of Pakistan will be replaced by a Taliban government that has nuclear weapons? Should we be afraid that this government will face off with that India--also a nuclear power?
I am not sure of everything I am supposed to be afraid of, anymore.
I do know that I am afraid of what we have been doing in the Middle East for a good long time, This situation vis a vis Pakistan is but one manifestation of that course of action. This can't go on, and it won't. The consequences of whatever happens from now on are going to be terrible and dire.
We are about to learn what shock and awe really mean.
I do, though, want to say a little something about the integrity of the government and people of Pakistan.
Their condemnation of those attacks comes as they receive millions (billions?) from the United States government to support the effort in Afghanistan and, while doing so, they are tolerating and even supporting the activities of the Taliban in Pakistan that are part of their effort to topple the Afghan government.
If the Pakistani military and intelligence folks were doing what the United States is paying them to do the drone attacks of which they complain might not be happening, or might not be so extensive.
The government of Pakistan is playing this duplicitous game because it has to. The government of Pakistan does not really exercise sovereignty over the territory inside its boundaries. The government of Pakistan is as afraid of Al Qaeda as it is of that of India. Most of all, the government of Pakistan should be afraid of the United States--afraid that the money will stop.
Should we be afraid of that? Should we be afraid that the government of Pakistan will be replaced by a Taliban government that has nuclear weapons? Should we be afraid that this government will face off with that India--also a nuclear power?
I am not sure of everything I am supposed to be afraid of, anymore.
I do know that I am afraid of what we have been doing in the Middle East for a good long time, This situation vis a vis Pakistan is but one manifestation of that course of action. This can't go on, and it won't. The consequences of whatever happens from now on are going to be terrible and dire.
We are about to learn what shock and awe really mean.
Monday, April 26, 2010
could it be...
Now, I am not an expert on all the banking stuff but when the guru of guru's testified to Congress a while back that he could not believe that the people running Wall Street did not act in the best interest of their firms I wondered whether they might not care, at all, about those firms or its shareholders. Seems to me they made a pile of money, personally, while driving their institutions off of the cliff.
A good source on this, it turns out, is available on line.
Where was the down side for them? And when I hear someone say that X% of their savings disappeared in the crisis I have to wonder if a good part of that didn't disappear, at all, it just went from the person's savings into the bonuses of the people who were at the wheel. It's still there--it's just not in the "there" place it was before.
This all came to mind again this morning, listening the preview of the Goldman Golden Guy heading to Congress to talk about how they were not betting against the economy and making money off of the impending crash--they were valiantly fighting to protect their shareholders.
Why, the rhetorical question is expected to come from him to keep the Senators at bay, would we act in a way that would not benefit the bank or its share holders?
There's a Lily in this for the GGG. Cynicism on a stick--both deep fried and candy coated.
If any of the institutions that these guys work for go under won't they just surface again in another institution where, once more, their own bonuses and golden parachutes and such will insulate them from any accountability for failure?
This is especially true since there is a corporate propaganda machine standing by to blame all the failure on the government--Fannie Mae and all that jazz. Even if I am CEO and I drive the ship onto the rocks, on my way to my own personal Bermuda, I can just shrug and tell Fox and Friends all about how it was "Guv'ment regulation and bureaucracy that stifled the free market to such an extent that my valiant efforts on the bridge could not avoid the rocks they kept putting in the middle of shipping lanes."
My Republican father used to say of scoundrels, at least the ones wearing suits, "You have hand it to them."
But times change. Now you don't have to hand it to them. They just take it and claim it was never yours, anyway..
A good source on this, it turns out, is available on line.
Where was the down side for them? And when I hear someone say that X% of their savings disappeared in the crisis I have to wonder if a good part of that didn't disappear, at all, it just went from the person's savings into the bonuses of the people who were at the wheel. It's still there--it's just not in the "there" place it was before.
This all came to mind again this morning, listening the preview of the Goldman Golden Guy heading to Congress to talk about how they were not betting against the economy and making money off of the impending crash--they were valiantly fighting to protect their shareholders.
Why, the rhetorical question is expected to come from him to keep the Senators at bay, would we act in a way that would not benefit the bank or its share holders?
There's a Lily in this for the GGG. Cynicism on a stick--both deep fried and candy coated.
If any of the institutions that these guys work for go under won't they just surface again in another institution where, once more, their own bonuses and golden parachutes and such will insulate them from any accountability for failure?
This is especially true since there is a corporate propaganda machine standing by to blame all the failure on the government--Fannie Mae and all that jazz. Even if I am CEO and I drive the ship onto the rocks, on my way to my own personal Bermuda, I can just shrug and tell Fox and Friends all about how it was "Guv'ment regulation and bureaucracy that stifled the free market to such an extent that my valiant efforts on the bridge could not avoid the rocks they kept putting in the middle of shipping lanes."
My Republican father used to say of scoundrels, at least the ones wearing suits, "You have hand it to them."
But times change. Now you don't have to hand it to them. They just take it and claim it was never yours, anyway..
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
"Snap!" or is it "Click!"
When I heard Glenn Beck say that we have captured the second in command in the Taliban (although he said that the man was the second in command of Al Qaeda) and that we should "shoot him in the head" I heard a huge snapping or clicking sound in my head.
I have long been mystified as to why so many people want to be mean to terrorists--torture them--lock them away for ever--no trial no due process no nothing except a lot of pain and agony.
But I understand it, now.
It's just sadism.
It's taking pleasure in inflicting pain on people--even if it doesn't help us do anything constructive about the terrorism of which we are so, well, terrified. We know, in fact, that the way we have treated captured terrorists has created support for them and their brothers and sisters still in field.
And speaking of snapping to something...this whole thing about insisting that we are at "war" with terrorists, that these are not criminal acts but acts of war is legitimizing the people who do the terrorist stuff.
Al Qaeda wants Muslims to see them as knights errant, roaming the world to confront the infidel. And they aren't that, at all. They have hijacked Islam and set out to re-configure it as a vehicle to justify their violence that is bent on setting up reactionary theocracies.
And we are helping them by buying into their narrative. They are actually criminals. They are criminals on a grand scale but they are still criminals. They are not soldiers, they do not comprise an army. They are just plain criminals.
It should not be forgotten, though, that their criminality is a response to how the West has controlled and exploited the Middle East for decades. We are not "innocent" victims of this criminality. We need to start implementing policies in that region of the world--throughout the world--based on simplicity, harmony, integrity, community and equality.
When we do that we will have a lot less to worry about from either soldiers or criminals, and national security will be something we can take for granted.
I have long been mystified as to why so many people want to be mean to terrorists--torture them--lock them away for ever--no trial no due process no nothing except a lot of pain and agony.
But I understand it, now.
It's just sadism.
It's taking pleasure in inflicting pain on people--even if it doesn't help us do anything constructive about the terrorism of which we are so, well, terrified. We know, in fact, that the way we have treated captured terrorists has created support for them and their brothers and sisters still in field.
And speaking of snapping to something...this whole thing about insisting that we are at "war" with terrorists, that these are not criminal acts but acts of war is legitimizing the people who do the terrorist stuff.
Al Qaeda wants Muslims to see them as knights errant, roaming the world to confront the infidel. And they aren't that, at all. They have hijacked Islam and set out to re-configure it as a vehicle to justify their violence that is bent on setting up reactionary theocracies.
And we are helping them by buying into their narrative. They are actually criminals. They are criminals on a grand scale but they are still criminals. They are not soldiers, they do not comprise an army. They are just plain criminals.
It should not be forgotten, though, that their criminality is a response to how the West has controlled and exploited the Middle East for decades. We are not "innocent" victims of this criminality. We need to start implementing policies in that region of the world--throughout the world--based on simplicity, harmony, integrity, community and equality.
When we do that we will have a lot less to worry about from either soldiers or criminals, and national security will be something we can take for granted.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
another Lily...unsafe at any speed
So I heard Ralph Nader on Tom Hartman's radio show riffing on how bad the Supreme Court decision on corporate political spending is.
Not a word did Mr. Nader utter about how this was his fault. Not a word about how, if he just let Mr. Gore run for president without him sticking his "it doesn't matter which party is elected" nose into things, neither Mr. Roberts or Mr. Scalia would have been in a position to make this happen.
So, a Lily for you, Mr. Nader. You are responsible for something happening and you blame someone else.
No matter how cynical I get, Mr. Nader, it's hard to keep up with people like you.
Not a word did Mr. Nader utter about how this was his fault. Not a word about how, if he just let Mr. Gore run for president without him sticking his "it doesn't matter which party is elected" nose into things, neither Mr. Roberts or Mr. Scalia would have been in a position to make this happen.
So, a Lily for you, Mr. Nader. You are responsible for something happening and you blame someone else.
No matter how cynical I get, Mr. Nader, it's hard to keep up with people like you.
Monday, October 19, 2009
why should corporations be considered people?
This is a very big deal and there is a lot of information out there on the subject.
For more background, go here, and also Google Citizens United v Federal Election Commission
In the recent argument before the Supreme Court one of the issues was how corporations differ from human beings. I am not sure that is germane to the public policy reasons why a corporation should be treated differently under the law this purpose or for that one, but it took up a significant part of the time during the argument.
Here is an interesting comment from Justice Scalia
"Most corporations are indistinguishable from the individual who owns them, the local hairdresser, the new auto dealer -- dealer who has just lost his dealership and -- and who wants to oppose whatever Congressman he thinks was responsible for this happening or whatever Congressman won't try to patch it up by -- by getting the auto company to undo it. There is no distinction between the individual interest and the corporate interest," Scalia said. "And that is true for the vast majority of corporations."
A number of fallacies in that but the questions it begs for me is this: if there is no distinction between the individual interest and the individuals who own them why should the individuals who own them care, one way or the other, whether those corporations are more limited in their political rights than they are as individuals?
Why would the individuals who own those corporations not be satisfied exercising their own political rights and be seeking, instead, to exercise them through a corporation?
One answer of many, I think, is that some of those who control larger corporations (as opposed to those who "own" them) have access to a lot more money through that control than they have to money as an individual. Unions are often criticized for spending members' money to support candidates that this member or that member do not support. Why should corporations be able to support political candidates with the money that belongs to shareholders who might not favor that particular candidate?
Recently there was quite a stir that Rush Limbaugh might be part of a consortium of investors who will bid to buy the St Louis Ram football team. If he became a stockholder in that corporation how would he feel about the fact that, between 1989 and 2009, more than 98% of the political contributions of the Rams (and anyone identified as earning income from the team on campaign reporting documents) have gone to Democrats?
Would Rush think it was unfair that a pot of money in which he has an equity interest should be supporting a socialist, fascist, Democrat party intent on destroying America?
Would it be fair to force him to put up with that?
I have to give the Lily to Justice Scalia, with a shout out to Justice Roberts and Thomas for the cynical way in which they are analyzing this issue.
Corporations exist to give groups of human being "super powers" and "super protections" in the economic realm. Corporations can do things that human beings cannot. There are all kinds of good reasons, from an economic standpoint, to "be" a corporation--as well I know. But no one should have super powers or super protections in the political realm, should they?
Well, of course they do. That's why this situation is just one more iteration of the basic problem: spending money is not exercising political speech--not withstanding the contortions of Buckley v. Vallejo. The fact that one can think it is the same just indicates how beguiling analogies can be, and how much they can distort reality.
The fact that the way campaigning is done these days (spending huge amounts of money to manipulate masses of people through the media) means that the more money one spends on campaign contributions the more valuable one is as a supporter to someone running for office.
If I can make a captive audience of a politician--say I find out that the person in the center seat next to me on the airplane is a member of Congress--and talk to them for longer and even more persuasively than anyone else does on a particular issue am I going to have more influence on how they vote on that issue than if I give them more money than anyone else to run for office while mentioning how I see that same issue?
Money is far more powerful as a means of persuading people locked into this current cash intensive way people run for office.
The answer would be to amend the Constitution to say that only individual human beings can contribute to political campaigns and that those human beings are limited to a modest sum of money (say $100 at the most) so that in a real way every one is equal (or almost so) in the eyes of the politician.
Why would the opinion of a CEO of a health insurance company get more weight than mine if, dollar for dollar, the two of us were equal? A politician would then, in determining how to vote, be forced to consider which of us made the most sense on the issue.
Could one run for office the way that's done now if the flow of money to politicians was restricted in the way I suggest? Of course not. And that would be a good thing. The appeal to people's emotions through manipulation of symbols through the mass media would be far less effective (although it would not, of course, disappear) than it is now. Candidates might have to do more personal contact (themselves or through people motivated to work for them by something other than money) with voters. They might have to...
Who am I kidding?
Think about how a Constitutional amendment comes to be. Are the people who are on top of the current system in any way about to do something like this?
I awarded the Lily several paragraphs above. Maybe I should have just stopped there.
For more background, go here, and also Google Citizens United v Federal Election Commission
In the recent argument before the Supreme Court one of the issues was how corporations differ from human beings. I am not sure that is germane to the public policy reasons why a corporation should be treated differently under the law this purpose or for that one, but it took up a significant part of the time during the argument.
Here is an interesting comment from Justice Scalia
"Most corporations are indistinguishable from the individual who owns them, the local hairdresser, the new auto dealer -- dealer who has just lost his dealership and -- and who wants to oppose whatever Congressman he thinks was responsible for this happening or whatever Congressman won't try to patch it up by -- by getting the auto company to undo it. There is no distinction between the individual interest and the corporate interest," Scalia said. "And that is true for the vast majority of corporations."
A number of fallacies in that but the questions it begs for me is this: if there is no distinction between the individual interest and the individuals who own them why should the individuals who own them care, one way or the other, whether those corporations are more limited in their political rights than they are as individuals?
Why would the individuals who own those corporations not be satisfied exercising their own political rights and be seeking, instead, to exercise them through a corporation?
One answer of many, I think, is that some of those who control larger corporations (as opposed to those who "own" them) have access to a lot more money through that control than they have to money as an individual. Unions are often criticized for spending members' money to support candidates that this member or that member do not support. Why should corporations be able to support political candidates with the money that belongs to shareholders who might not favor that particular candidate?
Recently there was quite a stir that Rush Limbaugh might be part of a consortium of investors who will bid to buy the St Louis Ram football team. If he became a stockholder in that corporation how would he feel about the fact that, between 1989 and 2009, more than 98% of the political contributions of the Rams (and anyone identified as earning income from the team on campaign reporting documents) have gone to Democrats?
Would Rush think it was unfair that a pot of money in which he has an equity interest should be supporting a socialist, fascist, Democrat party intent on destroying America?
Would it be fair to force him to put up with that?
I have to give the Lily to Justice Scalia, with a shout out to Justice Roberts and Thomas for the cynical way in which they are analyzing this issue.
Corporations exist to give groups of human being "super powers" and "super protections" in the economic realm. Corporations can do things that human beings cannot. There are all kinds of good reasons, from an economic standpoint, to "be" a corporation--as well I know. But no one should have super powers or super protections in the political realm, should they?
Well, of course they do. That's why this situation is just one more iteration of the basic problem: spending money is not exercising political speech--not withstanding the contortions of Buckley v. Vallejo. The fact that one can think it is the same just indicates how beguiling analogies can be, and how much they can distort reality.
The fact that the way campaigning is done these days (spending huge amounts of money to manipulate masses of people through the media) means that the more money one spends on campaign contributions the more valuable one is as a supporter to someone running for office.
If I can make a captive audience of a politician--say I find out that the person in the center seat next to me on the airplane is a member of Congress--and talk to them for longer and even more persuasively than anyone else does on a particular issue am I going to have more influence on how they vote on that issue than if I give them more money than anyone else to run for office while mentioning how I see that same issue?
Money is far more powerful as a means of persuading people locked into this current cash intensive way people run for office.
The answer would be to amend the Constitution to say that only individual human beings can contribute to political campaigns and that those human beings are limited to a modest sum of money (say $100 at the most) so that in a real way every one is equal (or almost so) in the eyes of the politician.
Why would the opinion of a CEO of a health insurance company get more weight than mine if, dollar for dollar, the two of us were equal? A politician would then, in determining how to vote, be forced to consider which of us made the most sense on the issue.
Could one run for office the way that's done now if the flow of money to politicians was restricted in the way I suggest? Of course not. And that would be a good thing. The appeal to people's emotions through manipulation of symbols through the mass media would be far less effective (although it would not, of course, disappear) than it is now. Candidates might have to do more personal contact (themselves or through people motivated to work for them by something other than money) with voters. They might have to...
Who am I kidding?
Think about how a Constitutional amendment comes to be. Are the people who are on top of the current system in any way about to do something like this?
I awarded the Lily several paragraphs above. Maybe I should have just stopped there.
Monday, October 05, 2009
because it works
The American political community's cohesion has been seriously compromised by the cynical tactics that makes co-operation and compromise difficult. The huge amounts of money at the disposal of those who use these tactics to gain and maintain control may well be the means by which our Constitutional republican form of government will be destroyed. Money = speech, indeed.
One of these tactics is the smearing of people, getting them fired or forcing them to resign. Once that happens the idea is "reload and repeat"--to move on to a new target. The basis for the attack is always a distortion of an actual situation and the person upon whom the heat is being raised most recently is Kevin Jennings, who works at the Education Department.
The whole right wing propaganda apparatus is repeating the distortion about him over and over, ginning up demand from Congress and the base to fire him. If this plays out as it has in previous situations, the palaver over Mr. Jennings will soon be such a distraction that he will resign (and have his reputation ruined, in the process).
(Note: one of the sites to which I link, above, has had the integrity to correct a crucial, germane and material factual error in its original smear report--congratulations to Fox News--and the other--shame on you--Human Affairs for proving you don't care about truth only about what works to whip up your base--has not.) (Yes, Fox News corrected a factual error that discredits the substance of its report!)
Here is a fact check on the substance of this situation.
But the resignation for which the smear artists are howling will not end the distraction because the distraction is the point. There is a lot of good stuff going on in the Department of Education at the moment and a lot of it is not to the liking of big piles of money that fuel "conservatism" today. All the babble about "homosexual agenda" is a cover for the Obama administration's efforts to strengthen public education--a prime target of the right for economic and religious reasons. The point of all this is to discredit those efforts and slow down change we can believe in to improve education rather than let it disintegrate and be replaced with Christian schools for the lower middle class and classy college prep schools for the wealth (there is no middle class in the right wing vision).
The secondary benefit of all this to right is, of course, to discredit the Obama administration in general.
So, the Lily, today to the New York Times, who can accept the award on behalf of those to whom I linked above and all the rest it it joins in creating the cacophony of distortion that repeated enough times become believed by enough to people to give them the successes they are after--to stop education reform and keep public schools crippled until they die for lack of support and to pull the Obama administration down..
In the long run these "successful" tactics will create, if they have not already, a country that is not governable except by by dictators and the charlatans they employ to keep the lies coming.
When pulling the community apart becomes the means to govern then the republic is dead and the country will have moved into a new phase. We are near that now.
One of these tactics is the smearing of people, getting them fired or forcing them to resign. Once that happens the idea is "reload and repeat"--to move on to a new target. The basis for the attack is always a distortion of an actual situation and the person upon whom the heat is being raised most recently is Kevin Jennings, who works at the Education Department.
The whole right wing propaganda apparatus is repeating the distortion about him over and over, ginning up demand from Congress and the base to fire him. If this plays out as it has in previous situations, the palaver over Mr. Jennings will soon be such a distraction that he will resign (and have his reputation ruined, in the process).
(Note: one of the sites to which I link, above, has had the integrity to correct a crucial, germane and material factual error in its original smear report--congratulations to Fox News--and the other--shame on you--Human Affairs for proving you don't care about truth only about what works to whip up your base--has not.) (Yes, Fox News corrected a factual error that discredits the substance of its report!)
Here is a fact check on the substance of this situation.
But the resignation for which the smear artists are howling will not end the distraction because the distraction is the point. There is a lot of good stuff going on in the Department of Education at the moment and a lot of it is not to the liking of big piles of money that fuel "conservatism" today. All the babble about "homosexual agenda" is a cover for the Obama administration's efforts to strengthen public education--a prime target of the right for economic and religious reasons. The point of all this is to discredit those efforts and slow down change we can believe in to improve education rather than let it disintegrate and be replaced with Christian schools for the lower middle class and classy college prep schools for the wealth (there is no middle class in the right wing vision).
The secondary benefit of all this to right is, of course, to discredit the Obama administration in general.
So, the Lily, today to the New York Times, who can accept the award on behalf of those to whom I linked above and all the rest it it joins in creating the cacophony of distortion that repeated enough times become believed by enough to people to give them the successes they are after--to stop education reform and keep public schools crippled until they die for lack of support and to pull the Obama administration down..
In the long run these "successful" tactics will create, if they have not already, a country that is not governable except by by dictators and the charlatans they employ to keep the lies coming.
When pulling the community apart becomes the means to govern then the republic is dead and the country will have moved into a new phase. We are near that now.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Dennis Kneale is either incompetent or ...
Dennis Kneale from CNBC seems as though he might be bucking for a job with Fox.
He went on and on tonight about how the only way "green" energy could become economically viable--and compete with oil-- is if it didn't have government subsidies.
I have to wonder about someone who is an economic reporter and doesn't know how much the primacy of oil depends on all kinds of subsidies and tax breaks from both federal and state governments.
Arguing as though there were some kind of level playing field between oil and "green"--as though oil earns its primacy through free market competitiveness--is either just ignorant or its dishonest.
I know that the world is made up of two kinds of people: those who believe the world is made up of two kinds of people and those who do not, but is there a third explanation for the position he takes?
So, the Lily to Dennis Kneale--who either doesn't know what he is talking about when he portrays oil as independently more viable in the "free market" or who darn well knows that he is demanding that wind and solar and such succeed without subsidy while going up against a heavily subsidized oil industry.
Maybe the subsidies should be removed from both--and maybe the government should subsidized energy sources that are better for the way the planet works and that support independence from foreign oil.
But "economics reporters" need to either say what they know is true about subsidies to various competing industries or, if they don't know it's true, go and learn about how the American economy actually works before the red light of the TV camera goes on.
So, Dennis, congratulations. You win today's "Lily."
"No matter how cynical I get, it's hard to keep up."
Lily Tomlin
He went on and on tonight about how the only way "green" energy could become economically viable--and compete with oil-- is if it didn't have government subsidies.
I have to wonder about someone who is an economic reporter and doesn't know how much the primacy of oil depends on all kinds of subsidies and tax breaks from both federal and state governments.
Arguing as though there were some kind of level playing field between oil and "green"--as though oil earns its primacy through free market competitiveness--is either just ignorant or its dishonest.
I know that the world is made up of two kinds of people: those who believe the world is made up of two kinds of people and those who do not, but is there a third explanation for the position he takes?
So, the Lily to Dennis Kneale--who either doesn't know what he is talking about when he portrays oil as independently more viable in the "free market" or who darn well knows that he is demanding that wind and solar and such succeed without subsidy while going up against a heavily subsidized oil industry.
Maybe the subsidies should be removed from both--and maybe the government should subsidized energy sources that are better for the way the planet works and that support independence from foreign oil.
But "economics reporters" need to either say what they know is true about subsidies to various competing industries or, if they don't know it's true, go and learn about how the American economy actually works before the red light of the TV camera goes on.
So, Dennis, congratulations. You win today's "Lily."
"No matter how cynical I get, it's hard to keep up."
Lily Tomlin
Friday, July 03, 2009
Bonnie Tinker
My friend Bonnie Tinker died yesterday.
She was at the Gathering of Friends General Conference, where she went to teach her class on non-violent communication with The Other--all those Others we encounter. It is a class about transformation of both self and the Other.
I was going to be with her, as I was last year, as her elder, her support person as she taught the class. Last minute complications arose and I could not go.
Both of my girls sought to console me, last night, as though I might be thinking that I should have been there, that if I were this might not have happened.
But I was not her bodyguard, or her guardian angel. I was not with her every minute last year and would not have been with her this year any time she was on a bicycle.
"What about that butterfly thing?" my youngest asked, "the butterfly in the Amazon who beats its wings and that causes..."
I told her that was a notion, something we can never know, something that even if it's true our wondering about it cannot improve our condition or anyone else's.
Then I told them what I did know, stuff that the wondering about could improve our condition. .
I told them that working with Bonnie Tinker changed me--changed us, because they were along much of the time.
Sometimes I dreaded a call from Bonnie because she was involved with hard, hard stuff and was calling to involve me and my family in it. And I knew we had to be there, that we wanted to be there; it's just that it was so hard, what she took on, it demanded so much. Sometimes I wasn't strong enough (yet?) to be responsible--to respond as I wanted to--to her call. And sometimes I was.
Bonnie's example, her support and her encouragement constantly reminded me of my potential to do the things that I really wanted to do--the things I knew I was supposed to do but was afraid I never could. I do my best work under the supervision of responsible women.
It was, and is, just so hard.
She also showed me how to face opposition--from whom I would expect it and from whom it was a betrayal--with a love that put me standing in a place where none could ever hurt me.
I am one of many who will miss Bonnie.
I am also one with whom her spirit will never stop working.
She was at the Gathering of Friends General Conference, where she went to teach her class on non-violent communication with The Other--all those Others we encounter. It is a class about transformation of both self and the Other.
I was going to be with her, as I was last year, as her elder, her support person as she taught the class. Last minute complications arose and I could not go.
Both of my girls sought to console me, last night, as though I might be thinking that I should have been there, that if I were this might not have happened.
But I was not her bodyguard, or her guardian angel. I was not with her every minute last year and would not have been with her this year any time she was on a bicycle.
"What about that butterfly thing?" my youngest asked, "the butterfly in the Amazon who beats its wings and that causes..."
I told her that was a notion, something we can never know, something that even if it's true our wondering about it cannot improve our condition or anyone else's.
Then I told them what I did know, stuff that the wondering about could improve our condition. .
I told them that working with Bonnie Tinker changed me--changed us, because they were along much of the time.
Sometimes I dreaded a call from Bonnie because she was involved with hard, hard stuff and was calling to involve me and my family in it. And I knew we had to be there, that we wanted to be there; it's just that it was so hard, what she took on, it demanded so much. Sometimes I wasn't strong enough (yet?) to be responsible--to respond as I wanted to--to her call. And sometimes I was.
Bonnie's example, her support and her encouragement constantly reminded me of my potential to do the things that I really wanted to do--the things I knew I was supposed to do but was afraid I never could. I do my best work under the supervision of responsible women.
It was, and is, just so hard.
She also showed me how to face opposition--from whom I would expect it and from whom it was a betrayal--with a love that put me standing in a place where none could ever hurt me.
I am one of many who will miss Bonnie.
I am also one with whom her spirit will never stop working.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
A Two-fer Day
The other day I heard a commentator say that it was stupid to say that harsh rhetoric in the media and elsewhere in the political discourse of the Republic was "dangerous to our democracy."
She went on to say words the effect that "no one would object to the fact that political debate sometimes gets sharp and contentious."
I was in the car at the time and, although the speaker could not see me, my hand shot into the air.
I object to sharp and contentious political "debate" such as we have seen, for example, around the latest Supreme Court nomination. In fact, I object to sharp and contentious debate anywhere.
This kind of stuff locks people up, freezes them into opposition, makes it difficult if not impossible to do business with one another.
The danger, here, is that the discourse that allows people to call one another "murderers," and "traitors," and all kinds of other stuff of that ilk is so divisive that it makes the give and take of a self governing republic difficult to do.
The inability of the political parties to compromise with one another, on both the state and national levels, has created a gridlock that has left serious problems unaddressed for the better part of a decade. Who, after all, can compromise with "murderers" and "traitors" and expect good results. Who can even talk, let alone listen, to such people?
The rough and tumble of such things as "Tiller the baby killer" isn't harmless. The words matter.
And I think that some people who defend this kind of discourse, and dismiss it as "political correctness" or some such shibboleth, know full well what they are doing. There are those who are positively dis-interested in a "give and take" type of government. They want to rule as the Bush Administration did: going into power on a razor's edge (or perhaps no edge, at all) of a "mandate" they governed as though they won five votes to one.
I supported Mr. Obama because he said that wasn't a way to go about things and he has been trying to change that culture. In the end I know he will use the votes if he has them to get health care and climate change legislation--even if not one Republican supports it. But I admire his effort to compromise and bring some along some Republicans, to try to change the culture of overpowering opponents without any concern about their positions.
So, the Lily is for people like Rush Limbaugh--he is one of those who knows darned well that he is using language in a dishonest way to overcome those with whom he disagrees without any accommodation toward them, at all.
No compromise. Compromise is, apparently, now un American.
She went on to say words the effect that "no one would object to the fact that political debate sometimes gets sharp and contentious."
I was in the car at the time and, although the speaker could not see me, my hand shot into the air.
I object to sharp and contentious political "debate" such as we have seen, for example, around the latest Supreme Court nomination. In fact, I object to sharp and contentious debate anywhere.
This kind of stuff locks people up, freezes them into opposition, makes it difficult if not impossible to do business with one another.
The danger, here, is that the discourse that allows people to call one another "murderers," and "traitors," and all kinds of other stuff of that ilk is so divisive that it makes the give and take of a self governing republic difficult to do.
The inability of the political parties to compromise with one another, on both the state and national levels, has created a gridlock that has left serious problems unaddressed for the better part of a decade. Who, after all, can compromise with "murderers" and "traitors" and expect good results. Who can even talk, let alone listen, to such people?
The rough and tumble of such things as "Tiller the baby killer" isn't harmless. The words matter.
And I think that some people who defend this kind of discourse, and dismiss it as "political correctness" or some such shibboleth, know full well what they are doing. There are those who are positively dis-interested in a "give and take" type of government. They want to rule as the Bush Administration did: going into power on a razor's edge (or perhaps no edge, at all) of a "mandate" they governed as though they won five votes to one.
I supported Mr. Obama because he said that wasn't a way to go about things and he has been trying to change that culture. In the end I know he will use the votes if he has them to get health care and climate change legislation--even if not one Republican supports it. But I admire his effort to compromise and bring some along some Republicans, to try to change the culture of overpowering opponents without any concern about their positions.
So, the Lily is for people like Rush Limbaugh--he is one of those who knows darned well that he is using language in a dishonest way to overcome those with whom he disagrees without any accommodation toward them, at all.
No compromise. Compromise is, apparently, now un American.
not rooting? not encouraging?
So, the idea is that Dick Cheney isn't really hoping that the United States will be attacked, again, so as to justify the illegal and inhumane treatment that the Bush Administration used to get information from people they believed had it (or, as some people would have it, to get false information about an Al Qaeda-Iraq connection out of people who could credibly be characterized to know of such a thing).
Some people believe that this is a set up: Cheney comes out and says that the Obama administration is "dismantling" the structure that "kept us safe" after the attack on September 11 in the hopes that "if it happens" it will be a boon to Republican electoral fortunes.
Does Cheney hope that will happen?
The other theory is that Cheney is selling the "we got useful information out of torture" idea as a prophylactic against indictment and conviction (of himself and those who, apparently, followed his orders) for the illegal program, or selling that idea so as to influence public opinion.
I don't know what, if any of these things, Cheney has in mind. It's entirely possible that he really believes what he is saying and he is trying to influence decision making to stop what he sees as eroding our security structure. Less likely things have, in my experience, turned out to be true.
But I do know this. If the parties were reversed, here, the entire right wing chorus would be singing in four part harmony about how comments like these were going to encourage those attacks and make them more likely to succeed in the same way disclosing blue prints of nuclear power plants would.
Cheney's remarks, made by an Al Gore, would be said to be telling the "enemy" that we are weak and vulnerable and therefore are encouraging (I believe the word the right favors in such situations is "emboldening") them to take a crack at an attack.
Remarking that a Republican administration was acting in such a way as to endanger national security would be called "treason" if it were done by a Democrat or non-partisan person.
How do I know that? It's not like I have to speculate. That's what they said, and the people who read their talking points in the media, said any time anyone objected to or ever questioned something proposed (or done in secret) by the Bush/Cheney administration.
No Lily, here.
Some people believe that this is a set up: Cheney comes out and says that the Obama administration is "dismantling" the structure that "kept us safe" after the attack on September 11 in the hopes that "if it happens" it will be a boon to Republican electoral fortunes.
Does Cheney hope that will happen?
The other theory is that Cheney is selling the "we got useful information out of torture" idea as a prophylactic against indictment and conviction (of himself and those who, apparently, followed his orders) for the illegal program, or selling that idea so as to influence public opinion.
I don't know what, if any of these things, Cheney has in mind. It's entirely possible that he really believes what he is saying and he is trying to influence decision making to stop what he sees as eroding our security structure. Less likely things have, in my experience, turned out to be true.
But I do know this. If the parties were reversed, here, the entire right wing chorus would be singing in four part harmony about how comments like these were going to encourage those attacks and make them more likely to succeed in the same way disclosing blue prints of nuclear power plants would.
Cheney's remarks, made by an Al Gore, would be said to be telling the "enemy" that we are weak and vulnerable and therefore are encouraging (I believe the word the right favors in such situations is "emboldening") them to take a crack at an attack.
Remarking that a Republican administration was acting in such a way as to endanger national security would be called "treason" if it were done by a Democrat or non-partisan person.
How do I know that? It's not like I have to speculate. That's what they said, and the people who read their talking points in the media, said any time anyone objected to or ever questioned something proposed (or done in secret) by the Bush/Cheney administration.
No Lily, here.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Eight Is Enough for Court "Balance."
It's about integrity...
So, the Republicans want to give due attention to the solemn task of advising and consenting on a Supreme Court nomination and they want to spend as much time as they think it takes to review the record of Sonia Sotomayor . They say there are so many cases that it's unfair to rush the confirmation hearings. They didn't care to do that for nominees from President Bush, but a lot of things they did for President Bush are now not the right thing to do, anymore.
Do't think that's true? Well, aside from running up huge public debt there is the insistence, now, that war funding bills not carry funding for anything else as they did back in the day when it was conservative pork being carried...I digress. It's hard to focus on one example of a lack of integrity when so many others have their hands waving in the air to be recognized.
Back to the Supreme Court nomination...
Some in the media believe that the delay insisted on by Conservatives is a part of fund raising. Both sides will do it but the Conservatives need to shake down their base, at this point, more than the Progressives do. Others think that the Party of No is just dragging its feet to keep other things from getting done as they try to run out the clock til the next election when they hope, through the Fox style propaganda they are developing, they might win a few more seats and more power to frustrate change.
I wonder, though, in my own little cynical, bottom of the barrel corner of the world, if that's all there is to it.
If Justice Souter is gone and the court cranks up operation in October one justice short won't that work to the advantage of the "strict constructionalist" who also hold to the modern and radical doctrine of original intent of the founders (quite to the contrary of the intent of the founders)? It may cause a number of 4-4 ties. These in some cases will work out to the advantage of the Right, and in some may prevent them from denying things like redress of grievances for wage discrimination and the like.
I don't know for sure but if the retiring justice wasn't one of "theirs" might they not think it worth it to create an albeit small period of time in which the court can hear and make decisions in which there is one fewer justice who was not a safe vote for them, anyway.
So, there it is, in my view--a Lily Award for Senator Sessions and the gang.
Remember what Lily Tomlin, our patron saint, here, said: "No matter how cynical you get--it's hard to keep up."
So, the Republicans want to give due attention to the solemn task of advising and consenting on a Supreme Court nomination and they want to spend as much time as they think it takes to review the record of Sonia Sotomayor . They say there are so many cases that it's unfair to rush the confirmation hearings. They didn't care to do that for nominees from President Bush, but a lot of things they did for President Bush are now not the right thing to do, anymore.
Do't think that's true? Well, aside from running up huge public debt there is the insistence, now, that war funding bills not carry funding for anything else as they did back in the day when it was conservative pork being carried...I digress. It's hard to focus on one example of a lack of integrity when so many others have their hands waving in the air to be recognized.
Back to the Supreme Court nomination...
Some in the media believe that the delay insisted on by Conservatives is a part of fund raising. Both sides will do it but the Conservatives need to shake down their base, at this point, more than the Progressives do. Others think that the Party of No is just dragging its feet to keep other things from getting done as they try to run out the clock til the next election when they hope, through the Fox style propaganda they are developing, they might win a few more seats and more power to frustrate change.
I wonder, though, in my own little cynical, bottom of the barrel corner of the world, if that's all there is to it.
If Justice Souter is gone and the court cranks up operation in October one justice short won't that work to the advantage of the "strict constructionalist" who also hold to the modern and radical doctrine of original intent of the founders (quite to the contrary of the intent of the founders)? It may cause a number of 4-4 ties. These in some cases will work out to the advantage of the Right, and in some may prevent them from denying things like redress of grievances for wage discrimination and the like.
I don't know for sure but if the retiring justice wasn't one of "theirs" might they not think it worth it to create an albeit small period of time in which the court can hear and make decisions in which there is one fewer justice who was not a safe vote for them, anyway.
So, there it is, in my view--a Lily Award for Senator Sessions and the gang.
Remember what Lily Tomlin, our patron saint, here, said: "No matter how cynical you get--it's hard to keep up."
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
One more step for Rush...a giant step backwards for us all?
"On March 27, Limbaugh stated of Obama's economic policies: "I have warned you and warned you again: If President Obama succeeds with this, our nation fails. Our nation is unalterably changed for generations."
so the man was quoted by media matters
Note in passing that "unalterably" may conflict with "for generations," and think about it from Rush's point of view, the point of view of those he epitomizes.
If President Obama's leadership takes us away from the capitalism that he holds dear--if people have value beyond their ability to make economic contribution, if liberty comes to mean something other than the ability to make as much money as one can by any means one can get away with, then, indeed, "our" "nation" fails.
If limits that used to hold the predatory materialism that Rush favors are re-instated then the "nation" of which he sings (a "nation" more in the sense of a people than a particular country--a people comprising a socio economic class--those for whom this predation works primarily because their wealth and power protects them from being its victims) will indeed fail.
I wish it so although I know that it cannot be "unalterably" held in check.
Experience tells me that what Rush fears is what the New Deal did--for generations.
But not forever.
I think Rush "gets it"--he understands how our current system works and what it actually does. The question in my mind is whether he really believes that, all things considered, it creates the greatest good for the greatest number of people, that it's the best way to set things up.
Does he really think that no one has value except in so far as they are able to create economic value?
Hard to get inside someone's head.
The quote of Rush from Media Matters is one of a compilation of quotations that portrays Obama as the worst person in the world--or the United States, at least. These portray him as the enemy of "our" way of life, out to destroy the country and what it stands for.
For all our sakes I hope nothing bad happens to the President.
For Rush's sake, I think he ought to hope so, too.
so the man was quoted by media matters
Note in passing that "unalterably" may conflict with "for generations," and think about it from Rush's point of view, the point of view of those he epitomizes.
If President Obama's leadership takes us away from the capitalism that he holds dear--if people have value beyond their ability to make economic contribution, if liberty comes to mean something other than the ability to make as much money as one can by any means one can get away with, then, indeed, "our" "nation" fails.
If limits that used to hold the predatory materialism that Rush favors are re-instated then the "nation" of which he sings (a "nation" more in the sense of a people than a particular country--a people comprising a socio economic class--those for whom this predation works primarily because their wealth and power protects them from being its victims) will indeed fail.
I wish it so although I know that it cannot be "unalterably" held in check.
Experience tells me that what Rush fears is what the New Deal did--for generations.
But not forever.
I think Rush "gets it"--he understands how our current system works and what it actually does. The question in my mind is whether he really believes that, all things considered, it creates the greatest good for the greatest number of people, that it's the best way to set things up.
Does he really think that no one has value except in so far as they are able to create economic value?
Hard to get inside someone's head.
The quote of Rush from Media Matters is one of a compilation of quotations that portrays Obama as the worst person in the world--or the United States, at least. These portray him as the enemy of "our" way of life, out to destroy the country and what it stands for.
For all our sakes I hope nothing bad happens to the President.
For Rush's sake, I think he ought to hope so, too.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)